PDA

View Full Version : Leon Panetta planning to lift the ban on women in combat


NateR
01-24-2013, 01:18 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-panetta-opens-combat-roles-women-203034238--politics.html

AP sources: Panetta opens combat roles to women

WASHINGTON (AP) ó Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

A senior military official says the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer.

The official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15. The announcement on Panetta's decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached ó but not formally assigned ó to units on the front lines.

Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel.

This is a terrible idea, unless they start holding women to the same physical fitness standards that they require of male soldiers. If they lower the standards in order to accommodate women, then that is just going to result in a weaker US military across the board.

flo
01-24-2013, 04:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-panetta-opens-combat-roles-women-203034238--politics.html



This is a terrible idea, unless they start holding women to the same physical fitness standards that they require of male soldiers. If they lower the standards in order to accommodate women, then that is just going to result in a weaker US military across the board.

I agree with you, Nate, and with the conclusion you draw. Captain Katie Petronio, USMC, also agrees. Here is her excellent article on the subject and I'll post a couple particularly relevent paragraphs.

Get over it! We are not all created equal. (http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal)

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isnít even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with womenís workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITSí mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, itís very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, itís the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in.

*snip*

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.


Men and women are different no matter how the lefties try to pretend (or worse - legislate) otherwise.

NateR
01-24-2013, 05:41 AM
Doesn't everyone go through the same boot camp/physical fitness reguirements? And I thought women were already serving in combat?

No. The physical fitness requirements for women are lower than the requirements for men.

For example, an 18-year-old male soldier needs to do 42 pushups in 2 minutes to receive a minimum passing score of 60 on his PT test. An 18-year-old female soldier only needs to do 19 pushups in 2 minutes to receive the exact same score of 60 points.

Sit up requirements are actually the same for men and women. Both need to do 53 situps in 2 minutes to receive the minimum passing score of 60 points.

For the 2-mile run, that 18-year-old male needs to complete the run no slower than 15 minutes and 54 seconds in order to pass. A woman has 18 minutes and 54 seconds to complete the 2-mile run.

If an 18-year-old male soldier did only 19 pushups, 53 sit-ups, and completed his 2-mile run in 18:54, then he would receive a PT score of 107, which would be a failing score. However an 18-year-old female soldier would receive the minimum passing score of 180 points.

If an 18-year old female soldier did 42 pushups, 53 situps and completed her run in 15:54, then she would receive a score of 256 out of a maximum of 300. The male soldier would only get the minimum 180 points with those numbers.

Also female soldiers are allowed 10% more bodyfat than male soldiers.

So, what I'm saying is that if a woman can meet the male standards for physical fitness, then she can be allowed in combat. If she can't meet the same physical standard as the male soldiers, then she has no business in combat.

In reality there should only be one standard, the male standard. Because you don't win a war with political correctness and tolerance, you win it with physical strength and endurance. That's just as true today, in our highly technological battlefields, as it has been in the past.

Also, the integrated boot camps have been a miserable failure because the male soldiers spend so much time waiting for the female soldiers to catch up, that they rarely feel challenged by the training they receive.

NateR
01-24-2013, 05:57 AM
Here is her excellent article on the subject and I'll post a couple particularly relevent paragraphs.

That's been my experience as well. I spent over 10 years in the Army and I never ONCE met a female soldier who wanted to be on the front lines in combat. In fact, I'm sure that most women only join the military because there is absolutely no chance that they will be required to go into front line combat.

What's going to end up happening here is some woman is not going to be able to keep up with the male soldiers and assume that it's because she's being discriminated against. So she's going to lawyer-up and complain about how the system is unfair to women. Then the physical standards are going to be lowered for the male soldiers to make it more "fair" for the female soldiers. That will simply result in a military that is less physically fit and less combat ready.

flo
01-24-2013, 06:22 AM
Where did Bonnie's original comment go? Weird!

TexasRN
01-24-2013, 09:33 AM
I agree with both of you, Nate and Flo. I also want to add that men and women have a different emotional relationship as friends than men alone have. I think that puts those men in extra danger in combat situations. They may make a decision based more on emotion and a feeling to protect the women of the unit. I also worry that the strong emotional connection you have with someone you went through combat with can hurt marriages if it's man/woman even if there is no inappropriate sexual behavior. I don't want to make war or the return home harder or worse than it has to be.


~Amy

NateR
01-24-2013, 10:55 AM
Where did Bonnie's original comment go? Weird!

She deleted it while I was typing up my response. I normally would go ahead and delete my reply to her comment, but I think the information is very relevant to the discussion.

NateR
01-24-2013, 11:00 AM
I agree with both of you, Nate and Flo. I also want to add that men and women have a different emotional relationship as friends than men alone have. I think that puts those men in extra danger in combat situations. They may make a decision based more on emotion and a feeling to protect the women of the unit. I also worry that the strong emotional connection you have with someone you went through combat with can hurt marriages if it's man/woman even if there is no inappropriate sexual behavior. I don't want to make war or the return home harder or worse than it has to be.


~Amy

Not to mention the fact that instances of rape and sexual abuse within the ranks are going to multiply exponentially if you start placing women into frontline combat units. There is already a shockingly large percentage of sexual abuse within the military that is swept under the carpet. That's just going to get worse.

rearnakedchoke
01-24-2013, 03:11 PM
Not to mention the fact that instances of rape and sexual abuse within the ranks are going to multiply exponentially if you start placing women into frontline combat units. There is already a shockingly large percentage of sexual abuse within the military that is swept under the carpet. That's just going to get worse.

yeah, i think something needs to be done about that than just saying men will be men and sweep the abuse under the carpet (not saying you are saying that)

and i think this is fine ... i think the physical tests are all bs and outdated ... more and more tests in some jobs are of actual instances people will find in the real world .. sure, it is easier to say do this many pushups etc .. but putting on all the gear and guns and making you do certain drills etc gives you a better idea of your actual strength ...

adamt
01-24-2013, 04:51 PM
so are 18 year old women going to be required to sign up for selective services(the draft)? if women CAN fight in combat, how long til we ask the question SHOULD they fight in combat? maybe we should have all women batallions, and treat them different? if north korea nukes us and I, as a 29 year old, get drafted, can i conscientiously object to fighting along side women? Right or wrong, I have an inherent duty to protect women--- they are equals, but entirely different from men----physically speaking they are weaker. Emotionally speaking they may not be able to deal with blowing alot of peoples heads off.

maybe we should just have a don't ask don't tell policy regarding gender :)


seriously though, it'ss sad that we are trying so hard to erase the concept of gender and masculinity and femininity

County Mike
01-24-2013, 05:37 PM
Well somebody on the front lines has to wash the clothes and make the sandwiches!

