Posted on 03/29/2003 8:07:11 PM PST by narses
...
Riggs said one woman who spoke at yesterday's press conference, Charmaine Yoest, a national advisory board member with the Independent Women's Forum, relayed a recent example involving DACOWITS that illustrated the need for less military feminization.
"On Sept. 10 – the day before those awful terrorist attacks – DACOWITS was discussing lactation and the need for breast-feeding policies within the Army," Riggs said. "This, the day before so many people died" in New York City and at the Pentagon.
"This is no longer a power game where ambitious women can try to advance their careers," Rios said during her speech, "this is a matter of life and death. Any claim that women are equal to men in combat settings is utterly irrational."
Rios cited a recent Royal British Army study that found stark differences between men and women under combat conditions. In one phase of the study, men failed 20 percent of the time to carry 90 pounds of artillery shells over certain distances, she said, adding that women failed "90 percent of the time."
"In a mission simulating wartime conditions, male and female soldiers were asked to carry 60 pounds of equipment while marching 12.5 miles, completing the exercise with target practice. Seventeen percent of the men failed, [as did] 48 percent of the women," she said.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Where have I done any infantile debating? nopardons claimed that she had not called me names. I gave several of her quotes to show that what I said was true. If you do not wish posts from me, so be it. I can deal with that. I don't know what I have posted that you object so strenuously to or why you would think that I was ingaging in infantile debate. If you don't agree with my stance, that is fine. I can handle disagreement. If you go back to the thread I linked, you will see that it was not me causing the problem.
You are absolutely correct about the military. What you say I'm sure is equally correct about the Iraq war thus far. I'm sure that almost all our soldiers are following most all of the rules over there right now. But Iraq is not as yet (and I hope it doesn't become) a prolonged war. But should Iraq turn deadly (I mean where the majority of the infantry men have experienced several losses of life in their own platoons as a direct result of infantry combat, with anticipation of more losses), those infantry men will not be the same people anymore. What seemed important under the civil conditions that the war is being fought now, will no longer have such importance. Only self survival and the mission will carry any weight. The less rules the better.
Add women to that kind of environment, and you add a type of competition that will split the brotherhood, cause resentment and probable favoritism. Trust between soldiers will decline, and in fighting will increase. That is the power sex has over men. To a soldier about to die tomorrow, your petty rule against sex is not going to stop him with a willing partner. The combat effectiveness of such a unit will decline very quickly, as distrust and and suspected favoritism begins to take shape. There does not even have to be any actual sex or favoritism, just the suspicion of it can be enough to destroy the unit morale and effectivness.
No. We don't have to "find" them. We have a volunteer military. We do recruit people but we turn people away for a number of reasons. The military doesn't take everyone who applies. It cost money to train people. The military only invests in people who are likely good candidates. Even then the attrition rate in the first year is fairly high (25% I think). They are constantly trying to reduce that rate by better screening at recruitment.
The military is not obligated to sign up people who are of no obvious use to the military. They turn people away all the time and they kick people out all the time.
We don't need to go find women, if they volunteer we evaluate them the same as we would a male volunteer. We look at their talents and how they can be used. There are men who are not exactly Rambo types but who have highly useful skills, say in computers or in languages, who we want in the military because we need brain power as much as we need muscle.
Farmfriend said:``That is not what I said. Don't twist my words. I said I won't play her game
Therefore, implying...you DO play games with people. Not at all interested in coversing with you any more, or considering a syllable of what you say.
If you see the quotes I have from her in #131 you will understand why I won't deal with her. I do know military combat vets on this forum who do agree with me. I wouldn't give their names though. If they want their views known, they will come and say so.
FReeperette who's got your number homeo?
I'm not running from her. And I'm not a homeo. I have no problem engaging in debate with most freepers. I realize that my views on this issue will get me flamed. So be it.
I don't. I've said that once. And unless your last post was sarcastic, you don't know me at all.
You have totally ignored the facts , that I a=nd many others have posted. Instead, you throw temper tantrums.
Let's go back to sqaure one. You demand that women be allowed into the military ( if they are " able " ), but ignore what social engineering has done and continues to do to it. WHY ? Is it because it doesn't matter to you, you don't understand what what you porpose really entails, and that you have absolutely NO comprehension , whatsoever, about this topic ? I suspect so.
Add to the above, women were used to help with decoding, but they weren't anywhere near enemy lines, unless you care to include the fact that the Germans were shelling England, at the time. Women HAVE been involved in espionage, for centuries, however, that usually took place in restuarants, hotel rooms, and beds. The " resistance fighters, in France and Italy, could, I suppose be said to have been " on the front lines ", as could spotters; however, you aren't really talking about those women.
You are supporting a few gaggle of females, who have the same brute strength, that men have. Still and all, those females aren't as good as the vast majority of men are. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, just for social experimentation, is patently ridiculous.
Let's get back to one of my original postulates. Some colleges have unixes bathrooms. Girls do NOT like using them. Even IF a female/s were as physically capable ( hehehe, hahahaha ) as male military are, men go to the bathroom together. Stick a woman into the mix, in the desert, with her period, and it's a disaster for EVERYONE of them.
Young men, no matter HOW " civilized ", think about having sex, every 5 minutes, or so. In a war, it isn't far from their minds; their brains are just hardwired that way. Men, in battle, since at least WW I, have taken pinup pictures with them, painted them on planes. In today's PC cu;lture, that is considered to be " sexual harassment ".
Men are not only conditioned to be protective of women;but they are also inherently so; another primative holdover, brain hardwiring ! That is devisive and dangerous, when anyone/ group is captured by the " other side."
People don't change, even though technology does. Learn history, sociology, biology,psychology, and logic. You need more help, than can be gained from reading an on line forum. ; ^ )
Pathetic ; to say the least !
Everyone, reading these posts, knows that facts aren't name calling; however, B....itch is. LOL
You just can't " take it ", dear; get outta the kitchen. :-)
Sorry Happygal, I'll leave you alone. From one Irish gal to another, to bad you let my one arrant view jade you against me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.