It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Why is "women in combat" still a debate?(194 posts)(194 posts)
(194 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
StingingVelvet: Most people I see debating the other side seem to think once we allow women to have direct combat roles they will inevitably campaign to lower the bar to obtain those roles. There was a woman on the news the other day who said all they wanted was a fair shot, but when the other pundit told her you have to carry a 250 pound man on your shoulders for 3 minutes to be a marine she seemed to insist that shouldn't be required.

So there you go.

As long as the requirements are kept the same though I have no problem with women who qualify succeeding.
avatar
gameon: That would be tough! It's hard enough to lift someone, carrying them is another matter! 250 pounds is around 18 stone in english weight. Ridiculous amount.
Yeah? But you're not a marine until you're a ROYAL Marine! :P
Have you seen the training we put our guys through? Because they're expected to be able to carry a shit-ton of weight, over tens of miles, and still be able to lay down a lot of fire at an enemy at the end. Not many pass the course.
American marines are basically cannon-fodder. Get on the beach, establish a foothold, and wait for the proper troops to arrive. They let pretty much anyone join theirs :P

*runs*
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
Liberty: *snip*
avatar
Zolgar: What rock have you been hiding under?

Plenty of women are going to school for 'advanced' job fields.. sure, not as many as there are men, but that's steadily changing.. for several reasons.
Not the STEM fields they don't. The engineering fields are still overwhelmingly male despite technical skills being the most in demand job.

The teachers/artists/Human resources are overwhelmingly female.

Many women in this day and age are realizing they don't want a man to support them, because then they are somewhat trapped in the relationship if it turns south. It also allows her to feel free to pursue a man based entirely off who he is, instead of what he does, since she knows she can provide for herself.
It is most women's dream to be supported by a man and not have to work. Let me ask you a question: "Does being rich help being attractive to girls?" HECK YES. They want the sugar daddy.

Trapped by relationship? Don't make me laugh. There are so many laws that get activated when a relationship 'goes south'. For marriage, it goes into divorce and straight to the courtroom. Now they are trying to define cohabitation as marriage so when a cohabitated couple breaks up, they go straight to the courtroom where more money is taken from you.

From a woman's perspective, a relationship is cashflow itself or potential for cashflow. A man is an asset. This has always been the case for Human nature.
Post edited January 30, 2013 by Liberty
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
keeveek: Women probably never will take part in covert operations in Islamic countries, though :P Too easy to blow the cover :P
Interesting point about that is during WWII women involved in "cover operations" from both the serious aspect AND the humorous/double-entendre aspect (that was very funny BTW) were quite common. Evidently drunk Nazis liked to talk about troop movment's while they were being "serviced".
Post edited January 30, 2013 by tinyE
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
tinyE: Interesting point about that is during WWII women involved in "cover operations" from both the serious aspect AND the humorous/double-entendre aspect (that was very funny BTW) were quite common. Evidently drunk Nazis liked to talk about troop movment's while they were being "serviced".
I'm not even talking about syping, more about operations like - a bunch of men dressed as talibans get into somewhere, and then kill everybody :P What I meant was, dressing women as a talib would be difficult :P
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
gameon:
avatar
Lone3wolf: But you're not a marine until you're a ROYAL Marine! :P

*runs*
That reminds me, and yes this is off topic. I'm looking for some specifc Steam keys and I'm willing to trade for them. I've got a whole stack of U.K. Royal Marine Service Rifles here I'd like to trade for the keys. The rifles are in great shape! They've never been fired and they've only been dropped once.

*runs even faster*
avatar
tinyE: Interesting point about that is during WWII women involved in "cover operations" from both the serious aspect AND the humorous/double-entendre aspect (that was very funny BTW) were quite common. Evidently drunk Nazis liked to talk about troop movment's while they were being "serviced".
avatar
keeveek: I'm not even talking about syping, more about operations like - a bunch of men dressed as talibans get into somewhere, and then kill everybody :P What I meant was, dressing women as a talib would be difficult :P
I had a feeling I totally screwd that up. That's what I get for posting at 4 am! :P
Post edited January 30, 2013 by tinyE
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
tinyE: I had a feeling I totally screwd that up. That's what I get for posting at 4 am! :P
Nevermind, women spies are among the most important intelligence assets in the army. But they are not used to spy on talibs, I presume... ;-D
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
Lone3wolf: But you're not a marine until you're a ROYAL Marine! :P

*runs*
avatar
tinyE: That reminds me, and yes this is off topic. I'm looking for some specifc Steam keys and I'm willing to trade for them. I've got a whole stack of U.K. Royal Marine Service Rifles here I'd like to trade for the keys. The rifles are in great shape! They've never been fired and they've only been dropped once.

*runs even faster*
I think you'll find those are Argentinian weapons, from 1982... ;)
RMs took them from near a few companies of Argentines after they saw what was coming over the hill at them.
Attachments:
goose_green.jpg (70 Kb)
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
tinyE: I had a feeling I totally screwd that up. That's what I get for posting at 4 am! :P
avatar
keeveek: Nevermind, women spies are among the most important intelligence assets in the army. But they are not used to spy on talibs, I presume... ;-D
With all do respect my good sir, you are totally wrong! I've got a picture of a group of female operatives in the mideast right here!

It just dawned on me that if no one knows this movie or the context of the still then I'm going to come off as extremely sexist and racist.
Attachments:
female_spies.jpg (75 Kb)
Post edited January 30, 2013 by tinyE
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
tinyE: It just dawned on me that if no one knows this movie or the context of the still then I'm going to come off as extremely sexist and racist.
This topic is full of MP references.

I like it.
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
tinyE: With all do respect my good sir, you are totally wrong! I've got a picture of a group of female operatives in the mideast right here!

It just dawned on me that if no one knows this movie or the context of the still then I'm going to come off as extremely sexist and racist.
Haha, looks pretty believable!
Posted January 30, 2013
I didn't even know "women in combat" was an issue until recently. But this is the same military that has a problem with LGBT people serving so it's sadly not surprising.
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
gameon: That would be tough! It's hard enough to lift someone, carrying them is another matter! 250 pounds is around 18 stone in english weight. Ridiculous amount.
avatar
Lone3wolf: Yeah? But you're not a marine until you're a ROYAL Marine! :P
Have you seen the training we put our guys through? Because they're expected to be able to carry a shit-ton of weight, over tens of miles, and still be able to lay down a lot of fire at an enemy at the end.
Does that mean we have to carry 30 stone+ people :D
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
Lone3wolf: Yeah? But you're not a marine until you're a ROYAL Marine! :P
Have you seen the training we put our guys through? Because they're expected to be able to carry a shit-ton of weight, over tens of miles, and still be able to lay down a lot of fire at an enemy at the end.
avatar
gameon: Does that mean we have to carry 30 stone+ people :D
Either that, or 2 politicians from Westminster, to use as a shielding wall :P
Posted January 30, 2013
avatar
gameon: Does that mean we have to carry 30 stone+ people :D
avatar
Lone3wolf: Either that, or 2 politicians from Westminster, to use as a shielding wall :P
John Prescott.
Posted January 30, 2013
Disappointing, I thought perchance that women would be less inclined by nature than us guys to want to be in a situation of firing a firearm and ending another human being's life.

Why would anyone want to be in that kind of situation?
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Why is "women in combat" still a debate?(194 posts)(194 posts)
(194 posts)