NateR
01-24-2013, 06:28 PM
so are 18 year old women going to be required to sign up for selective services(the draft)?

That's a good point, if they really are serious about equality for women, then they need to require every woman in the United States, between the ages of 18-35, to register for the draft IMMEDIATELY or face prison time. That's what's required of men in this country so it should be required of women as well... if they truly want equality, that is.

rearnakedchoke
01-24-2013, 07:57 PM
That's a good point, if they really are serious about equality for women, then they need to require every woman in the United States, between the ages of 18-35, to register for the draft IMMEDIATELY or face prison time. That's what's required of men in this country so it should be required of women as well... if they truly want equality, that is.

that is a very good point ... i know i have heard in the past that feminist groups have tried to make it so that women had to register also, to no avail, so i am wondering if this gains steam again ...

and is it 18-35??? i thought it was mid 20's .. oh well, either way ...

rearnakedchoke
01-24-2013, 07:57 PM
Well somebody on the front lines has to wash the clothes and make the sandwiches!

dude, they repealed don't ask don't telll ... right now its the gays that do those duties ... KIDDING!!!!!!

Tyburn
01-24-2013, 08:00 PM
There is already a shockingly large percentage of sexual abuse within the military that is swept under the carpet. That's just going to get worse.

WTF :huh:

flo
01-24-2013, 08:04 PM
Well somebody on the front lines has to wash the clothes and make the sandwiches!

:fryingpan:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

NateR
01-24-2013, 08:07 PM
that is a very good point ... i know i have heard in the past that feminist groups have tried to make it so that women had to register also, to no avail, so i am wondering if this gains steam again ...

and is it 18-35??? i thought it was mid 20's .. oh well, either way ...

I keep hearing different numbers, but I do know that 35 is the oldest that men are allowed to enlist voluntarily in the Army (I'm not sure about the Marines, Navy, or Air Force). Now that I look it up, it seems the maximum drafting age is either 25 or 28.

Either way, we're talking about tens of millions of women who would be suddenly required to register for the draft. That's a public relations nightmare and it's exactly why they are never going to require it. Which simply proves this is not about military readiness or improving our national defense, it's about scoring points with the electorate at the expense of our nation's security.

NateR
01-24-2013, 08:13 PM
WTF :huh:

A female soldier is more likely to be sexually assaulted by a fellow soldier than killed in combat. I've read that the Pentagon estimates around 80-90% of sexual assaults within the military ranks go unreported. They were forced to investigate the problem when over 100 reports of sexual abuse against female soldiers were reported within the first 18 months of the Iraq War.

This article touches on the topic as well:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-03-27-our-view_x.htm

flo
01-24-2013, 08:19 PM
WTF :huh:

Nate's right, there have been "problems" in that area over the years. Serious problems with coverups. I'm sure you can find more info in the archives of Bill Roggio, Ace of Spades, This Ain't Hell, or any other milblogs.

adamt
01-24-2013, 08:32 PM
WTF :huh:

besides what nate and flo already said i would just emphasize that sexual abuse includes harrassment. you could imagine the amount of unwanted attention that a female gets in a male platoon, but honestly what are they going to do about it, i mean, the female themself won't do anythinga\ about it due to not wanting to be ostercized

Neezar
01-24-2013, 10:10 PM
I'm all for women's rights. But I want them to be womanly rights.

I don't want them to be equal to men's rights.

I want more rights. :laugh:

NateR
01-25-2013, 07:17 AM
I'm all for women's rights. But I want them to be womanly rights.

I don't want them to be equal to men's rights.

I want more rights. :laugh:

I know you're just joking, but I actually believe that's the ultimate goal of the modern Feminist movement. It's not to make women equal to men, it's to turn the tables and make men subservient to women. Radical Feminists don't want equality, they want dominance.

adamt
01-25-2013, 09:11 AM
how else should gender equality be adjusted in society? I know that women get precedence in custody cases, generally speaking, maybe that should change. I know that child support is predominantly for men to be paid to women. Fathers don't have the rights they ought to. Maybe men need the right to stop the abortion of their child, or else, the woman is charged with murder. Maybe fathers ought to have the right to abort the child? ( definitely not my opinion, just making a point) I mean there are instances that women have tricked men into getting them pregnant and then sued for child support.

maybe women should always go dutch on every date?



maybe it should be unfair to base any type of insurance premium on gender. i had to pay twice what my sister paid, cause i was male. gender equality would scream that i shouldn't have to do that.

Neezar
01-25-2013, 11:27 AM
I know you're just joking, but I actually believe that's the ultimate goal of the modern Feminist movement. It's not to make women equal to men, it's to turn the tables and make men subservient to women. Radical Feminists don't want equality, they want dominance.

Well other people get special treatment because of their genetic make up. Why shouldn't I?


I'm special. :unsure-1:

lol

Tyburn
01-25-2013, 07:28 PM
besides what nate and flo already said i would just emphasize that sexual abuse includes harrassment. you could imagine the amount of unwanted attention that a female gets in a male platoon, but honestly what are they going to do about it, i mean, the female themself won't do anythinga\ about it due to not wanting to be ostercized

No...actually...I cant. How is it the Military can train a man for war...but not install the discipline and maturity needed to avoid unwanted sexual contact with a female collegue.

I think its outrageous and disgusting...and far from "oh, better not put women in coz that will make the sex worse" how about dealing with the actual problem, which doesnt appear to be the woman in this situation now does it.

You know...if you cant trust a soldier with a woman collegue...how do you know they can do any of their duty?

Perhaps if its too hard for the males to cope with a female in their midst, then the armed forces oughta do same sexed groupings?

NateR
01-25-2013, 11:40 PM
No...actually...I cant. How is it the Military can train a man for war...but not install the discipline and maturity needed to avoid unwanted sexual contact with a female collegue.

I think its outrageous and disgusting...and far from "oh, better not put women in coz that will make the sex worse" how about dealing with the actual problem, which doesnt appear to be the woman in this situation now does it.

