# Scipio's gender based pseudo psychology thread, split from Re: Female Cdn inf soldier in Afghanistan



## Scipio (7 Apr 2006)

As long as the females have to meet the EXACT requirements as men, then I have no problem with it.  Well, that's not true.  There is a thing that lies in every single man. 

It's his birthright, since the dawn of time, to wage war, start fights at bars, and generally do violent things A LOT better than women.

Even if we can't do it a lot better, we like to think we can.  You see, this is very important to the male.  Females have called it chauvinism and sexism, but to males it's just the way it is.  We feel like we're super heroes in our own right, and that physical feats and fighting heroically in war are all just means to an end----- Female admiration and increased chances at getting laid.

Ok, so males will not join the CF to get laid.  But the one thing they won't tell you, that all of them are thinking, is that it COULD and hopefully will get them laid more.  And having women in your ranks kind of drains any romance that men want out of war.  What's so heroic and manly about fighting in a battle with women, this is the mental block that will confuse us, and make us question wether we got short changed in our wartime experience.  Will women admire me when they can join this once manly institution?  What will I have on women?  Why would they bother respect me or acknowledge my attempt at waxing manly if women can join up?

Yes, men are romantic about war.  WE love the idea of dieing for our women and kids.  We want to be champions and knights.  We want to be regarded as brave and strong, characteristics that men since the dawn of time have strived for and will continue to do so.  We really take these things seriously.  Much more than women.  

You can call it childish and silly.  I don't question the female mind.  Some things about it I find silly too, but I let them be, because nothing in the world will change them, no PC pandering, government legislation, or social engineering will ever change women in our society.  ANd the same goes for men.  We see war as a mans game.  It's not personal, it's nature.


----------



## scoutfinch (7 Apr 2006)

...not SHARP trained yet, are ya???

Oh that's right -- you haven't been sworn in yet because you wouldn't be able to pass a physical exam (unlike the women who are currently serving in uniform).

Birthright, my ass. :


----------



## Scipio (7 Apr 2006)

Well you failed to see my point.  Wether a man is as strong as a women or not was never my agrument.  But thanks for the comment.


----------



## old medic (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> WE love the idea of dieing for our women and kids.



Speak for yourself.


----------



## scoutfinch (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> Well you failed to see my point.  Wether a man is as strong as a women or not was never my agrument.  But thanks for the comment.



Funny, I have never had a problem with reading comprehension before... so what was your point?

Besides,  I wasn't commenting on male v. female strength either ( :) but on the fact that you aren't in the forces so you might want to change the univeral *we* to a more personal reference.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Apr 2006)

scipio,

just stop now before you dig yourself in all the way to China


----------



## HItorMiss (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> It's his birthright, since the dawn of time, to wage war, start fights at bars, and generally do violent things A LOT better than women.



It's my birthright to do what now? you can't seriously believe that, What happened to evolution of a species past it's base instincts my friend?



			
				Scipio said:
			
		

> Even if we can't do it a lot better, we like to think we can.  You see, this is very important to the male.  Females have called it chauvinism and sexism, but to males it's just the way it is.  We feel like we're super heroes in our own right, and that physical feats and fighting heroically in war are all just means to an end----- Female admiration and increased chances at getting laid.



And here I thought I joined to protect my country and it's intrest...Wow must be my manly way of getting high on testosterone, and female adoration...No wait i did join for protecting my country and its intrests.




			
				Scipio said:
			
		

> OK, so males will not join the CF to get laid.  But the one thing they won't tell you, that all of them are thinking, is that it COULD and hopefully will get them laid more.  And having women in your ranks kind of drains any romance that men want out of war.  What's so heroic and manly about fighting in a battle with women, this is the mental block that will confuse us, and make us question wether we got short changed in our wartime experience.  Will women admire me when they can join this once manly institution?  What will I have on women?  Why would they bother respect me or acknowledge my attempt at waxing manly if women can join up?



I could careless about getting woman in my bed, I'm married, my wife was with me long before I put on this uniform, she'll likelye be with me the day I take it off. I don't need admiration from woman of even civvies, I have the respect of my peers that's all that matters to me.

Manly institution? it's a job and great one one I have devoted a lot of time to but I didn't join to be more manly.

What will I have on woman, same as I have now....absolutely nothing.

Wax manly...dude I think your not even thinking this through at this point in your argument your just throwing out words.



			
				Scipio said:
			
		

> Yes, men are romantic about war.  WE love the idea of dieing for our women and kids.  We want to be champions and knights.  We want to be regarded as brave and strong, characteristics that men since the dawn of time have strived for and will continue to do so.  We really take these things seriously.  Much more than women.



Nothing is romantic about getting shot at, or seeing your friend as burnt up hunks of meat, or a very close friend who you have known your whole career, who was the first to great you when you came back in theater as a body filling a coffin, do not come on this site and preach to real soldiers that have done the nasty business that is war about how brave we want people to think we are or how manly. You know what just stop completely, you haven't earned the right to tell us what motivates us, your not in your not in uniform and so you haven't got a clue!




			
				Scipio said:
			
		

> You can call it childish and silly.  I don't question the female mind.  Some things about it I find silly too.




Your almost right here, you are childish and silly...I question your mind I find it and you silly.


----------



## Scipio (7 Apr 2006)

Of course you did, don't recant the comment this early, I can still see the previous post.  

By pointing out that I'm still under achieving my 2.4 km run and subsequently pointing out that there are women in the CF right now that have successfully master it- you're most definitely highlighting a physical issue. An issue which will forever stick in the craw of females when it comes to BMQ requirements (9 push ups with respect to17 etc...) 

My previous comment simply stated:  Regardless of how qualified a woman is (i.e. read over qualified), men will still feel slighted at the sight of a female combatant.  And it has nothing to do with skill or worth.  It has to do with what women have come to call 'chauvinism'.  Men would simply ignore labeling the phenomena and let it go as a truism, something we see as natural.  It's silly in your eyes, and perhaps in some men's eyes.  But it stands nonetheless, and trying to kill it or over come it is not possible, the rift will always exist.  It does in the States and the UK, and women are not even allowed in combant roles in those countries.

*
But to take it on a physical level-*

I do believe men are both stronger in the means and extremes.  I don't think it can be denined.  Now, I would like to believe only the best men make it into the armed forces.  Of course they don't.  Not all male candidates are top quality and in that light, women would not be at a disadvantage if they applied.  

Consider this, If the ARMY only did take in the cream of the crops, like say a Seal,SAS, or perhaps a JTF2 BMQ selection pool, then women would be at a major disadvantage.  And so it stands women are inelgiable for those positions.  

So when a Military starts recruiting women in combat, it says something.  It says so few quality selection pools are being brought forth, that we need to take in what we can get.   The Canadian government may have thought about this, but more likely they would rather have  PC army that makes them look friendly than actually build a killing force which can live up to it's prime directive, to protect Canada.


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio....

