RE: Panel wants women in combat arms

RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aylee -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 8:39:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The ERA had nothing to do with same sex marriage. Not in 1970. You asked about gains if it was passed right now. It read, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." One of the things it does is make it so that courts can no longer make rulings on the basis of sex/gender. Hence, same-sex marriage. Oh, and as far as the poster yapping about the 120 pound woman moving the 220 pound man and the PT tests - Women CAN do the same things as men. The difference is that women must be trained to do them. I am talking about things like weight lifting programs. It is more difficult for a woman to reach that level and they have to spend more time at maintaining that level. (All generalizations are 'by and large.') The Army has actually done studies on small groups of females proving this.

tazzygirl -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 8:43:51 PM)
quote: It read, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." One of the things it does is make it so that courts can no longer make rulings on the basis of sex/gender. Hence, same-sex marriage. But, unless I am mistaken, the same sex marriage denial is equally discriminatory based upon sex. In other words, women are no more or less discriminated against by the denial of this law than men.

Aylee -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 8:47:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: It read, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." One of the things it does is make it so that courts can no longer make rulings on the basis of sex/gender. Hence, same-sex marriage. But, unless I am mistaken, the same sex marriage denial is equally discriminatory based upon sex. In other words, women are no more or less discriminated against by the denial of this law than men. Right. However, what I stated is that sex/gender cannot be taken into account for rulings. So saying "Aylee and Tazzy can not marry each other because they are both female," would be taking sex into account. With the ERA they would not be allowed to and you and I could go start shopping for dresses.

tazzygirl -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 8:54:14 PM)
Can I wear purple? I look mahvelous in purple! But, on a serious note, this explains it much better than I can. http://www.womensenews.org/story/commentary/070117/era-has-nothing-do-same-sex-marriage

CarpeComa -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 9:00:07 PM)
I'm going to take the unpopular stance here, I think the military is right to be concerned about women in close combat positions. Not just for the 'will they be able to pull their own weight', but for issues of public (not military) morale. We have not shown a lot of stomach for the unpleasantries of war while on the milder side of the gender bias. How are we as a whole going to react when we start having more women POWs and the stories of their treatment leak out? The brass would be foolish to not take that into consideration.

zenny -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 9:08:44 PM)
Actually no. A 120lb woman can not, with any reliability, move a 220lb wounded/killed man to safety. Humans simply cannot achieve the muscle density needed for such a task. Yes, women can become body builders and with a great investment in time and resources become one of the outliers I mentioned. Again your avg. (and most bellow) man will be able to do so out of boot. Your avg. woman cannot, and is thus a liability in a combat situation. quote: ORIGINAL: CarpeComa I'm going to take the unpopular stance here, I think the military is right to be concerned about women in close combat positions. Not just for the 'will they be able to pull their own weight', but for issues of public (not military) morale. We have not shown a lot of stomach for the unpleasantries of war while on the milder side of the gender bias. How are we as a whole going to react when we start having more women POWs and the stories of their treatment leak out? The brass would be foolish to not take that into consideration. QFT

Aylee -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 9:17:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Actually no. A 120lb woman can not, with any reliability, move a 220lb wounded/killed man to safety. Humans simply cannot achieve the muscle density needed for such a task. Yes, women can become body builders and with a great investment in time and resources become one of the outliers I mentioned. Again your avg. (and most bellow) man will be able to do so out of boot. Your avg. woman cannot, and is thus a liability in a combat situation. So you are going to make your point by choosing a smaller than average woman and a larger than average male. Average woman is 5'4" and 152 pounds Average man is 5'9 and 180 pounds. Average body mass for both are within .2 points 26.3 versus 26.5kg/m2 Because of body structure, the average woman is also a better shot.