You know...if you cant trust a soldier with a woman collegue...how do you know they can do any of their duty?

Perhaps if its too hard for the males to cope with a female in their midst, then the armed forces oughta do same sexed groupings?

I'm not saying it's okay or condoning the behavior in any way, but that's just one of the ugly sides of human nature. People are inherently evil and no amount of discipline is going to erase that fact. When you drop a woman into the middle of an environment where she is surrounded by young, strong men who's lives are in constant danger, what do you expect to happen?

Back when military discipline was based on Judeo-Christian values, this wasn't as much of a problem. But then again, the military leaders knew enough to not even present the temptation to their men in the first place. Nowadays, with an increasingly secular and godless military, this kind of thing is starting to become the norm.

Tyburn
01-26-2013, 01:02 PM
1) I'm not saying it's okay or condoning the behavior in any way, but that's just one of the ugly sides of human nature. People are inherently evil and no amount of discipline is going to erase that fact. When you drop a woman into the middle of an environment where she is surrounded by young, strong men who's lives are in constant danger, what do you expect to happen?

2) Back when military discipline was based on Judeo-Christian values, this wasn't as much of a problem. But then again, the military leaders knew enough to not even present the temptation to their men in the first place. Nowadays, with an increasingly secular and godless military, this kind of thing is starting to become the norm.

1) I expect an ounce of self discipline. :blink: Thats like trying to say the recent paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church is because the Vatican dont let the clergy get married...When you drop an altar boy into the middle of an environment where he is surrounded by old letcherous men, whose lives are full of enforced celebacy, what do you expect to happen?

PUH-LEASE!

I hope our military doesnt have this kinda problem. You know I strongly believe that the Military is a calling, and the highest outside of the Church...and yet if what your saying is true universal of military misconduct around women, it would appear that the armed forces match the Church on the par of complete degredation and corruption


2) then instead of campaigning against women in combat...perhaps you should start campaigning FOR those principles to return. Lets face it...regardless of temptation, you should be able to resist. You might not be able to control whether the powers that be place women in your midst, but you absolutely CAN control whether you use that as an excuse for whatever reason to rape, or harras.

Ironically of all insitutions, it is those in the Armed Forces, and those in the Church who should bloody well know better.

I hasten to add...before you go and blurt that im just being argumentative and difficult...that I aggree that women should not be put into combat roles where possible. I dont say thats because of a lack of self control in the men, like you...I dont say it because I think that women given the training, couldnt do that same, probably just as well.

I dissagree with it because it goes against my basis of ettiquette, that says, frankly, women shouldnt be put in danger. There are ways that Men should treat women which I hold quite strongly to. You should always make sure, for example, if you are walking along a road and spot a woman coming the other way, that YOU move to the curb so as she passes you she is nowhere near the road. If the pavement is too thin, then YOU step into the road so she doesnt have to. When ladies come in to a room you are supposed to stand up, if you are seated, to greet them. If there is no space on the bus, you give up your seat and let them sit instead....You should let the board first even if they arrived at the stop after you (I personally tend to ussher everyone onto a bus first, but thats just me) You should be opening and closing car doors for them.

Now...for someone in that position, why would you ever want to put them in a situation where they would have to fight? I dont mind them being in support...but they should never be on the battlefield unless they are some kinda Amazonian, who would take offense at the above ettiquette, and so out of respect for their belief, you would suspend it when dealing with them.

I dont even like the thought of Women MMA I'm afraid...I'm horrified its now a part of the UFC, and I wont be watching it Personally.

Like I said...if women want to do MMA, or go into combat, that is their decision...but I dont have to support it, nor do I have to like it.

NateR
01-26-2013, 07:41 PM
1) I expect an ounce of self discipline. :blink: Thats like trying to say the recent paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church is because the Vatican dont let the clergy get married...When you drop an altar boy into the middle of an environment where he is surrounded by old letcherous men, whose lives are full of enforced celebacy, what do you expect to happen?

PUH-LEASE!

I hope our military doesnt have this kinda problem. You know I strongly believe that the Military is a calling, and the highest outside of the Church...and yet if what your saying is true universal of military misconduct around women, it would appear that the armed forces match the Church on the par of complete degredation and corruption


2) then instead of campaigning against women in combat...perhaps you should start campaigning FOR those principles to return. Lets face it...regardless of temptation, you should be able to resist. You might not be able to control whether the powers that be place women in your midst, but you absolutely CAN control whether you use that as an excuse for whatever reason to rape, or harras.

Ironically of all insitutions, it is those in the Armed Forces, and those in the Church who should bloody well know better.

I hasten to add...before you go and blurt that im just being argumentative and difficult...that I aggree that women should not be put into combat roles where possible. I dont say thats because of a lack of self control in the men, like you...I dont say it because I think that women given the training, couldnt do that same, probably just as well.

I dissagree with it because it goes against my basis of ettiquette, that says, frankly, women shouldnt be put in danger. There are ways that Men should treat women which I hold quite strongly to. You should always make sure, for example, if you are walking along a road and spot a woman coming the other way, that YOU move to the curb so as she passes you she is nowhere near the road. If the pavement is too thin, then YOU step into the road so she doesnt have to. When ladies come in to a room you are supposed to stand up, if you are seated, to greet them. If there is no space on the bus, you give up your seat and let them sit instead....You should let the board first even if they arrived at the stop after you (I personally tend to ussher everyone onto a bus first, but thats just me) You should be opening and closing car doors for them.

Now...for someone in that position, why would you ever want to put them in a situation where they would have to fight? I dont mind them being in support...but they should never be on the battlefield unless they are some kinda Amazonian, who would take offense at the above ettiquette, and so out of respect for their belief, you would suspend it when dealing with them.

I dont even like the thought of Women MMA I'm afraid...I'm horrified its now a part of the UFC, and I wont be watching it Personally.

Like I said...if women want to do MMA, or go into combat, that is their decision...but I dont have to support it, nor do I have to like it.

I'm about 150% positive that this would be a problem in any military that allowed women to fight side by side with men. However, I'm not using that as a reason that women shouldn't be allowed into combat. I think they shouldn't be allowed into combat because they physically aren't able to do the job. Which will require the military to lower their standards and result in a less effective military.

I fully believe that a male soldier should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if he rapes a woman. However, the Pentagon is clearly hesitant to do that, so it's not right that they would force women into that scenario if they are not serious about solving the problem.