How the youth of this country can still think that dieing for your country is a heroic act is beyond me! When the excrement hits the objects rapidly moving in a circular pattern very few people think about dieing for their country. 

Go see the movie 'Patton': "You dont die for your country, you make the OTHER poor bastard die for HIS country!"

Even better see 'Blachawk Down', the line from Hootch the delta soldier is one of the truist statements ever uttered: "Why do we do it? We dont do it for our country..we do it for our buddies."  

Basically, we shoot and kill to save ourselves and our fellow soldiers.  When you get into a tight situation, you couldnt care frigging less about the flag (heretical and disloyal as that may sound); what matters is getting you and your team out in one piece, your brothers AND sisters, men AND women, who you spend more time with than even your wife, getting out alive and preferably a single piece.


----------



## scoutfinch (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio is a troll. He is not worth my time, your effort or Mike's bandwidth.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Apr 2006)

My last entry in response to this troll,



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> scipio,
> 
> just stop now before you dig yourself in all the way to China



Remember when i told you this ?


Come back when you have some experience to back up your.......er......BS.  Right now you are just looking to piss people off and that will not be received well here.


----------



## Pea (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> Consider this, If the ARMY only did take in the cream of the crops, like say a Seal,SAS, or perhaps a JTF2 BMQ selection pool, then women would be at a major disadvantage.  And so it stands women are inelgiable for those positions.
> 
> *So when a Military starts recruiting women in combat, it says something.  It says so few quality selection pools are being brought forth, that we need to take in what we can get.*   The Canadian government may have thought about this, but more likely they would rather have  PC army that makes them look friendly than actually build a killing force which can live up to it's prime directive, to protect Canada.



Are you freaking kidding me?! You are saying that because the Military is recruiting females they are "just taking what they can get". I don't get all feminist and angry over stupid comments often, but I sure am glad there is a computer screen between us right now. And before I say something that will get me banned from a site I really love, I am giving myself a time out!


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Apr 2006)

AAAAANNNDDD,

I was in the 3 VP when the first female infanteer came in to the unit.  The unit opinion was split n half; half said get rid of the ***** and the other half said 'let her prove herself'.  Let me tell you, she had guts and drive and determination, and was a better soldier than a lot of the guys I worked with.  The problem was almost all of the CSMs refused to have her in  their rifle coy's, so she got put into the maintenance pool until she finally said ''I am friggin out of here". 

Since then I have worked with a lot of female service members, and they are just like the guys.  Some of them cant pull their weight, but a lot of others were good leaders and kicked ***.  The same goes for female soldiers I worked with in the US.   

Strength isnt everything. You're supposed to work smarter, not harder!

I will admit only ONE exception that I know of - artillery: youve got to be strong to move those damn big shells around!


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Apr 2006)

Card_11:

"You go girl!"

If it gets into a fight, Im putting my money on Card


----------



## scoutfinch (7 Apr 2006)

My money is on card too.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Apr 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> My money is on card too.


Ditto 
 :argument:


----------



## 2 Cdo (7 Apr 2006)

Of course in a fight between man and women I will always take the women! : Stupid comments, stupid thread, always breaks down into PC bullsh*t! 

On a final note, on AVERAGE, men are stronger than women period, end stop!
Centurian, said female was in my section in A Coy when she showed up in Vic and while she could pull her weight she was the EXCEPTION, and not the rule when it comes to females in the combat arms! 

Now I think it's time to go because the wife is calling!


----------



## Scipio (7 Apr 2006)

Yikes, those are some ugly comments.  Not one person here actually gave a good retort and all I got was flack.  Automatic defense mechanisms light up like fire crackers, but no real argument was made in defense. But prove me wrong.  Prove to me that women can match men in means and extremes.  There must be some sources out there.  That was my only real factual point.  The latter half of the comment was just extraplated points based on the latter principle.

My comment prior was simply dealing with the mentality of a typical young male.  As I pm'd one person, it could read as a satire, it's silly but also holds truth.  It merely explained why this chavenism exists.    

But sure, women can fight.  Castro had female fighters, Russian women manned flak guns at Stalingrad, British girls stood fast on AA cannons during WW2, even some females were noted to fight by tacitus during the Roman conquest of the tin islands.

All the above events were worst case scenarios that called for desperate measures.  Anyone with a pulse in their veins were eligable and hired on the spot, if not forced.

I think women can fight.  I think men can fight better.  I think many men out there do have mental problem with trying to come to gripes with the idea of a female commado sharing his fox hole.  I think an army that hires women is up todate.  I think an army that lets them fight is a bit pretentious.  I'm told women have to get the same results as men early in this thread.  But every other source I've seen, from the CF to the Royal Brit Military and the US military all say otherwise.  They say females have easier requirements.

I don't care for the spliting of the previous thread. I also find it in poor taste to put my name in the thread title with some negative tag like "pseduo" following it.  

I never once attacked any one here, but voiced an opinion.  And your first move is to demonize me and try attract negative comments.  Troll?

I also don't understand how almost every one here can't analyise a comment and find the underlining point.

*Are you freaking kidding me?! You are saying that because the Military is recruiting females they are "just taking what they can get"*

I'm saying that _is_ the impression it gives, with respect to my theory (which is a popular one that holds strong in the UK and US). Re-read.  Wether the Canadian army is doing it or not is debatable.  But image is important to a military.  And certain things speak volumes about it's soldiers.  If you step through my logic in the last post, perhaps you will see my conclusion.


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Apr 2006)

2 CDO, 

I was speaking of women across the service.  If however, you restrict the category to 'combat arms only', where upper body strength is more important due to combat loads of 65-120 pounds (depending on arm, specialty, and mission being performed), then I am forced to grudgingly concede a minor point.


----------



## monika (7 Apr 2006)

Good grief.

I have no idea how old you are, but you have some serious growing up to do.

Women don't want men who will die for them; we want men who will *live* for us.

Scipio, I would love to see you go head to head on the BFT with our female troops.

No doubt the average male has more physical strength than the average female, but training, passion, perseverance and a focused mind are not exclusive to either sex.


----------



## Pea (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> *Are you freaking kidding me?! You are saying that because the Military is recruiting females they are "just taking what they can get"*
> 
> I'm saying that _is_ the impression it gives, with respect to my theory (which is a popular one that holds strong in the UK and US). Re-read.



I have read and re-read your previous statement many times. I did this because I damn near fell off my chair when I read it the first time, and wanted to make sure I wasn't seeing things.



			
				Scipio said:
			
		

> Wether the Canadian army is doing it or not is debatable.  But image is important to a military.  And certain things speak volumes about it's soldiers.  If you step through my logic in the last post, perhaps you will see my conclusion.



