Besides the physical aspect, it also destroys morale in a group of guys to have a woman around. Watch how your friends act when it's just the guys, and see how they behave when a woman enters the room. It will change. You can't say the stuff that you'd normally say, and you can't do what you'd normally do. It sets up a barrier, so to speak. It breaks down the comraderie among men.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Are your For or Against women being allowed into ground combat positions
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Besides the physical aspect, it also destroys morale in a group of guys to have a woman around. Watch how your friends act when it's just the guys, and see how they behave when a woman enters the room. It will change. You can't say the stuff that you'd normally say, and you can't do what you'd normally do. It sets up a barrier, so to speak. It breaks down the comraderie among men.
Heisenberg
Lifer
That's not spatial orientation really. Spatial orientation means being able to look at a map and correlate it to where you are and where everything else is in real life, for example.
yukichigai
Diamond Member
If your argument is "more men win marathons than women" your argument is inherantly flawed. Remember, men have more strength; a woman might be able to run at top speed for the whole marathon, but the guy's top speed will be faster than the woman's. If he runs at top speed for only 75% of the marathon he's going to win. (This is just an example; I doubt anybody could run at top speed for an entire marathon)
yukichigai
Diamond Member
That's spatial interpretation.
ajskydiver
Golden Member
Sorry, poor choice of words...ripped as in no fat at all; he was tall and muscular, but not overly heavy -- and as I said previously, normally, he could run all day long.
My point was, while he was amazingly fit and strong, on a day where he normally would cruise, he was struggling and gave up when it got difficult for him...mentally weak.
And being exceptionally strong isn't what's most important...but anyway.
~AJ
alkemyst
No Lifer
Well there is a difference between full contact sports and combat. There isn't hand to hand work there sorry to say. You need to stick with the agenda at hand and not hash it up.
Now I am willing to bet without steroids in the sports arena you'd have more women possibilities, and again there are women with enough skills at times and they are shut out.
Thats the total argument you seem to forget, although I am willing to bet this is not really an issue you know about, but would love to just use the buzzwords within a discussion. Most schools won't let a woman onto the varsity teams, not being on a varsity team you don't get experience, without experience you don't get on a college team, without being on a college team and without a chance in High School, you're not getting drafted.
Without saying it...most men don't make pro sports either.
Yeah politically correct...whatever.
Well for one the special forces programs are very tough, not impossible. Most men can't pass them.
Politically correct would be to provide an easier way for women to make it. I never said that.
If a woman can pass the same test a male SEAL can I would still have a problem knowing that being a female she can be used to solicit a response if captured.
Until people like you learn that women are just the same as men, and you have women better than men at some things and men better than women at some things on an individual level, it's you creating the reason they can be used.
Women today don't need to be babied, unless they want to be.
You are trying so hard to be "PC", yet you seem to have little to no understanding of the subject.
This comment was extremely stupid:
"Now I am willing to bet without steroids in the sports arena you'd have more women possibilities"
That is simply absurd. No logic or reason was put behind that statement. If anything, steroids would IMPROVE women's chances in sports by enabling them to become as muscular as men. That way, they get to *choose and control* what their testosterone level would be, and they wouldn't be limited to the very low T level that women naturally have.
In real life, an average joe shmoe might have a T level of 400 ng/dl, while a naturally athletic male could have one as high as 900. They'd have more than twice as much testosterone running through their veins, giving them a *huge* advantage in protein synthesis and muscle generation. A woman might have a T level of only 20-80, not *nearly* enough to produce the amount of muscle of even a small man.
Now once you introduce steroids into the mix, the person can inject however much they want to. With steroids, even the average joe could have a T level over 1000, or 1200+. And there's nothing stopping a woman from doing that also. Those huge female bodybuilders you see are all juicing up. Their T level is sky high compared to a nomal woman. Steroids illegally levels the playing field by allowing people to choose what they want their T level to be. It's not a good idea, but I'm showing you that your statement was stupid and uneducated.
Natural= genetically limited testosterone level. You either have it or you don't.
Steroids= testosterone level of your choosing. Allows men with low T levels to get huge and ripped, and even women can become huge.
platinumike
Platinum Member
more votes!
LordMorpheus
Diamond Member
they should be allowed to, if they can make it through training. I know several girls that would make better soldiers than I would, and I'm not out of shape or anything like that.
Strength, no. Tenacity, YES. GOOD LORD YES. In the Canadian military, women have combat roles. Artillery, Infantry, Armored, Engineers. The women in my unit are very, VERY hardcore. One girl(My Fireteam partner on basic training) went on a five day defensive ex on her period, and got a nipple ring torn out. She still did a fighting retreat on the last day, 5K run in full gear, and a machine-gun.
Lots of women thing they have something to prove, therefore they're some of the toughest troops I know.
dr150
Diamond Member
ABSOLUTELY they should be allowed.
But they should be held to the same extreme standard.
This doesn't mean about being the strongest (as most big, strong guys fall out of training)....it's about strength & agility ratio to weight.
On average, of course women are more apt to fail out, but there are some that can kick ass with the best of them.
But they should be held to the same extreme standard.
This doesn't mean about being the strongest (as most big, strong guys fall out of training)....it's about strength & agility ratio to weight.
On average, of course women are more apt to fail out, but there are some that can kick ass with the best of them.
thirdlegstump
Banned
If she can do what I can do, let her do it.
KarenMarie
Elite Member
as a general rule, i dont think women belong in combat. that is my opinion.
🙂
🙂
Promethply
Golden Member
Still think it's a pity that women's life should be sacrificed,
especially in battles/wars. :thumbsdown:
especially in battles/wars. :thumbsdown:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