Also, for the record, I do believe that years of sexual repression are a contributing factor behind Catholic priests molesting young boys. I don't think many of them started out as sick perverts, but the legalistic and un-Biblical standards of the Catholic Church gradually turned them into that.

adamt
01-27-2013, 02:49 AM
i wonder if the women are going to have to pee standing up?

Bonnie
01-27-2013, 04:56 AM
I'm about 150% positive that this would be a problem in any military that allowed women to fight side by side with men. However, I'm not using that as a reason that women shouldn't be allowed into combat. I think they shouldn't be allowed into combat because they physically aren't able to do the job. Which will require the military to lower their standards and result in a less effective military.

I fully believe that a male soldier should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if he rapes a woman. However, the Pentagon is clearly hesitant to do that, so it's not right that they would force women into that scenario if they are not serious about solving the problem.

Also, for the record, I do believe that years of sexual repression are a contributing factor behind Catholic priests molesting young boys. I don't think many of them started out as sick perverts, but the legalistic and un-Biblical standards of the Catholic Church gradually turned them into that.

I do think the biggest problem will be of the sexual kind when you mix women and men together like this in these situations, whether consensual or rape. There are already numerous rapes that take place in the military, and sadly there seems to be little that is being done to help these women, in fact, they seem to be the ones who are punished instead of their offenders. This problem will surely only get worse with women being put into combat situations along side men.

I really don't see much of anything positive coming from this decision especially for women. I see an increase in rapes, affairs, broken marriages and families, and lots of unplanned babies. Not to mention an increase in the murder rate--anytime you combine men, women, sex and emotions, there's the increased possibility for a combustible situation, and these people have easy access to weapons. Uh oh, what are they going to do if these type of incidents happen, take away their guns? :rolleyes:

Bonnie
01-27-2013, 05:06 AM
i wonder if the women are going to have to pee standing up?

These are the type of important details you need to think of when making decisions like this! :laugh:

NateR
01-27-2013, 05:54 AM
and lots of unplanned babies.

The quickest way for a female soldier to get sent home from a deployment is to get pregnant. When I was in Bosnia, we had several women suddenly turn up pregnant and they had to be sent home. Many of them had husbands back in the States.

So I foresee lots of female soldiers having lots of unprotected sex with the male soldiers in the hopes that they can get pregnant, be sent home and not have to continue to put their lives in danger on a daily basis. Of course, that will have the potential side effect of creating breakouts of STDs within the ranks.

The only way to get around that is to prosecute sex inside a combat zone as a general order violation. This way if a woman turned up pregnant, she would be sent home and put under guard until her baby was born, then she would receive a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonorable discharge from the military. They could waive the severity of the punishment if she identified the father of her child and had that confirmed with a DNA test. The father would then be subject to the exact same punishment. That wouldn't create a very good situation for the baby, but the idea is to make the punishment severe enough that it would be a deterrent for most soldiers.

Or they could just not allow women in combat zones in the first place and this wouldn't even be a problem.

Bonnie
01-27-2013, 06:34 AM
The quickest way for a female soldier to get sent home from a deployment is to get pregnant. When I was in Bosnia, we had several women suddenly turn up pregnant and they had to be sent home. Many of them had husbands back in the States.

So I foresee lots of female soldiers having lots of unprotected sex with the male soldiers in the hopes that they can get pregnant, be sent home and not have to continue to put their lives in danger on a daily basis. Of course, that will have the potential side effect of creating breakouts of STDs within the ranks.

The only way to get around that is to prosecute sex inside a combat zone as a general order violation. This way if a woman turned up pregnant, she would be sent home and put under guard until her baby was born, then she would receive a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonorable discharge from the military. They could waive the severity of the punishment if she identified the father of her child and had that confirmed with a DNA test. The father would then be subject to the exact same punishment. That wouldn't create a very good situation for the baby, but the idea is to make the punishment severe enough that it would be a deterrent for most soldiers.

Or they could just not allow women in combat zones in the first place and this wouldn't even be a problem.

I didn't even think about the spread of STD's when I was listing all those other negatives!

The article says "Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff", but wouldn't you think the seasoned military people in there know the folly of such an idea...I'm suspicious that all this is "political" and has Obama's handprint on it.

Tyburn
01-27-2013, 10:00 AM
1) I'm about 150% positive that this would be a problem in any military that allowed women to fight side by side with men. However, I'm not using that as a reason that women shouldn't be allowed into combat. I think they shouldn't be allowed into combat because they physically aren't able to do the job. Which will require the military to lower their standards and result in a less effective military.

2) I fully believe that a male soldier should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if he rapes a woman. However, the Pentagon is clearly hesitant to do that, so it's not right that they would force women into that scenario if they are not serious about solving the problem.

3) Also, for the record, I do believe that years of sexual repression are a contributing factor behind Catholic priests molesting young boys. I don't think many of them started out as sick perverts, but the legalistic and un-Biblical standards of the Catholic Church gradually turned them into that.

1) See I think thats just sexist, the reason why I think its just sexist is because I dont really see how a combat role would be more physically demanding for a woman then a man. If you had to lift big weights I would understand...but surely smaller equates to higher speed.

It really is exactly the same as the attitude the UFC take with their fighters, insisting really, that what people want to see, what makes the best fight, is two heavyweight strikers...because presumably the smaller, potentially weaker men cant pull it off.

I bet there are probably women who are fitter then some of the men. I also think that your military might be getting to the stage where it potentially has to lower standards, or not be able to keep its full quota. That happens when men get killed at war and someone needs to replace them.

But its not a matter I feel strongly about, coz obviously, for my own reasons, I believe they are out of place on the front line also...I challenged you because you saw fit to bring up the rape issue in the armed forces.

2) In your eyes, can I ask you a fundementally important question. What makes a culture Civilized? Is it about standard of living and modern utilities? You could say an african state is uncivilized if they have to walk ten miles to get water, and babies die of easily vaccinated against disease. But could you not also say that our cultures are uncivilized because there utilities are extravagent beyond the point of need, and their standard of living is high enough to make people live for years but in a sheltered environment where some would say they never truely live at all?