*"So when a Military starts recruiting women in combat, it says something.  It says so few quality selection pools are being brought forth, that we need to take in what we can get."*

I see your conclusion. You said that you believe that looking to recruit women into combat is done because not very many quality selection pools are available. This means they now look "lower" to women, since they obviously wouldn't be included in these "quality selection pools" you speak of. Why would we be included, we are _just_ women after all.  :


----------



## orange.paint (7 Apr 2006)

How about you re direct your anger to getting yourself into good shape to get INTO the army first. Are females in the combat arms all lazy and useless?No.Are a large percentage?Undecided.All I know I knew two,and only two women in the armoured trade who could actually do their jobs.Also I knew a infanteer once who could kick most guys asses,man she was big dumb and strong.She's out now but man what a troop.

I also can count about 2000 males who are lazy sacks of shit,fat,weak etc.So on percentage wise who is the worst soldier really?

I personally think your they type of guy who would use sweeping generalisations towards many groups of people.And may find yourself in crap with the sharp team if you ever get in.Being the army who treatens to charge a troop for nude pic of ladies in a locker, in a sqn with NO females.

Personally I could give two fks about saving the women (except my own family) and babies.I guess I wasn't raised to feel bad for females,therefor if their in uniform they better do the same job or get shit for it.I don't care if their genetic's make them weaker,I'm 5 foot nothing and I promise I can outrun/outruck a lot of people.So should I give up training physically and say "genetics made my legs 6 inches long so I don't have to keep up?" No you adapt and overcome.Put PT on a PER and boot out per's male/female who don't "make the team."I know a lot of fit women in this army who would agree.

I hate Sharpe training, and wish to be able to shoot the "I'm 37 and a mother of 13 I'm allowed to be fat and sit at my desk" per's.

It all comes down to can they meet the minimum standards?
can they do the job?

I won't get into my rant of minimum standards.

My wife is Ex army their scorpio and I'm willing to bet she can run your ass in the ground.She was also advance permot ed and many accommodations and little "good job" plaques from Canada and USA....then she got out and followed my dumb ass around...poor girl.


----------



## aluc (7 Apr 2006)

oh dear Scipio.....no matter if your theory makes any sense at all....people just won't listen  when it comes down to pointing out that maybe...just maybe we aren't all equal and capable of doing anything as well as everyone else (contrary to popular belief). Like clockwork your theory is shot down before anyone actually reads it carefully. The mere mention that a man may actually do something better, or is more suited to doing a better job is taboo (you should know that). We do everything exactly the same. We all have the same capabilities, thus nothing should stop us from achieving our lofty goals. The world is just one big happy place where we (.no matter how different all races and sexes can be) are all equal.  It's a horrible business...this being a man and all.

bad...bad..evil... men... >


lay it on me people....


----------



## Pea (7 Apr 2006)

Aluc,

I read this theory. I never said that I believed that we are all equal, because I know better than that. I know that I do not have the upper body strength of most of my male friends. However, I do know a gal who is way more built and fit than ANY guy I know. Yes it took her a lot of effort and work to get her form, but she did it.

The point of this is not that we get pissy anytime someone says we are not "equal" to men. My point is that he was wrong to say that by recruiting females into the military we are taking people below what they should. What about being a female makes me any less qualified to be a great soldier? If women are fit to do the job and want to, back off and let them do it. People need to be judged for what they can do on an individual basis, who the heck cares what sex they are. I sure don't.

*edit for typo


----------



## geo (7 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> The problem was almost all of the CSMs refused to have her in  their rifle coy's, so she got put into the maintenance pool until she finally said ''I am friggin out of here".
> 
> Since then I have worked with a lot of female service members, and they are just like the guys.  Some of them cant pull their weight, but a lot of others were good leaders and kicked ***.  The same goes for female soldiers I worked with in the US.
> 
> I will admit only ONE exception that I know of - artillery: youve got to be strong to move those damn big shells around!



Upper body strength can be worked on...... and for the real heavy gear - it's a small party task and you shouldn't be lifting it on your own in the 1st place.

many women in the Engineer trade...... and even with bridging - they pull their weight...


----------



## George Wallace (7 Apr 2006)

This mentality was what existed just a 'few years' ago (in the middle of the past century) with Race.  Blacks were not thought to be good enough to be soldiers.  Before that, in Roman times, I imagine the Gauls were not considered enough to be absorbed into the Legions.   Times change.  Society's perceptions change.  I do wonder where Scipio has been brought up to have these views, as I am sure they are far from the norm in today's Canadian Public School Curriculum?


----------



## Tilstonguy (7 Apr 2006)

A female can pull a trigger just as easily as a male can. :fifty:


----------



## Scipio (7 Apr 2006)

*



			I see your conclusion. You said that you believe that looking to recruit women into combat is done because not very many quality selection pools are available. This means they now look "lower" to women, since they obviously wouldn't be included in these "quality selection pools" you speak of. Why would we be included, we are just women after all.  Roll Eyes
		
Click to expand...

*
Ok, let me do a coles notes for you.  This is related to women in combat infantry or any direct combat role.  

1) True- Men are physically more capable in the means and extremes for armed combat, in comparison to women. Do you buy that?  If not, then don't bother read on.

2) The military has a screening process to find quality candidates. Theoretically they only want the prime pickings.

Now it branches off into two different streams.  Since men should out score women in equal requirements in an overshadowing majoirty (push ups, chin ups, raw endurance, lifting)..........

3a) Women are hired because they superceded the quality of the male candidates due to a poor turn out of males.  IE- women beat the odds.  

3b) There are not enough candidates, PERIOD, therefore, quotas to match turnover rates are met by taking the best of what is given.  Which is not really prime pickings.

Connotations of  3a)

Women were taken, not because they are the best, but because they are the best of what was available.

Connotations of 3b)

Women were taken, not because they are the best, but because they are the best of what was available.

Still with me?

Ok, great.  So whether the Canadian selection pool IS Lacking or IS NOT lacking- it's moot.  The point is, the result of letting women fight in combat lends to the idea that the selection pool is LACKING more so than NOT.  And that able men are not applying.  

What does it say in the end? The Canadian governement is either not intrested in creating an efficient warmachine machine *or* they are interested but feel women's rights are being infringed *or* The Canadian army will not advertise and market itself to the populace.  (popular consensus among civillians is that our army is too irrelvant and small to give consideration too, which is BS, films have done a good job on cementing such tripe-Canadian films)

However, as I already suggested, *the above is probably not the case* (Infact I'm sure it isn't).  It has more to do with Canadian liberalism and the idea of building a PC army as oppose to an effective one.  Heck, the same group who rallied behind women in combat are the same group who cut military funding, slashed the number of ships, planes, and soldiers, abolished old uniforms (later returned by demand), and set quotas that MUST be met for certain peoples within the ARMY, refered to our soldiers as 'boy scouts', shipped them around the world on dangerous missions-poorly equipped, and generally went out of their way to emasculate the once mighty Royal Canadian Military (sounds much stronger than CF, no?).   It's called Political Correctness.  It's called pandering.  These people never intented for Canada to have a mighty army.  Chretien, Trudeau, and almost every other liberal party lacky would soon rather see the military gone than effective at full force.  It was in a dieing state not to long ago.  The people that lobbied women in combat don't give a rats behind about the esprit de corps within the army.  Infact, they went out of their way to kill it.

