"Any claim that women are equal to men in combat settings is utterly irrational."

WND ^

[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.

...

[Fee]

The Danes experimented by putting women in a mechanized infantry and artillery unit to see if they can handle the physical demands. The study concluded only 10 percent can meet the male physical standards. Reason has something to do with the ability to develop upper body muscles needed for brute strength and burden. This correlates with the data from female body building coaches. They find that only 10 to 15 percent of the female population have muscles that can be developed thru weightlifting. The rest can not. I do not mind females in combat units as long as they can meet the stringent physical standards. Atleast the male members will respect them because they can meet the same standards they are held to. Females must remember that if they become POW, some cultures will kill them, while others may rape and sexually abuse them. It also means that at best, combat units will have only 10 to 15 percent female. This will not happen because the PC crowd want up to 50 percent. I believe in equal opportunity but not military suicide.

[HairOfTheDog]

I am not interested in following you to another thread for more of the same. I have put in my two hours of head-beating for the night. I am sure the issue will exist tomorrow when the next shift begins.

I am not strong enough to be infantry, but that is not the only job out there.

Many of todays warriors fight with big metal machines. These are not dependent on brute strength to operate, but skill and finesses. Not all war is fought with swords.

[Romulus]

The history of the 20th century is the history of how wars are started and exploited to impose top-down radical social change. That's what they're for, for pete's sake. This present wringing of hands about what's happening to the ladies just goes to show how few people get it: the point of putting women into combat isn't to honor some misunderstood principle of fairness, it's to re-define what men and women are.

[Lady Eileen]

God made us different from men for a reason.

Feminists insist on women suffering on the battlefield just like men (or even worse) because they hate being women. A website I have found helpful for exploring these kinds of issues is:

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.org/

[narses]

No, but all wars are fought by warriors, and women are not warriors. As for your lack of interest, good.

[Enemy Of The State]

Thank God that GI Jane was just a movie!(or a bad nightmare)

            

         

[annyokie]

Rosie the Riveter, phht!

[templar]

Not all war is fought with swords.

A pity.

[nravoter]

Many of todays warriors fight with big metal machines. These are not dependent on brute strength to operate, but skill and finesses.

90 lb tank or artillery shells don't load themselves. 82 lb sling legs for air assaulting 10,000 lb loads, or 114 lb sling legs for air assaulting 25,000 lb loads don't get themselves off the back of the truck and attach themselves to a sling load's lift points.

And, for some of us unlucky souls, 360 lbs of sensitive electronic equipment doesn't walk itself through the woods in the middle of the night and set itself up. A three-man team gets to hike it to the objective, and there's no machine to help you.

Women belong in the military, but they are barred from certain roles for a reason. I happen to agree with those who say they should be able to do any job they want if they can meet the physical standards, but in my time in the Army, I've met two or three females who can meet those standards.

[Diddley]

Rosie the Riveter

I remember her well.

[annyokie]

My grandma was one and looked like that pix!

[HairOfTheDog]

Women belong in the military, but they are barred from certain roles for a reason.

And I would not argue to change that. Sounds like women would not be cut out for the jobs you describe... except maybe the three you mentioned.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Read any of the scads of posts on this topic.

[templar]

I have to say (again) that I am absolutley opposed to women in the military in anything other than support and non-combat roles. Men should do the fighting. Women have no place in combat, for a number of different reasons.

OTOH, I don't see how having women on the front lines in Iraq is harming us in any way. Seems our soldiers, men and women both, are doing a superb job. We're killing them and breaking their equiptment and taking very few losses in the process.

[jackbob]

You are right. Thus applying the test results of this article, only 10% of the women would qualify to be in the artillery as opposed to 80% of the men. Likewise, whereas 83% of the men and 52% of the women would qualify for infantry. So what's the Problem?

Some specialties would have less women, while others would have more. Its all simple arithmetic.

Or is there something more, that is un-spoken here?

I think there is. But no ever wants to talk about it. Its called SEX.

Soviet partisans found it necessary for moral during WWII to execute soldiers who had sexual affairs with their comrades. But that was serious war against a technological equal or superior. Should our military always be ready to fight an equal? Or is resentment between troops of no real concern, with some getting a little on the side between guard duty shift and others not getting any. Just a thought.

[nravoter]

Didn't mean to get on a soapbox. :)

[templar]

My grandma was one and looked like that pix!

Mine too! Riveted aircraft together. And she was actually named Rosie. (I think the picture looks like everyones grandma did, though)

[HairOfTheDog]

As for your lack of interest, good.

Pleasure to meet you, anyway. Good night.

[ChemistCat]

While women are actually in combat and war is going on NOW, I wish people would refrain from criticizing them OR the command structure that has put them where they are. This is not the time or place to undermine any of our brave servicemen OR women. The discussion needs to be put on hold till after they are back. It is destructive to military morale. I KNOW. It will worry the families back home more than they need to be, and undermine confidence in the commanders.

They're there getting shot at, like it or not, and we're here safe because they are. It's time to quit attacking our armed forces for ANY reason.

[annyokie]

My other grandma was hugh!