In the same vein You could say that those countries rulled by a dictatorship are uncivilized because they do not take into consideration the views of their subjects, but can it not also be put that those countries whose deomcratic vote systems are a sham, are almost worse for the pretense of an ellection? After all, its strictly speaking a lie, that any American can run for president, when the largest factor against any citizen is the amount of money they would need for a campaign. In England, its nothing more then an ellected dictatorship, all the politicians make promises to be ellected, but once ellected, they dont have to keep with those promises.

Perhaps you might say its the Countries attitudes to development and the freedoms granted to their citizens that mark them as civilized. Yet all you Americans argue over consitutional rights which are already ammendments to the original document. Any ammendment indicates the possibilitiy of addition and subtraction by the relevent body, which indicates that a consitution isnt permanent and unchanging, that your rights might only be rights until the next ammendment. In a similar way, the British Government has no quarms in letting protestors take to the streets, and march. But that is no indication that the Government listens to them. What point is being permitted to show your dissaproval if all they do is ignore you?

Above all you could say its access to Justice that makes a country civilized. If like you have argued (and in different, but no less injust ways our Government also) your pentagon, stands AGAINST Justice in order not to create a scene, or embarissment, or to save its own reputation (no doubt those that protect its reputation think thats far more important then the voice of a few individuals :ninja: ) Is it civilized at all?

3) Do you think its the legalism that does it :huh: I mean...thats a link between the Military and the Church if ever there was one. The legalistic framework which stands apart from the law of the land as an alternative strand. Whether it be Cannon Law from The Roman Curia....or Military Law under a Court Marshal....or Even Civil Law under a Capitalistic Institution....as opposed to the Criminal Law of The Land.

Tyburn
01-27-2013, 10:12 AM
I didn't even think about the spread of STD's when I was listing all those other negatives!

The article says "Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff", but wouldn't you think the seasoned military people in there know the folly of such an idea...I'm suspicious that all this is "political" and has Obama's handprint on it.

Since when have the powers that be...who, actually are totally unqualified in the actual day to day running of whatever they preside over...inquired of those actually doing the job before making rullings

In ALL the organisations ive ever worked for there has always been people paid millions at the top to make sweeping decisions on matters they dont know at the practical level.

They believe they know best...so why would they ask someone who might know the practicalities of the job before making their rulling.

Nine times out of ten, you will find their protocols CREATE more problems, and the people on the ground are left to adapt...if you remain with a company long enough you even see the recycling of old protocol. Protocol A comes down from one administration to tackle Problem A...it doesnt work, and actually Creates Problem B as a side effect. So Protocol A is abandoned as one problem is better then two. The Administration changes, and some bright spark reinvents Protocol A to Tackle Problem A ALL OVER AGAIN...and when you get the briefing you think...hang on, we've tried this one before....Some are quicker to come about then others...He says...awaiting the upcoming news that we are going to swap chillers AGAIN to make things easier...and in my time we have ping-ponged between these chillers FOUR TIMES IN EIGHT YEARS :laugh:

Mix pure politics into that...as happens in Government, or the church...and it just makes it worse.

But as the old poem goes "ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die" :laugh:

TexasRN
01-27-2013, 11:13 AM
Dave, heavy lifting is part of the job. I'm sure there are women who can work out enough to eventually be able to lift heavy objects and pass that part of the test but at what cost to her health? Will she be able to maintain that strength at all times, even in bad living conditions with smaller amounts of food? What about when a woman is on the front lines, on some critical mission, and she starts her period? She'll have to carry feminine products with her at all times and figure out how to dispose of those items in such a way that won't attract wildlife. These are all things that have to be discussed and figured out. :mellow:


~Amy

adamt
01-27-2013, 01:00 PM
we can just mandate birth control and abortion for all female soldiers who are on active duty--------or maybe chastitiy belts or sugically implanted rapex devices







since they seem to be heck bent on being men, maybe we could just give them a penis while we're at it?????? of course now gay sex is encouraged too so still in a sticky wicket






















and i assume you all know me well enough to know how tongue in cheek that comment was

Tyburn
01-27-2013, 05:26 PM
What about when a woman is on the front lines, on some critical mission, and she starts her period? She'll have to carry feminine products with her at all times and figure out how to dispose of those items in such a way that won't attract wildlife. These are all things that have to be discussed and figured out. :mellow:


~Amy

Now that IS a problem :laugh:

Have any of you started a petition? Someone should find the Official Details of Leon Panetta, and arrange an appointment to present him with a petition on the matter.

Dont forget to call the press to be on hand when you present the petition :laugh:

That is the least that any American TRUELY worried about this issue should do. Strikes me that you could garner a great deal of support from like minded Ex-Force community, I am sure there is enough of you on this website to have some kinda contact with that resource.

I would suggest leaving anyone in active service alone. Firstly, I would be suprised if any member of the forces would be allowed to sign a petition involving their own protocol. That would be awkward, and unprofessional unless they were extremely High on the ranking scale. Noone wants to comprimise anyone else.

But one presumes that any Ex-Forces would be permitted to sign, and any other ordinary citizen, providing, of course they dont work in the Civil Service. I expect there would be supporters in local and state Government which, by their very nature, must have views on such things.

Will this change the rulling? No, probably not, not even if you were to garner thousands of signitories. but, it would proove that you had actually tried. That you had discussed an ideaology and had aggreed a consensus, and that, as per your "GOD-Given" Rights, you be allowed to protest, in a peaceful, democratic way, which would not insight violence.

....Policy makers dont like such activities to generate any Journalistic support.

That is what I would do. If anyone decides to do something like that, please let me know, and how it goes. :)

From now on, I plan on countering this ethos of strong, black and white opinions, which get blurted on this forum by the same domineering voices all the time, by giving them what they need to take the matter beyond displaying their disregard online in a mixed martial arts forum. You have the right to make your collective voices heard, but IMHO, you lack either the motivation, or the effort...or in some places, I think the courage, to even try and change what you dont like. How many of you have ever written to a politician period? I have had occasion to write to the Prime Minister, and bear in mind, I am not of the mind that I lead on matters of politics. Surely, you should own your President...If he is their to serve you, then on matters pertaining to issues you really care about, you should be writing to him. No doubt, he may never get the letters, or some personal secretary might answer...you may never get the reply you want...or one at all...but you can always say that you wrote....that you did more then complain, that you offered constructive criticism.