*Aluc*, of course you're right, and I'm an idiot for trying.  I didn't expect open arms, but I certainly did not expect the childish and malicious responses that I got.  I thank God the Conservatives got into office.  I have great hopes that they will do what they say.  Our soldiers in Afghan are equipped with cutting edge material and their presence is felt with a nice sized garrison, and to top it off the mission is over seen by a red blooded Canuck.  I really hope he keeps to his word with those budget boosts.


----------



## HItorMiss (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> JTF2 BMQ selection pool, then women would be at a major disadvantage.  And so it stands women are ineligible for those positions.




Intresting.....And you would know that woman are ineligible for JTF2 how?

Guess what?

_*WRONG!*_

Romantic illusions of war my arse! no man joins with the idea that killing someone for their country is cool, and if they do trust me that get's pounded out their head so fast I think it hurts them.

You can't even run 2.4km in the allotted time and yet you come here and spout off at the mouth, your not exactly qualified to tell us what is happening in the military or why we do things.

Aluc:

You know what... I'm not happy with woman in Cbt Arms however I do what I'm told and I am told that they will be here so I STFU (like I suggest you do)about it and do my job. Not everyone is equal your right about that, but that doesn't mean they can't try and succeed or fail on their own, like Scipio here he tried and failed, how about you Mr blank profile what have failed lately...Oh right you failed to impress anyone on this site with your sarcastic comments on equality.

Are we all equal?

Not in my eyes, neither of you are equal to Card, Scoutfinch, NavyMich, Muffin or any serving woman on this board, not even by half!
Let alone the others on here who have been in the forces longer then you have been a gleam in your daddy's eye!


*EDIT* I missed Muffin, and well that aint right


----------



## GAP (7 Apr 2006)

> Times change.  Society's perceptions change.  I do wonder where Scipio has been brought up to have these views, as I am sure they are far from the norm in today's Canadian Public School Curriculum



Not quite. From what I see and hear from my sons and their friends, I can only shake my head. It makes you want to give them a slap up the side of the head too. They don't _seen _ to know any different. A lot of it is media/friends/??, a lot of MSN speak is filled with it, the young'ens seem to find being chauvinistic cool, and the girls accept it. 

I put my sons on the spot when they come out with some of this s***, and yeah, they know different, but to them it's cool and they want to fit in. 

Then I see and listen to the attitudes once they reach 20-21 and it's the reverse, like there was a little tiny switch somewhere. Go Figure!!


----------



## aluc (7 Apr 2006)

Card_11, 

trust me, there is nothing wrong with women in the military if they are held to the same standards that were set before them.  I respect women, and more so military women (and men) because of the nature of the job. However, all Scipio was eluding to (i think) is that men are more predisposed to war and violence than women probably because of social conditioning throughout history. I think it is a valid point, and I don't believe he is belittling women. I'm not sure about the Cf recruiting women and lessening the standards because of a shortage of manpower though...it could be a possibility however.... Who knows. That's the whole point of debating such issues...because we don't know. I'm not saying I support that assumption, eventhough it is possible I don't think it's probable. (anything is possible!) 

 My previous comment was probably in the wrong context, but I was kind of alluding to the fact that we (as a society) tend to teach people that we should strive for the moon, even if we know that certain people (try as they may) will never, ever reach  the moon, and it's not a good thing.

For instance, we tell kids when they're in school that they should strive to reach university. Not all kids will have the smarts, the money etc to reach that goal ( in part to due societal factors they have no control of). Then you're left with a group of disenfranchised kids who hate the world around them and everything it stands for. In keeping with my example, I don't think it's bad if you don't get into university, as long as you do something worthwhile and do it well, so you can be proud out what you're doing. But when you dumb things down in order to include everyone, even those that really don't belong there, problems will arise. People in general ( I'm not bashing women here!) have to realise their limitations . We prop people up just to let them down, and then they cry bloody murder when they don't get what they want because they aren't qualified enough to do it (Gotta go back to work sorry for the abrupt ending). hope this made sopme sense , kinda rushed at work right now. :-\


----------



## calvinparks (7 Apr 2006)

I don't think someone has to pass the PT test to express their thoughts about the military.  I don't particularly see chauvinism in the thread either.  In terms of military requirements, besides the obvious different physical standards on entry, are there any other differences for entry?  Any recruiters out there that would know whether there are gender/racial quotas to be met?  Would all applicants who are equally qualified receive the same consideration for a position?  Maybe ... however, does anyone who posted on the thread know for sure?  Everyone seems to agree that on the whole men are more physically developed than women.  However, I agree with perseverance, work ethic, etc. making up for some (however, I also believe that men work as hard and persevere as much as women - no one jumped on that earlier).  If a female or male can perform as required, I don't think it should matter what sex they are.  As for the males wanting to die for their country and get laid ... well, I am not a teenager anymore and I am no longer delusional (if I ever was) about what would get me laid, but I could never imagine that becoming a soldier would get me into more beds.  Sure, guys like to puff up their chests, perform athletic feats to impress females (instinct, no?), however, we are also well gifted with an immensely powerful brain that allows us to rationalize what we do and why we do it.  If we look at things from a purely elementary instinctual point of view, maybe some of what was posted in the initial thread makes sense, however, we have the ability to rationalize etc. and I think that is what makes us able to control 'primal urges' etc. until necessary to release.  And I have not combat experience etc. however, I cannot imagine getting past saving my skin and the skin of my 'brothers' in a tight situation.  I am not joining the country to die for it, nor to get laid.  I am joining to defend Canada as I feel it is my duty to give back for what I have received.  If it means getting into situations where I might die, then so be it, however, it is not my wish to do so.  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (7 Apr 2006)

Theres woman in the forces.....???? Thought we were all Soldiers!!!!


----------



## muffin (7 Apr 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> *EDIT* I missed Muffin, and well that aint right



Well I was going to stay out of it because I don't think you can change a person's mind in a few posts - but I will tell you my 2 cents (since you mentioned me  )

Although when I joined the military my PT requirements were less than that of a man - they sure as hell weren't once I hit training! If the men ran we ran - if they dropped for 50 so did we... there was no gender "coddling" on course, so regardless of the lower PT test scores etc - if you are goign to hack it in the service you have to be able to exceed the minimum; this goes for men AND women alike.

I know many men and women who fly through the tests and many men and women who struggle with the PT test... and in my opinion if you can't do it , it is probably time to consider a different career. After my 2 kids, I wasn't in the same shape I was when I joined and it didn't look like I was going to get there too quickly - so I released. I could have worked my ass off to get back to the shape I was in before I had kids - but those 3-4 hours a day I could have spent at the gym, I chose to spend with my family. (That was the right decision for me - not for everyone).

Regardless of why you can't do it any more (gender, age, motivation, whatever) you should move on and not expect the rest of the military to slow down to accomidate you. 