WyldHrt -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 9:24:44 PM)
quote: Oh, and as far as the poster yapping about the 120 pound woman moving the 220 pound man and the PT tests - Women CAN do the same things as men. The difference is that women must be trained to do them. I am talking about things like weight lifting programs. It is more difficult for a woman to reach that level and they have to spend more time at maintaining that level. (All generalizations are 'by and large.') In my late teens/ early 20s, I worked in a lumberyard 5 days a week. I weighed 140lbs and had no problem grabbing a 240lb coworker by the wrist, putting him over my shoulder, and carrying him around (the guys thought it was hilarious). I was also one hell of a shot then, thanks to a friend who worked at an indoor range in LA. Some women can do these things, even if they are not in the military.

StuntmanMike -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 9:33:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee So you are going to make your point by choosing a smaller than average woman and a larger than average male. Average woman is 5'4" and 152 pounds Average man is 5'9 and 180 pounds. Absolutely. Because if you take that "average man" and add his 60 lbs plus pack to him, you're easily over 220 lbs. And your "average woman" has little hope of moving that on her own. While I was in, I attended training classes with many "average women" and I don't believe I saw any who could perform even the most basic tasks, even within the training environment....sans gear, etc. It doesn't matter if the man in the scenario is 220 or 180, the average woman still won't be able to pull his weight. He'll, one of my military police friends was an "average woman" and one night, she attempted to show me how she could subdue someone my size. After a few moments, I asked her to let me know when I was "subdued" as I stood their laughing at her efforts. Needless to say, she gave up in a huff.

zenny -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 9:51:42 PM)
My point still stands, even with the averages. Largely because the average woman (according to your numbers) is obese and unfit. Although, were she not, she would fall much closer to the 120lb mark. Congratulations WyldHrt, you appear to be an outlier. You're right that "some" (some being extremely few) women can do these things. I'm not even bringing shooting into this as a) I've not heard any statistics placing one sex over the other and b) that depends less on stature. Regardless, good luck getting that 220lb dead weight off the ground and over your shoulder. Better luck dragging it over terrain when you can't. Unfortunately, you all want to argue things that aren't even semantics. No one wants to touch the solution which is to set a standard for combat personnel and whoever meets it, have fun. Although, even then you still have the very real situation that CarpeComa pointed out.

tazzygirl -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 9:58:29 PM)
quote: Largely because the average woman (according to your numbers) is obese and unfit. Although, were she not, she would fall much closer to the 120lb mark. It would all depend on muscle mass. Thankfully, the Military now takes that into consideration.

SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 10:20:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Actually no. A 120lb woman can not, with any reliability, move a 220lb wounded/killed man to safety. Humans simply cannot achieve the muscle density needed for such a task. Yes, women can become body builders and with a great investment in time and resources become one of the outliers I mentioned. Again your avg. (and most bellow) man will be able to do so out of boot. Your avg. woman cannot, and is thus a liability in a combat situation. Then per your line of thinking we have to discharge half of the military males that are in active combat.... because they ALSO cant lift a 220 pound wounded/killed man to safety... Most of my high school friends are military buddies I visited a couple before they shipped out at their base and I a 220 pound woman could not be dead weight lifted by any of the men that were being shipped out except for 3.... of 70 men who took the challenge... So please If your going to make it about what men can do that women cant... make sure the men can do it.....

zenny -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 10:24:49 PM)
Indeed. Let me know when women produce enough testosterone to attain 154lbs at 5'4" and it be reasonable to assume she is fit. Hell, that's not even a realistic weight for a fit man that height barring a great deal of working out with the express purpose of gaining muscle mass. Can we be realistic here or is cognitive dissonance the flavor of the thread? SpiritedRadiance, it would be nice if you would have read the next paragraph and not cherry picked. Regardless, I bet they could have dragged you. Also, it is a bit more difficult to lift something with decentralized mass (overhang is a bitch).

SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 10:27:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CarpeComa I'm going to take the unpopular stance here, I think the military is right to be concerned about women in close combat positions. Not just for the 'will they be able to pull their own weight', but for issues of public (not military) morale. We have not shown a lot of stomach for the unpleasantries of war while on the milder side of the gender bias. How are we as a whole going to react when we start having more women POWs and the stories of their treatment leak out? The brass would be foolish to not take that into consideration. Its going to be the same effect as when a tragic rape story is on the news.... and whos to say the same things in their treatment dont happen to the men they just dont reveal it? You assume that because a woman its going to be worse... that isnt always the case, some countries actually treat women pows better then male....due to their customs and religion... So when it leaks that the woman was given a black Eye but the man was tortured within an inch of their life... i doubt it will be an issue... the point is the women who sign up for the military understand the risks... they understand the possibilities and they are intelligent enough to weigh the risk and the rewards for doing it over not doing it... WE ARENT helpless fragile little things that are easily broken... weve been going through torture men cant imagine (child birth) for Thousands of years prior to modern medicine... our pain tolerance is Higher then males...

zenny -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 10:38:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance the point is the women who sign up for the military understand the risks... they understand the possibilities and they are intelligent enough to weigh the risk and the rewards for doing it over not doing it... Unfortunately, many people who sign up don't. Some sign up simply because they have no other options. Others to help pay for college. Know what all are thinking when they sign up, assuming they give more than a passing thought to it? "Won't happen to me" Also, I don't think a torturer is going to turn gay to rape a man. Also, in the beginning of the war women who died while in convoy were used particularly well by the media to sway public opinion about said war. I'm trying to stay somewhat objective which is why I didn't address the rest of your thoughts.

tazzygirl -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 10:38:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Indeed. Let me know when women produce enough testosterone to attain 154lbs at 5'4" and it be reasonable to assume she is fit. Hell, that's not even a realistic weight for a fit man that height barring a great deal of working out with the express purpose of gaining muscle mass. Can we be realistic here or is cognitive dissonance the flavor of the thread? SpiritedRadiance, it would be nice if you would have read the next paragraph and not cherry picked. Regardless, I bet they could have dragged you. Also, it is a bit more difficult to lift something with decentralized mass (overhang is a bitch). Measured average height, weight, and waist circumference for adults ages 20 years and over •Men: Height (inches): 69.4 Weight (pounds): 194.7 Waist circumference (inches): 39.7 •Women: Height (inches): 63.8 Weight (pounds): 164.7 Waist circumference (inches): 37.0 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm Army weight guidelines WEIGHT AGE 17 - 20... 145 WEIGHT AGE 21 - 27... 147 WEIGHT AGE 28 - 39... 149 WEIGHT AGE 40 + ..... 151 Soldiers who exceed the weight charts are measured for body-fat. Those who exceed the Army body-fat standards are enrolled in the Army Weight Management Program. Those in the weight management program must lose between 3 and 8 pounds per month until they meet body-fat standards. Those who fail to make satisfactory progress are subject to involuntary discharge. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blweightfemale.htm It is indeed possible and the Army recognizes the possibility. And it is possible for a man at that height. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blmaleweight.htm

SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 10:44:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Also, I don't think a torturer is going to turn gay to rape a man. Shows why you just wont ever get it... Rape isnt about gender its not about being "gay" its about power... who has it who doesnt...

zenny -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 10:44:50 PM)
It seems you did not understand the implicit 154lbs and not be obese (i.e. within regulations [i.e. most of it being muscle]). Send me a message to let me know when you refute something I say as opposed to posting common knowledge in an attempt to confuse the issue. Otherwise, stop trolling SpiritedRadiance, please learn to use sex and gender correctly. Also, even using your response with the correct word it fits. Power to break the POW to accomplish whatever is desired. With a man that is less of an issue.

tazzygirl -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 10:46:17 PM)
Honey, I dont troll. Second, you made the statement that a woman at that height and weight couldnt possibly be fit enough. The Army disagrees. Third, you also made the comment that a man couldnt possibly be fit at that height and weight... agains, the Army disagrees. Damn, but you are a moron who cant read.

tazzygirl -> RE: Panel wants women in combat arms (3/10/2011 10:48:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Also, I don't think a torturer is going to turn gay to rape a man. Shows why you just wont ever get it... Rape isnt about gender its not about being "gay" its about power... who has it who doesnt... He wont get it because he wont ever admit he was wrong. Its just that simple.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125