Something I remember from a University debate, that I have never forgotten is, when we once were arguing about the re-installation of the death penalty in England. I was arguing for its re-installation, and one member of the opposing team finally said in exaspiration that perhaps I wouldnt feel that way if I knew someone who was on death row. Soooo there began a three year consultation between myself, and two people who were sentanced to death in the US. One, was obviously innocent, and one was obviously guilty. I got on well with both of them via correspondance. The guilty one, or the one, who by his writtings, I would have thought of as someone who might take short cuts with the law, did something naughty in a place called "Compton" and he was put in San Quentin in California...I lost contact with him when they did something with rebuilding, or trying to maintain the buildings of some part of the prison and they moved a load of them I think. The other guy was from some other State, whose name slips my mind. He sounded normal, and he sounded very sad. He eventually had his sentance reduced to life inprisonment, at which point, I obviously couldnt write to him anymore as he wasnt on death row, and was moved.

Did it change my mind about the death penalty...absolutely not. Did it do anything to encourage the British Government to re-introduce state executions? No...but I had done something other then complain and give my views. I was prepared to DO something to proove I meant what I said.

We should all want to do that on subjects we care about...or else, why even bother mentioning it? BTW...I can not, and will not do anything like this pertaining to anything American...that would be wrong, as I am not an American Citizen...but you should know that I DO practise what I preach in regards to my own Government when the reason arises...and on the subject of International affairs I have every right to write to members of the elite in other States about such things if I feel so inclined...Barack Obama himself is not immune to that if I feel its warrented....I feel that MAY be warrented in the not to distant future, depending on an international response to something we're all awaiting :laugh:

TexasRN
01-27-2013, 07:47 PM
Petitions don't work for this kind of thing, Dave. The feminists have been lobbying for this stuff for years and the namby pamby culture that has overtaken American politics is giving the feminists what they want. The only thing that will stop this is when something goes horribly, horribly wrong.

And you called me domineering in your post. You really have no idea, Dave. :angry:








:laugh: Some day I will make it to England. Then I will come for you. :mellow:




~Amy

NateR
01-27-2013, 09:13 PM
I dont really see how a combat role would be more physically demanding for a woman then a man. If you had to lift big weights I would understand...but surely smaller equates to higher speed.

You see, it's comments like this one that demonstrate your complete ignorance of the topic at hand. It's almost laughable actually.

Also, comparing real world battlefield tactics to the UFC is like preparing for a safari hunt in Africa by taking a trip to the zoo. :laugh:

The battlefield is so physically demanding that a majority of men can't even keep up. So, when people say stuff like, "Oh on the modern battlefield all you have to do is push a button," then that simply reveals that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I know you didn't say that, but it's a common boiler-plate argument for why women should be allowed into real world combat situations and the only people who believe that statement are the ones who know absolutely nothing about real world combat situations.

Tyburn
01-27-2013, 10:59 PM
You see, it's comments like this one that demonstrate your complete ignorance of the topic at hand. It's almost laughable actually.

Also, comparing real world battlefield tactics to the UFC is like preparing for a safari hunt in Africa by taking a trip to the zoo. :laugh:

The battlefield is so physically demanding that a majority of men can't even keep up. So, when people say stuff like, "Oh on the modern battlefield all you have to do is push a button," then that simply reveals that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I know you didn't say that, but it's a common boiler-plate argument for why women should be allowed into real world combat situations and the only people who believe that statement are the ones who know absolutely nothing about real world combat situations.

I may not have experience...but I know more then you think, after doing Strategic Studies at University.

My point was simply, that sometimes you just make do with what you have. If...like during the second world war, the Country had lost an entire generation of men during the first world war...then you can imagine that not everyone was fit for duty in the strictest sence of the word for the second world war.

Look at Dunkirk...perhaps one of the ultimate battlefields. Proper combat troops trapped between sea on one side, and the enemy on the other. The call went out for ANYONE with ANYTHING capable of floating, to sail across the channel, and litterally pick soldiers out of the water.

Narrowboats, merchant ships, rowing boat...Nathan...rowing boats...went across the channel and as they passed by the continental shores, they scooped up military personnel from the water. Civilians went and collected our armed forces from the beach where they were basically being massicred...none of those sailors went through basic before they left docks Nathan :laugh:

Tyburn
01-27-2013, 11:04 PM
And you called me domineering in your post. You really have no idea, Dave. :angry:








:laugh: Some day I will make it to England. Then I will come for you. :mellow:




~Amy

:laugh: I wasnt actually thinking of YOU when I said that part :ninja: Though I doubt your the sort who would lie down and just take shyte from anyone :laugh:

Neezar
01-28-2013, 01:19 AM
From now on, I plan on countering this ethos of strong, black and white opinions, which get blurted on this forum by the same domineering voices all the time, by giving them what they need to take the matter beyond displaying their disregard online in a mixed martial arts forum.

We should all want to do that on subjects we care about...or else, why even bother mentioning it?

Dave, I will express my opinions whenever, however, and about whatever I want on here. And you won't be telling me what I need to do about it. You aren't my keeper. I may not want to take the matter beyond. I may just want to bitch about it around here. And that's my perogative. And it is everyone else's perogative, too. That is part of what this board is about.

So you go ahead and plan on your countering but know that I will not have you badgering anyone after posting their opinions. It is really none of your business what we do in our lives other than on this board.

I think that's fair. Don't you? :)

NateR
01-28-2013, 01:40 AM
but I know more then you think, after doing Strategic Studies at University.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Dave, are you trying to prove me right? Because that's another laughably silly comment that only adds more credence to the notion that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Tyburn
01-28-2013, 05:40 PM
Dave, I will express my opinions whenever, however, and about whatever I want on here. And you won't be telling me what I need to do about it. You aren't my keeper. I may not want to take the matter beyond. I may just want to bitch about it around here. And that's my perogative. And it is everyone else's perogative, too. That is part of what this board is about.

So you go ahead and plan on your countering but know that I will not have you badgering anyone after posting their opinions. It is really none of your business what we do in our lives other than on this board.

I think that's fair. Don't you? :)

Oh yes...I quite forgot that EVERYONE is allowed to express their opinion on ALL subjects, EXCEPT FOR ME (and probably any American who happens to be a Democrat, or sympathetic towards them)

What is this irony? Atonement for an Empire based on the Slave Trade or something...because at the back of my mind, and by a lot of attitudes on here, the crux is because I am not American, I am somehow lesser.