I do NOT believe it has anything to do with being a woman or man. I knew a navy Cdr once, a woman (Journeyman you may remember her  ) who could whoop anyone's ass at PT (man or woman). While I do think that being able to meet/exceed the standard is necessary to be a good soldier, and all members of a unit should be able to do all jobs required regardless of gender... I do not think that brute strenth alone makes a good soldier.... but that is for another rant.

muffin

*edit spelling


----------



## Journeyman (7 Apr 2006)

Well, since Muffin mentioned me......    (and yes I do recall the sailor in question    )

I just love threads like this. Much like car-wrecks...but self-inflicted. You just sit back and watch a person dig themselves deeper and deeper, occasionally contradict themselves as they concede points, but end up at the bottom of the well nonetheless. 

If nothing else, they reaffirm the recurring themes in posts by these "being banned in waiting" contributors: A) little to no practical, real-world  experience, and B) an inability to see how this lack (exacerbated by the common "blank profile") blinds others to their self-believed "obvious, inarguable wisdom." 

Now, while trying to avoid an _ad hominem_ attack on you Scipio, with all your self-avowed intellect.....do you not see even a remote disconnect between your absence of any military experience (yet you feel qualified to declare how *I* want to die for women), your inability to pass a 2.4 km run (a standard which has been greatly diminished since I joined, by the way), and your going on and on about the supposed lesser abilities of females, including those who _have_ exceeded your abilities?

That's a rhetorical question by the way. I wish only that, rather than assuming people here are attacking _you_, perhaps people just find your premises completely laughable.

P.S.
A) there's never been a "Royal Canadian Military," 
B) a JTF-2 standard BMQ would prove difficult for both genders, and
C) I bet the thread's locked before Card kicks his butt


----------



## Pea (7 Apr 2006)

I have always hated Cole's Notes. I happen to have an above average reading comprehension level, and therefore don't require your assistance. I stand by my interpretation of your line about having to settle for females.

I am a firm believer that the entrance standards for the Military should be the same for men & women. I will not do my PT test unless I know I can meet the minimum standards for the men as I will have to "keep up" when I do end up on course. Just for your info Scipio, I being female and all, run the 2.4 km to the male standard, have the hand grip to the male standard, and the sit ups to the male standard. My pushups are sadly just below that standard, but I am getting there! So, does this place me in the group of "qualified" applicants? You said that you cannot meet the male standard on the run right now. Does this make me a more ideal candidate now because I can? That's odd, I thought you were the male.

*Edit for typo.


----------



## scoutfinch (7 Apr 2006)

On that happy note, I am going to head off to my weekend BMQ where the women get to do PT and training at their convenience while the men have to do it according to the training standards. :  (Sadly, we don't get to do any real PT on my BMQ which is mighty disappointing because I wanted a chance to show those little whippersnappers that they really need to respect their elders!)

But while we are at it... can someone explain to me why a pushup is the almight Holy Grail in determing physical fitness.  I am course with guys that can do more pushups than I but they sure as hell can't run 20K and probably can't do a 13 K ruckmarch.  So what makes them a better soldier than I?  I don't get it.  Yes, physical strength is important but I suspect endurance and the ability to operate while fatigued (talk to me after running 18 or 19 kms) are equally as valuable as pushup ability.

Off to BMQ for another weekend...


----------



## FastEddy (7 Apr 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That's a rhetorical question by the way. I wish only that, rather than assuming people here are attacking _you_, perhaps people just find your premises completely laughable.



Yes, you're completely on course, but I can fully understand why some Members are angry and insulted.

The only re-deeming point of his Thread, is that he's sticking around to defend it (unlike PIKE).

I would be interested to know, if his assumptions apply also to the recruitment of Females into Law Enforcement Agencies ?.

Cheers


----------



## FastEddy (7 Apr 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> But while we are at it... can someone explain to me why a pushup is the almight Holy Grail in determing physical fitness.  I am course with guys that can do more pushups than I but they sure as hell can't run 20K and probably can't do a 13 K ruckmarch.  So what makes them a better soldier than I?  I don't get it.  Yes, physical strength is important but I suspect endurance and the ability to operate while fatigued (talk to me after running 18 or 19 kms) are equally as valuable as pushup ability.
> 
> Off to BMQ for another weekend...




Wow! now that's a really good question, (disregarding the Age Old Military Tradition).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Apr 2006)

Because its easy to tell 50 people to drop and give me 30, but really time consuming to have all line up at the weight bench? ;D


----------



## scoutfinch (7 Apr 2006)

LOL 

ushup:

Good point, Bruce.  Either way... I still hate 'em and I suck at them.  Oh well.  I will persevere reminding myself  "That which does not kill me, makes me stronger"!


----------



## navymich (7 Apr 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Not in my eyes, neither of you are equal to Card, Scoutfinch, NavyMich, Muffin or any serving woman on this board, not even by half!
> Let alone the others on here who have been in the forces longer then you have been a gleam in your daddy's eye!
> *EDIT* I missed Muffin, and well that aint right



Thanks for the mention HoM 

I understand completely that being a sailor doesn't compare physically with soldiers, so I'm not even going to add to the discussion on that.  But I would just like you to know Sciopio that the ship I currently am posted to has a female XO, a female coxn, and myself as a sr. navcomm.  Those are 3 very senior positions all filled by women.  They were not given to us because there was nobody else available for them.  They were given to us by merit because we have proven that we can do the job better then others.  My department is currently all male, and has been for a number of years.  They have no complaints about being led by a woman, and our department has risen above others time and time again.  Am I bragging?  You bet you a$$ I am.  I am proud to be a woman, I am proud to be a sailor, and I am proud to be a part of the Canadian Forces.

And if you are the man that you are trying to say you are, I dare you to find any of us women from the board and tell us face to face that we can not do our job physically or mentally.  

And now I too will back off because if I don't someone is going to have to hold me back.


----------



## camochick (7 Apr 2006)

I find it funny that scipio nor the ones who agree with him like aluc and calvinparks are not even in the military yet (or dont have anything in their profile to suggest that) yet they see fit to be arm chair judges of women in the military. I wont even argue this point because it seems to come up every few months or so. All I can say to these gentlemen is that women are in the forces and they will remain in the forces and if you cant handle it, i suggest you find different means of employment ie Tim Hortons (they are hiring for the new one in khandahar, probably the closest you will get to seeing any real action considering you cant even pass the minimum standards to get in the forces) >


----------



## 043 (7 Apr 2006)

Well, I am in the Military and after reading this...........he does have some points I agree with.  When it comes down to PT, IMHO, the BFT is too easy. Anyone can walk with a load on for 13km in 2hrs 26min or they should be able to. Me personally, I find the Express Test much harder than the BFT. I don't agree with what some people as about women in the combat arms either but I will get to that later. 

Chimo!


----------



## Pikache (7 Apr 2006)

I am about hairwidth away from pressing the Big Shiny Button called 'Thread Closed'.

