Should Women Be Able to Join The Armed Forces?

Originally posted by Herman
See, this one always gets me. Yeah women were doing these things when the men were gone, but who was doing them the other 90% of their lives when the men were home? Is it so amazing that for a few years, women did the work that men usually did for their whole lives? Come on, put yourselves above that one ladies.

I never doubted that women can plow fields, buck hay, etc. It's harder for them to do it than men though.


This would be pretty cool, but you can't just ignore biology. Men and women are equally strong; however, that all changes when the hormones kick in. Men get about 3-times the muscle mass that women get. Many people try to argue that there are strong women. Yes, there are strong women. I know that. I'm sure there are women that are stronger than me (I mean the kind that don't take muscle supliments and testosterone pills.) This doesn't change the fact that the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women.

The other 90% of the time women were working just as hard as men. Read some actual accounts of women's lives before things got industrialized, and you'll find that men, women & kids all had to do work we can't really imagine from our cushy living rooms. Women shouldn't be told to put themselves above a history they've never been taught. There just isn't enough taught about women for us to have the same kind of pride in our accomplishments that males learn. You would be surprised at what gets left out of high school history about the amazing things women have done and keep doing.

As for the puberty-induced muscle mass imbalance. I agree that hormones usually mean men & women end up with different strengths. So the military should have categories based on strength, not gender. Let some beefy, bada$$ female be right in there with males of her ability level. And let men & women with other strengths be posted in different categories.

--Saerlaith

women are ready to fight and kick some serios a** but the whole two sexes thing is in the way.
mabye a womens military only fighting unit?
ouch i wouldnt like to meet that unit on THAT time of the month.
dont kill me please!

Originally posted by devilwasp
women are ready to fight and kick some serios a** but the whole two sexes thing is in the way.
mabye a womens military only fighting unit?
ouch i wouldnt like to meet that unit on THAT time of the month.
dont kill me please!

When I knew I had to call the phone company or cable to gripe about something, I would wait til I was at my most angry time of the month, so I wouldn't let them calm me down and give in. I hated fighting out some stupid billing mistake, but doing it when I was hormonal made it kind of fun

I had a hysterectomy a few years ago, so I still get the moods, I just never know exactly when. If I'm grumpy, it could be hormones, or it could just be my sweet personality

--Saerlaith

Originally posted by Saerlaith
The other 90% of the time women were working just as hard as men. Read some actual accounts of women's lives before things got industrialized, and you'll find that men, women & kids all had to do work we can't really imagine from our cushy living rooms. Women shouldn't be told to put themselves above a history they've never been taught. There just isn't enough taught about women for us to have the same kind of pride in our accomplishments that males learn. You would be surprised at what gets left out of high school history about the amazing things women have done and keep doing.

I wasn't talking just about working hard. I was talking about the strength required in the "front-line". I know that women can work just as hard as men and do amazing things, but this is a seperate issue. Strength is a big part of it.

As for the puberty-induced muscle mass imbalance. I agree that hormones usually mean men & women end up with different strengths. So the military should have categories based on strength, not gender. Let some beefy, bada$$ female be right in there with males of her ability level. And let men & women with other strengths be posted in different categories.
--Saerlaith

That would be disasterous. Why would you want to have a weak category of soldiers? "Oh, this job isn't that hard so lets send in the weak soldiers!". It would piss off so many people, as well as probably getting many of those in the "weak category" killed. Sorry, but that idea is just absurd in my mind. People want strong soldiers, not weak ones.

Obviously there isn't anyone here who is or was in the military.
I will clarify exactly with my husband tonight exactly why the military forbids women in combat missions.
Perhaps there are a few decent "southern gentlemen" here but the majority of the men in the military are not gentlemen and if there were a woman next to him it would be too distracting. This is the year 2004, not 1690!
There is a reason why God created man and a woman. Man is the stronger of the two and so therefore is the hunter, fighter, etc.
Women are stronger in the inside and so therefore we are more capable of bearing children and raising a family and taking care of our men.
The military doesnt allow women in combat because they are sexist. There is a reason for it.
But, again, I am a woman of three children and if I were a man, I would not want a woman beside me in combat, I would want a strong man.
I do think that if a man had a woman next to him in combat, that man might think he would have to protect the woman because he knows he is stronger than she is. Again, a reason why the military will not allow women in combat. (That is, in the United States)

"This doesn't change the fact that the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women."

... well no argument there - so ...

the majority of women are more nurturing than the majority of men = no male nurses!!

the majority of women are better at cooking then the majority of men = no male cooks ( and male chefs? huh ) !!

etc etc

.. all feels a bit oppressive no?

And the idea of protecting women because they are weak?... well maybe chivalrous but still don't understand. Now the idea of protecting women because they are goddesses .. well now that I would have understood !

in australia, women are allowed in every branch of the military except armor. As in, tanks and RPGs and such. I guess its cause an RPG is pretty heavy.

Sure. When the draft monkeys finally find me, and send me off to nowhere.. I wanna get laid for the last time without resorting to men or raping an innocent.

Futhermore, maybe some "Honey, don't do that" mentality will cut down on some needless slaughter.

Here is my husand's reply:

Being a 20 year vet in the Army I can only give you my view as was taught to me while in a combat company (19th Special Forces Service Group Airborn). First and foremost is the military conforms to the Geneva Convention which doesn't allow females in a front line combat company. Saying that as a member in the 19th SFGA we had females for pilots however later on they were to be transfered to another company when we were deployed to combat.
For myself not wanting women in combat, it is pretty simple if you have been in the military. Women CAN NOT keep up with men. Physically, mentally, and under the stress of combat women are too emotional. Although I have seen and worked with females in the Army they are a distraction for males to the point sometimes, males become protective roles.
Other countries do have females in the military but do not allow them into combat for the same reasons the US doesn't.

[edit on 24-11-2004 by rbailey7160]

Anyone....????? Care to comment...????