I'm Ignorant, I'm Stupid, I dont know what i'm talking about, Its none of my business, I shouldnt talk about that subject, I shouldnt be a Moderator. I am made out to be boring, long winded, worthless in content. I'm probably valued most for my entertainment value. To be laughed at, to roll your eyes at, to excite you all by making a scene which you can embellish by adding your two cents worth.

I want you to know, that if it wasnt for a few extremely solid and supportive friends who do not make me feel like a second class citizen on this forum, I would have ceased to post here entirely during the summer of 2010.

I have been mistreated by the autocrasy here. I dont mind being subordinate where I have to be, but I dont have to be here. I dont mind following rules...but rules made against me as a sole person, that restrict me, where they do not restrict others, is unjust. The reason why I resigned my Modship wasnt an expression of acknolwedgement that I had done anything wrong, or offended anyone. The reason I resigned is because I refused to be Nathans bitch for a third time

:) I am a Free Man. :)

if What I have written above means you now want to ban me...then just grant me twenty four hours from the time of your PM...so I may pass my forwarding details on to those who I regard as my true friends...and if you cant do that, then I ask you to respectfully remind fourumites, that if when I log off from here, I can never log back on...I can be reached through my facebook account, my myspace account, my youtube account, and my email address.

County Mike
01-28-2013, 05:50 PM
You tell 'em Dave!


Wait. You still use MySpace?

Tyburn
01-28-2013, 05:55 PM
You tell 'em Dave!


Wait. You still use MySpace?

:laugh: I dont "Use" it...I still have it...but if youve visited, they are trying to do a whole "NEW Myspace" which I cant make work...so I have to go back to "Classical Myspace" which I reckon they will axe

A real bugger...coz I use myspace as my main bank for digital photographs...some of which are NOT on memory stick (All my America photographs were on a memory stick which broke down...so this week I will be downloading all my photographs just incase.

However...I have a feeling you and I are facebook friends...so you wont miss a thing if the powers that be decide that I must be ejected all together...I hope they decide not to...but who knows :unsure-1:

County Mike
01-28-2013, 06:31 PM
Nobody will kick you out of here. They might argue with you strongly, but I really doubt anyone would ban you.

Tyburn
01-28-2013, 06:51 PM
Nobody will kick you out of here. They might argue with you strongly, but I really doubt anyone would ban you.

Whilst I admire your confidence...I dont share it I'm afraid.

You know, on two occasions I have been Vocal enough to legitamize, possibly a threat. I did make it clear where I stood on the issue of the United Nations in 2003...Whilst I personally wouldnt class that as anti-american...I can see how Nathan might.

Again, I suppose I did talk endlessly about my burdens way back in 1997...but I was asking for help mainly, dont believe that you should brush things under the carpet to save reputations, and really didnt feel like, as a person I wasnt qualified to be Christian Section Moderator.

But this time...Well I hadnt even made up my mind on where I stood on Gun rules...So to say I was too anti-weapons for Matts Sponcers...especially the week he retires...tell me...does he need sponcers when he doesnt fight anymore?

That sounds illegitatmate even for here. I really think it was because I asked Nathan if after talking so brash he would tell us about HIS firearm (or up til recent, possibly lack thereof) that I was threatened. I insulted him personally...and he reacted.

Now, even without being a Moderator I wont shut up...Do you think its beyond belief that they will ban me after this thread. I dont want to be banned...but I wont be oppressed. I aint no slave, and never will be again :ninja:

Neezar
01-28-2013, 07:13 PM
Oh yes...I quite forgot that EVERYONE is allowed to express their opinion on ALL subjects, EXCEPT FOR ME (and probably any American who happens to be a Democrat, or sympathetic towards them)



I'm all for you being able to express your opinion. I just want the same option without you telling me that I actually need to do something about my opinions or shut up about them. Which is basically what you were saying you were going to do. And I just said that I won't put up with that. And I won't. Sometimes all I want to do about something is fuss about it. :laugh:


That has nothing to do with you expressing your opinion. Feel free to express away. :)

Bonnie
01-28-2013, 08:15 PM
I was just over in the "Three Wishes" thread, and...











Michelle says Ricky Martin is not gay! :unsure-1:







:laugh:

TexasRN
01-28-2013, 09:35 PM
Whilst I admire your confidence...I dont share it I'm afraid.

You know, on two occasions I have been Vocal enough to legitamize, possibly a threat. I did make it clear where I stood on the issue of the United Nations in 2003...Whilst I personally wouldnt class that as anti-american...I can see how Nathan might.

Again, I suppose I did talk endlessly about my burdens way back in 1997...but I was asking for help mainly, dont believe that you should brush things under the carpet to save reputations, and really didnt feel like, as a person I wasnt qualified to be Christian Section Moderator.

But this time...Well I hadnt even made up my mind on where I stood on Gun rules...So to say I was too anti-weapons for Matts Sponcers...especially the week he retires...tell me...does he need sponcers when he doesnt fight anymore?

That sounds illegitatmate even for here. I really think it was because I asked Nathan if after talking so brash he would tell us about HIS firearm (or up til recent, possibly lack thereof) that I was threatened. I insulted him personally...and he reacted.

Now, even without being a Moderator I wont shut up...Do you think its beyond belief that they will ban me after this thread. I dont want to be banned...but I wont be oppressed. I aint no slave, and never will be again :ninja:


Oh, stop it. :rolleyes:

You're letting your SAD get to you today. Take a few days off from here if you need to but stop with the victim mess. I'm tired today and Ben hasn't posted enough gore for me yet. :laugh:


~Amy

Tyburn
01-28-2013, 09:42 PM
:ashamed:

I might just take some time off actually Amy...thats a good idea

I think that next week I'll just post my blog, and the UFC156 predictions thread, and answer PMs and that will be it.

Denise...I will express away...If I'm still here after Nathan reads all this :unsure-1: and after my week off

adamt
01-29-2013, 02:05 AM
in an effort to rerail this thread, i will ponder whether or not the ufc should let men fighters fight women fighters?????


also, if the american people were adamant about equality they should pressure the nfl to hire female players, but that's just it, americans don't want there entertainment tainted----they know it ain't the same

NateR
01-29-2013, 03:10 AM
Whilst I admire your confidence...I dont share it I'm afraid.

You know, on two occasions I have been Vocal enough to legitamize, possibly a threat. I did make it clear where I stood on the issue of the United Nations in 2003...Whilst I personally wouldnt class that as anti-american...I can see how Nathan might.