If it degenerates into waste of Bandwidth (btw female in military has been covered and beaten to death) I will close this.
-HF, some staff guy


----------



## Glorified Ape (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> Russian women manned flak guns at Stalingrad



They did a lot more than that at Stalingrad and elsewhere in Russia as well. I suggest you read "On the Road to Stalingrad: Memoirs of a Soviet Woman Machine Gunner" by Zoya Matveyevna Smirnova Medvedeva. 

That being said, the only decent argument against women in the combat arms that I've heard is the low cost-benefit ratio to offering them the training, given their (generally significant) higher rate of failure, such as: 



> From: http://www.cmrlink.org/international.asp?docID=113
> 
> · In a test requiring soldiers to carry 90 lbs. of artillery shells over measured distances, the male failure rate was 20%. The female failure rate was 70%.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trinity (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> You can call it childish and silly.



Scipio

I've read the entire thread from start to finish, not following it 
from its inception. You come out with a "gender theory" of the male
ego which makes indirect and direct statements about men and women
in the military.  Your statement *this theory, conflicts with the current
views of our current soldiers and they tell you directly they disagree.

Some, as in your quote, are calling it childish and silly.  Your response
to them was, "well you just don't get it".  

We get it.  You've tried in a few posts to explain your point.  I understand
exactly what you are trying to portray.  I would say most of this site understands
judging from their posts.  

Whats important to note, *just because they disagree doesn't mean they fail to understand.  

*

You then state, there has to be factual proof out there to back up your claim.  There 
very well could be and that would be fantastic to aid your argument.  However, its not 
my job or the job of anyone else to provide that to bolster you argument.  You really
need to Google it yourself and provide a link. Otherwise your argument is going to get
cut apart due to the lack of evidence, EVEN if it sounded reasonable.  

Your argument has failed to meet or hold any type of water however true it may
be simply because you failed to present it with facts but simply compounded your
theory with more theory and personal opinion.  


I would like to think, as a Chaplain (look that word up if you need to), I have
given your theory a fair shake/consideration. With my background Masters
I often play in the realm of theoretical examples and ideas.  I have an extreme
difficulty with what you present because it seems very contradictory to everyday
military practices (which can be considered fact) and military personnel views (which
can be considered opinion).  It doesn't quite pass the litmus test.  



BUT.. now that we are playing in the theoretical

in response to your theory.. i will add my theory  ;D


Yes, instinctively we were threatened by women how many years ago.  As humans, we evolve.
Our consciousness grows, our understanding brodens.  We used to think the sun, moon and
universe revolved around earth and we were the centre.  Or the world was flat.  For humans
that was TRUTH through our instinct/faith and it couldn't be proven wrong during that time.

When it was proven wrong sure it was HUGE change to the entire world but we made it. Our
existence as we knew it was changed forever and we survived.  Women are no longer a threat
here in Canada and we are making that change.  Sure, not everyone is on board and there may
be a minority of people who vehemently reject women, but its more about* attitude and social justice*,
not politically correctness/liberalism.  However, for most people, they have adopted this social justice
change, (like Bruce mentioned earlier with blacks) and life goes on.  We minimize and then dismiss the
threat as we become used to it.  

Thus, *I would suggest*, we as men have accepted women in the workplace, minimized the threat in our 
own minds, and have accepted and even enjoy the change.  

Sides, I love it when a women higher than me bosses me around.. but that's a different story! 



EDIT.  My ramblings/theory are of my own and do not represent the thoughts, feelings, expressions, understandings,
religious affiliation, sexual preference, blood type of anyone else and I retain the right to amend, change, erase, deny, and
sit in the corner and cry if you don't like what I say.


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Apr 2006)

Back from a days work interrogating local managers about training issues:

Unfortunately *trinity* has beaten me to the soapbox in summing up this issue and the generally poor logic and perceptions on the part of people 'not even in the military' 

So, trinity can keep the soapbox for the time being.  And to show my disdain for the argument used by young 'im-not-in-but-I-would-be-if-I-werent-such-a-genepool-throwback' persons, I will purposely divert the topic back to 'scoutfinch':

I like the little smiley guy doing pushups, but what exactly is that luminous looking pool under him? Is that supposed to be a reflection, sweat, or some liquid bodily waste?


----------



## acclenticularis (7 Apr 2006)

No one out there to answer the query re. entrance requirements other than PT?  Is it on a level playing field regardless of sex and race?  I am in the military and I don't totally disagree with scipio, just mostly.  I have encountered excellent troops of both sexes and trolls of both as well.  Didn't actually see much in parks' post that lead me to believe that he totally agreed with the scipio either.  Objectively, I think that regardless of perceived flaws in recruiting standards, there are plenty of great troops out there.  Interestingly, I don't really see many in the military complaining too much about females meeting standards (at least I have not encountered much in my brief time as a poster on ARMY.CA).  Without facts to back up arguments (for the arguments that can be factually supported) maybe scipio should avoid certain issues.  If he can prove that there are different entrance standards (other than PT), then provide the proof.  If there are quotas based on sex/race/religion/etc. then provide the proof first.  His post only shows his bias.


----------



## Scipio (7 Apr 2006)

Trinity

My only factual statement was- men are stronger than women on average and that the most ideal male candidate is superior to the most ideal female candidate.  And if you don't believe that, then you've successfully ignored a very obvious difference between the sexes.  Sports, historical roles, violent crimes, physical stature etc... support my ‘theory’, which of course is not mine.  

I did not feel I needed proof to support my one grounded claim.  But to appease you:

http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/STRENGTH.HTM.  

The paragraph basically says men are stronger, but women can produce the same effective force relative to their frame.  But that's the rub, relative.  The majority can't supercede a male’s effective force, only match it in relative size.  

As far as 'factual evidence' supporting my satirical take on a male chauvinists mind.  Before you dismiss it as tomfoolery, I want you to tell me what exactly is lacking.  The idea that maxim magazine exist in numerous incarnations, terms like sexism popped up, the romantic take men have on warfare through film, literature, and song, etc... All, I believe, support my claim. My point was more pointing towards "it does exist in healthy numbers in society" 

I know what a Chaplain is, but thanks for your concern.  I often get confused by words I'm familiar with and become distraught. But rest assure, I'll look it up if I can't grasp it.  I'd like to think some one with a master degree would not be so redundant on the first half of their comment.  500 of your words told me that my comments are not supported by evidence. Be more concise (look that up under "C")

Since we are in agreement that the support of the claim rests entirely on the claimant.  Support the follow.



> difficulty with what you present because it seems very contradictory to everyday
> military practices.... It doesn't quite pass the litmus test.


  

As for your rhetoric - it does not at all serve well against my 'theory'.  Infact, you're not even on par with me. 
You speak of wrong and right.  I speak of a current mind set that is popular in young males.  That being, the importance of being physically superior to women in a males mind, and the emasculation of not keeping the status quo. The Alpha male syndrome on top of which the sexual undertones that accompany fighting men.  Fire Fighters are also in this category.  I see it as healthy male silliness.  You see it as a problem which is hurting the few women out their interested in joining those institutions.

What a 'liberated' women can't have, she must have.  And men, such as you, will jump on their wagon in support.  You propose that men should not longer feel threatened by women.  Well, where do you draw that line?  Are you telling me that the sexes should not be threaten by one another at all, all is fair and equal?  Well it's not.  Almost every male institution in North America has been infiltrated by women.  Even boy scouts, which is now just scouts, fell victim to theory you subscribe too.  The very idea of a private male organization now lenda to eliteism and sexism, regardless of how obsucre it may seem.

Warfare, it's an occupation of the highest importance is historically seen as a male affair.  Men are stronger, so it stands to reason.  Men seem to be more prone to violence, wrote the books on gaining glory (romantic stuff) and generally see themselves as being slightly alpha male-ish as being in a warfare environment.

The whole bag.  Everything from physical aptitude to mentality are crucial to the social fibers within the military.  Lets say you're right, men should not feel threatened for every reason and plus some that you stated.  It will not change the fact that they ARE threatened and that some of the air is drained from service when GI Jane is next to you.  And since men are almost 99.9%, around the globe, more likely to enlist we should cater to their needs.  Let's say the issue is split 50/50 in the Canadian military.  That's still 50% distraught men, all for the sake of a small number of women.  I would be surprised to see a vote turn out that actually is in support of keeping women in combat roles.  I feel an anonymous vote would turn out in my favor among combat infantry members.  Just a feeling of mine.  Young men tend to think as I pointed out, ime.



> be a minority of people who vehemently reject women, but its more about attitude and social justice,
> not politically correctness/liberalism.



I'd argue that it's more than a minority, but I can't prove it and neither can you.  Moreover, attitude and social justice are tools which help fuel PC liberalism.  They are not independent entities. They claim social justice.  I think a good portion of the time it's not.  

*Sides, I love it when a women higher than me bosses me around.. but that's a different story! *

You actually had me there for a moment, you're as sexist as I am! 

Bottom line is the training standards are not equal.  This means inferior candidates are joining.  A man that can only do 10 push ups is considered inferior and asked to come back later.  A female that can only do 9 push ups is considered superior and is given a job.  

The moral ambiguity is out in the open and at this point, rather embarrassing.

PS- Women were not getting into the CF in a capacity that the government wanted, they could not pass the entrance tests.  Therefore they dummied them down, to up the % of females.  It's dirty pool.  All things equal is not the case.


----------



## camochick (7 Apr 2006)

" Everything from physical aptitude to mentality are crucial to the social fibers within the military."


Yet again, making statements about a military you are not qualified to join. Why not give up now and go for a run instead of wasting our time with your round about rhetoric about things which you have no clue. Your point has been heard and shot down, so time to move along. With that attitude it surprising that you know any women in which to judge. >


----------



## Pea (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> What a 'liberated' women can't have, she must have.  And men, such as you, will jump on their wagon in support.  You propose that men should not longer feel threatened by women.  Well, where do you draw that line?  Are you telling me that the sexes should not be threaten by one another at all, all is fair and equal?  Well it's not.  Almost every male institution in North America has been infiltrated by women.  Even boy scouts, which is now just scouts, fell victim to theory you subscribe too.  The very idea of a private male organization now lenda to eliteism and sexism, regardless of how obsucre it may seem.
> 
> PS- Women were not getting into the CF in a capacity that the government wanted, they could not pass the entrance tests.  Therefore they dummied them down, to up the % of females.  It's dirty pool.  All things equal is not the case.



Why should men feel threatened by me? If you are so superior then what do you have to worry about? I am not threatened by men, at all. So we have "infiltrated" all your organizations. Oh no, women are now in places other than your kitchen and bedroom. If we are good enough to be there, then why can't we work along side you? Men are in our areas that were traditionally "female areas/clubs" too. In my legal assistant class last year there was a man. He didn't bother us, in fact he was very beneficial as he helped us realize how we can all do a job we want, if we really want it. Should I have told him he didn't belong in a class that taught us about working in an office? (since this is a traditional female role) Of course not, that would be stupid.

Women do pass the male entrance standards. I just finished telling you how I am currently ABOVE your fitness standard and meeting the male standard in all but one area. Would you be happy if we just let you apply to the female standards you so hate, so you could get in? Now, how about you go for a run so you can meet the male standard for the 2.4km and be eligible for entrance into the CF, and then be equal with me.


----------



## HItorMiss (7 Apr 2006)

*Ahem*

Scipio.......

 At what point will you just be quiet? how dare you sit there and tell US (we these combat Infantry people) what we think and how we will vote!

Listen up Skippy (yup guess what I'm talking down to you) If your ever able to pass the fitness test to actually wear a uniform, they will teach you one thing, Respect. As in you may want to lip off to an Officer but you do not, and guess what Trinity is an Officer, you can disagree with him all you like but you will do so in a polite tone and manner, That Officer and Padre has been in the weeds with the mud and bugs, He would be the first person I would turn to if I ever had an issue I needed to talk about, That alone makes him better then you; not just the fact that he does have a Queen's commission in the CF.

Now I will give you one thing, your educated or at least seem so and your post though inflammatory to an Officer is at least well thought out. Wrong I will point out, but at least well thought out.

As I said you haven't got the experience to tell "us" how the combat arms type would vote, or what we think, cause your not us. Now sum up and concede that we don't agree with you, we wont agree with you.


----------



## Trinity (7 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> As far as 'factual evidence' supporting my satirical take on a male chauvinists mind.  Before you dismiss it as tomfoolery, I want you to tell me what exactly is lacking.  The idea that maxim magazine exist in numerous incarnations, terms like sexism popped up, the romantic take men have on warfare through film, literature, and song, etc... All, I believe, support my claim. My point was more pointing towards "it does exist in healthy numbers in society"



Ok..

so you make NO factual claim to the rest...

Then why are you getting so upset and defensive when everyone else isn't seeing your point.

Lets end this STUPID thread right here.

Scipio has given his opinion on Women in society and how men feel threatened.

Most everyone disagress with his opinion (in this thread)

End of Story.  Why are we continuing to argue with someone who not only
won't budge, but seems to troll?

So... We think you're wrong.. You think we're still ignoring you..

Mod.. LOCK!? Cause that sums it up

EDIt - minor addition


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Apr 2006)

> Warfare, it's an occupation of the highest importance is historically seen as a male affair.  Men are stronger, so it stands to reason.  Men seem to be more prone to violence, wrote the books on gaining glory (romantic stuff) and generally see themselves as being slightly alpha male-ish as being in a warfare environment.



 :boring:

And you read this where??

I can't believe I fell into the troll trap,  hey people, does that look like troll poop on my boot?

frig can't wipe the smell on my boot off on the grass....

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> As for your rhetoric - it does not at all serve well against my 'theory'.  Infact, you're not even on par with me.
> You speak of wrong and right.  *I speak of a current mind set that is popular in young males.*  That being, the importance of being physically superior to women in a males mind, and the emasculation of not keeping the status quo. The Alpha male syndrome on top of which the sexual undertones that accompany fighting men.  Fire Fighters are also in this category.  *I see it as healthy male silliness*.  You see it as a problem which is hurting the few women out their interested in joining those institutions.



 ... ay, there's the rub ....

Perhaps the phrase you are trying to define is _youthful immaturity_, and too many of your correspondents are balancing their views with life experience and personal maturity.

If you feel that the CF's attitudes are so out of synch with the clarity of your vision, perhaps you should find another Army to join.  I hear the FFL are very manly in their treatment of soldiers.


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Apr 2006)

FFL,

 :rofl:

Very good one Sir,

Maybe he can learn to hold hands and compare the prettiest Rolex watch.....

Ah Scipio,

You are some good entertainment.

dileas

tess


----------



## GO!!! (8 Apr 2006)

ahh Scipio,

You have managed to resurrect the many, and hotly contested "female in the Military" threads.

While this has been demonstrated to be an argument that runs perpetually in circles, you have to realise that many of the members of this site fully "buy in" to the CF's idea of equality of the sexes, and they will argue this with you _ad nauseum_. 

You can't win this battle, it is just too subjective. 

You are obviously well read and articulate, take your efforts to the "current events" or "Canadian Army" threads, where you may have something to contribute, rather than have posters here dogpile you for disagreeing with them.


----------



## HItorMiss (8 Apr 2006)

Intresting Go....

You know me I'm usually on your side but not this time.

I'm not so much disagreeing with the woman in the forces concept in fact I stated earlier that I was against woman in Combat Arms for reason I'm not going into here.

What I took offense to was the sweeping generalizations and and Ideas that someone who is not even in the Forces could know what and I quote here..."Combat Infantry" types were thinking and why, I took expection to him being out of his lane by painting me with that brush.


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Apr 2006)

Hehehehe,

Didn't take long for Scipio to find a champion,

_Morituri te salutamus_

dileas

tess


----------



## GO!!! (8 Apr 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> _Morituri te salutamus_



So much for an "open exchange" of ideas...


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Apr 2006)

> Warfare, it's an occupation of the highest importance is historically seen as a male affair.  Men are stronger, so it stands to reason.  Men seem to be more prone to violence, wrote the books on gaining glory (romantic stuff) and generally see themselves as being slightly alpha male-ish as being in a warfare environment.



Ah yes such an _open _ exchange of ideas,

dileas

tess


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (8 Apr 2006)

GO!!!!

We need you in chat, I need backup.  :rofl:


----------



## Cliff (8 Apr 2006)

Scipio, 

Your ideas about men and women needs some work. This is old line thinking that has little relevance in today's culture.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Apr 2006)

camochick said:
			
		

> " Everything from physical aptitude to mentality are crucial to the social fibers within the military."
> 
> 
> Yet again, making statements about a military you are not qualified to join. Why not give up now and go for a run instead of wasting our time with your round about rhetoric about things which you have no clue. Your point has been heard and shot down, so time to move along. With that attitude it surprising that you know any women in which to judge. >





			
				camochick said:
			
		

> I find it funny that scipio nor the ones who agree with him like aluc and calvinparks are not even in the military yet (or dont have anything in their profile to suggest that) yet they see fit to be arm chair judges of women in the military. I wont even argue this point because it seems to come up every few months or so. All I can say to these gentlemen is that women are in the forces and they will remain in the forces and if you cant handle it, i suggest you find different means of employment ie Tim Hortons (they are hiring for the new one in khandahar, probably the closest you will get to seeing any real action considering you cant even pass the minimum standards to get in the forces) >



Not to be contrary, but judging from your profile, you're not in the military either. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If you're going to throw stones at one's lack of military service (or aptitude) when discussing military issues, you should probably accrue some sort of service first. 

I believe that stating:  



			
				camochick said:
			
		

> As lame as it is, I think a quote from GI jane fits in here "She isnt the problem, we are". If men feel the need to hold a womans hand through their military career, or praise them for every little thing then that is their issue. I just wish people who get over the whole male/female thing. It's great women are making it in the forces but the more people make a big deal out of it the more it becomes an issue. Just let people be, to do their jobs, men, women, in between, who the heck cares.



is making statements about a military you do not serve in. Does that invalidate your point? Absolutely not, and that's the crux of my point. 

Certain topics require service to comment on legitimately, others do not. I don't believe this is one which requires service - after all, the driving force behind the acceptance of women in the combat arms was a human rights tribunal, the members of which I doubt had any past military service, judging from their unrealistic "complete integration in 10 years" demand.


----------



## Screw (8 Apr 2006)

Card_11 said:
			
		

> Women do pass the male entrance standards. I just finished telling you how I am currently ABOVE your fitness standard and meeting the male standard in all but one area. Would you be happy if we just let you apply to the female standards you so hate, so you could get in? Now, how about you go for a run so you can meet the male standard for the 2.4km and be eligible for entrance into the CF, and then be equal with me.



So you are bragging about ALMOST meeting the minimum standards? I disagree with this whole gender bias in the combat arms. But I dont think meeting the bare minimum and almost the minimum in other areas garners much support in your argument. When i was in I knew lots of females who exceeded the male standards and were good to go. Im sure you will eventually succeed in your goal and will be a better troop because of it! Good Luck.

Screw


----------



## Screw (8 Apr 2006)

Tilstonguy said:
			
		

> A female can pull a trigger just as easily as a male can. :fifty:



Its interesting you choose a .50 there. I recall my first course after basic and learning the .50. I remember 3 of the 4 females being unable to rack the action. However I suppose there was one male who couldnt either. I think everyone needs to wake and admit that you( men and women) dont DESERVE to do whatever you want. If you wont bust your ass to do better then you shouldnt be in. Like the threadstarter who needs to bust his ass on running- or the females in my .50 class. Which eventually 2 figured out away to rack it using a little technique- the other one didnt care because she knew they wouldnt flunk her for it anyways. Kudos to anyone striving to be the best. But military service is not your god given right.Its earned in blood and sweat, and learning little tricks here and there to reduce the two..... 

Screw.


----------



## camochick (8 Apr 2006)

Glorified Ape, No, I'm not in the forces and I have never claimed to be. But I didnt come into a thread and slag women for having lower standards when I cant even meet them myself, which is my point. 

This discussion is going no where as it always seem to whenever it is brought up on the forums. I'm gonna throw scipio and his followers in the ignorant pile and go reshackle myself to the stove where I belong, or perhaps I will pine away for my husband at war, hmmm whats a good woman to do.  >


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Apr 2006)

Gee, what a suprise....another locked topic on the sexes that I will have to merge with the other hundreds of pages on the same topic...........can we stop chasing our tails and lay down now?


----------