Again, I suppose I did talk endlessly about my burdens way back in 1997...but I was asking for help mainly, dont believe that you should brush things under the carpet to save reputations, and really didnt feel like, as a person I wasnt qualified to be Christian Section Moderator.

But this time...Well I hadnt even made up my mind on where I stood on Gun rules...So to say I was too anti-weapons for Matts Sponcers...especially the week he retires...tell me...does he need sponcers when he doesnt fight anymore?

That sounds illegitatmate even for here. I really think it was because I asked Nathan if after talking so brash he would tell us about HIS firearm (or up til recent, possibly lack thereof) that I was threatened. I insulted him personally...and he reacted.

Now, even without being a Moderator I wont shut up...Do you think its beyond belief that they will ban me after this thread. I dont want to be banned...but I wont be oppressed. I aint no slave, and never will be again :ninja:

Dave, you voluntarily resigned as a moderator and now you are playing your typical "persecution complex" games. It's funny because more than one person predicted that this is exactly what was going to happen. :rolleyes:

Either you are delusional and you need serious mental help or you are a liar.

I never held you to any standard that I don't hold myself to. You obviously have a problem with that, so you resigned your position as moderator. Now you are rewriting the event because I honestly believe that you are addicted to pity and you love to make people feel sorry for you. Somehow your self-centered nature feeds off of making everything about you.

That's what you don't seem to understand: The forum is not and never has been about you. Sorry you don't like that, but it's the truth. So you're not allowed to turn Matt's website into your own personal therapy session. That's not fair to everyone else here.

Now you are intentionally fishing for a ban because you think it will somehow prove every lie you have been telling here. Well, sorry to inform you, but you were NEVER in danger of being banned from this website.

Also, Matt still has projects in the works that he will have sponsors for. Not that it's your place to determine whether Matt needs or doesn't need sponsors.

TexasRN
01-29-2013, 10:09 AM
in an effort to rerail this thread, i will ponder whether or not the ufc should let men fighters fight women fighters?????


also, if the american people were adamant about equality they should pressure the nfl to hire female players, but that's just it, americans don't want there entertainment tainted----they know it ain't the same

Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way. I absolutely would NOT want to see that. I am all for women in mma but honestly, I don't like watching women fight as much as I like watching men fight. It's not that I'm squeamish about it, it's that the men usually put on more entertaining fights. :laugh:


~Amy

NateR
01-29-2013, 10:55 AM
Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way. I absolutely would NOT want to see that. I am all for women in mma but honestly, I don't like watching women fight as much as I like watching men fight. It's not that I'm squeamish about it, it's that the men usually put on more entertaining fights. :laugh:


~Amy

Yeah, I think a vast majority of male fighters would NEVER get into the octagon and start pummeling away at a female fighter. I know I wouldn't want to watch that.

County Mike
01-29-2013, 11:41 AM
Yeah, I think a vast majority of male fighters would NEVER get into the octagon and start pummeling away at a female fighter. I know I wouldn't want to watch that.

I'd be afraid of any woman in my weight class. (200 lbs)

VCURamFan
01-29-2013, 12:02 PM
Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way. I absolutely would NOT want to see that. I am all for women in mma but honestly, I don't like watching women fight as much as I like watching men fight. It's not that I'm squeamish about it, it's that the men usually put on more entertaining fights. :laugh:


~Amy
I think it's due to the level of technique held by most of the WMMArtists. I mean, I think their skill (& therefore entertainment) is still years behind the men right now. There are a few sand-outs like Ronda, Miesha, Marloes & Cyborg who are high-level & make for a good show, but most of the others aren't that evolved.

adamt
01-29-2013, 12:17 PM
I think it's due to the level of technique held by most of the WMMArtists. I mean, I think their skill (& therefore entertainment) is still years behind the men right now. There are a few sand-outs like Ronda, Miesha, Marloes & Cyborg who are high-level & make for a good show, but most of the others aren't that evolved.

but still, just imagine cyborg vs mighty mouse

VCURamFan
01-29-2013, 01:32 PM
but still, just imagine cyborg vs mighty mouse
I'd actually be interested in Ronda/Dominick. Most likely Dominick's footwork would be too much, but I think it'd be cool to see how his takedown D would stand up against her judo!

adamt
01-29-2013, 01:47 PM
I'd actually be interested in Ronda/Dominick. Most likely Dominick's footwork would be too much, but I think it'd be cool to see how his takedown D would stand up against her judo!

i appreciate the idea, and i usually agree with you ben, but i still think this would be a massacre, even if they weighed the same, i just don't think a typical woman can offer anything up for a typical man when it comes to hand to hand combat

throw ronda in the ring with a joe schmo, maybe, but i just don't think there is any comparison against any male in the ufc

call me a chauvanist but i ain't

VCURamFan
01-29-2013, 01:59 PM
i appreciate the idea, and i usually agree with you ben, but i still think this would be a massacre, even if they weighed the same, i just don't think a typical woman can offer anything up for a typical man when it comes to hand to hand combat

throw ronda in the ring with a joe schmo, maybe, but i just don't think there is any comparison against any male in the ufc

call me a chauvanist but i ain't
Yeah, I hear ya. I mean, that's the closest thing to a competetive male/female match-up. Cyborg/Aldo at 145 maybe, but other than that, I don't see any other situation where it'd even be in the realm of possibility.

NateR
01-29-2013, 10:41 PM
I think it's due to the level of technique held by most of the WMMArtists. I mean, I think their skill (& therefore entertainment) is still years behind the men right now. There are a few sand-outs like Ronda, Miesha, Marloes & Cyborg who are high-level & make for a good show, but most of the others aren't that evolved.

I don't even like seeing male/female wrestling or martial arts competitions. It just feels wrong.

GOD designed men and women to be different and I think we should be celebrating those differences, not trying to erase them.

rearnakedchoke
06-04-2013, 08:10 PM
i am joining the Israeli military ...

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/06/04/female_israeli_soldiers_disciplined_for_posting_ra cy_photos_on_facebook.html

Tyburn
06-05-2013, 06:13 PM
i am joining the Israeli military ...

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/06/04/female_israeli_soldiers_disciplined_for_posting_ra cy_photos_on_facebook.html

Trust someone like you to be reading The Star :rolleyes: