Gi Jane, if you please

Surely you cannot actually think that you can simply whitewash your own behaviour in this thread and elsewhere on this site in the last week or so?

Your argument is tantamount to the sexist belief that women are simply too weak to go into combat. The reality vastly different to your belief. Women do fight in combat. Even the supposedly non-combat female soldiers from the US have to fight in combat. That is the nature of war.

Isn't it better to train them for it? Instead of forcing them into the supposedly non-combat roles, such as support, and then they are, as always happens, caught out in combat situations and have to fight anyway. You have been provided with scientific studies to show that women are found to have better endurance than their male counterparts. You have yet to provide anything at all to support your contention that a) women will not be able to complete the training required to go into combat (while blithely ignoring the fact that women already have completed this training at the same level as their male counterparts) and b) women will not be able to cut it (despite the fact that women have been fighting in combat situations in wars for decades).

We get it. You think women are weak. Perhaps this can be blamed in part on your projecting yourself onto other women and you think all women are like you. I can assure you, we are not all like you. Women have already completed the Army Ranger training. Not with special treatment. They did it just like the men do it. So not only were these women required to run for miles with their packs on, they completed the courses and the training. The same went for the women who completed the Marines training. So why shouldn't these women see active combat? They are certainly trained for it and are capable. Until you can provide actual studies or something aside from just you flapping your proverbial gums, you won't be taken seriously. As already noted, women have already completed the rigorous combat training required. The 1800's called. They want your attitudes towards women back.

You don't like being called sexist? Then stop being so sexist.

 

If women choose to take up arms, and fight in a war, what's the problem in that for you, exactly?

You see birch, in all of your ranting about women being weak in this thread, you are yet to provide any counters to the fact that women are completing combat training, even grueling ones like the US Army Ranger training and passing them as well as their male counterparts. So what's the deal? Why are you so against women doing this?

No? Because I didn't want to go into the military. But many women do and many women around the world, from the US to Iraq, fight in wars, in combat roles. You keep asking people these questions as though it's the be all and end all. And it isn't. What? Because I have chosen to not join the military it somehow means that women elsewhere in the world should not do so because they are allegedly weak?

I also provided you with examples of women in the US completing and passing the grueling training required of men, to go into combat. And you are yet to provide any counters to this. Whether you are weak or not is your business. But your manner of arguing in this thread is to paint all women as being like you. The women who fight in wars and train to go to war are clearly not weak. So why are you intent on demanding that they be weak to fit into your ideal of what women should be?

With airs? Is that because I use punctuation and capital letters?

And you are trying to whitewash everything and that is clearly shown by the fact that your sole stance on this issue is because you view women as being weak. And you are clearly wrong. You have not been able to provide anything with any substance to substantiate your position that women cannot do the training you seem so concerned with. And yet, I have provided you with proof that not only can they complete the training, but they have already completed the training. So what is your issue?

You seem to be very invested in the idea that women have to be weak. Why?

What links? I provided you with scientific studies and articles detailing how women have much better endurance then men and also provided you with proof that women are fighting in combat zones, not to mention that women have completed the training you keep saying they cannot complete. You are not the one who provided those particular links. I did. You are yet to substantiate your arguments with anything remotely scientific.

And very few men pass that training also.

You are aware of this, yes? The women who went into Ranger training and the Marines training all passed. The Rangers, is one example:

Historically, the graduation rate has been around 50%, but this has fluctuated. In the period prior to 1980, the Ranger School attrition rate was over 65%. 64% of Ranger School class 10–80 graduated.[21] The graduation rate has dropped below 50% in recent years: 52% in 2005, 54% in 2006, 56% in 2007, 49% in 2008, 46% in 2009, 43% in 2010, and 42% in 2011. Recycles are included in the graduation rates. Recycles are tracked by the class they start with, and affect only that class's graduation rate.​

Now, how many women were in the program and how may passed and failed? 3 women entered the program and 2 passed and are graduating. One is recycling through 2 phases of the training. So you were saying? The facts aren't backing your claims, birch.

You think Ranger training is the same as basic training? Most men flunk out of Ranger training. Of the women who were allowed to take part, most women passed.

As I said, you are yet to provide any substantial evidence that women are incapable of going into combat and you are yet to provide anything to counter the fact that women are fighting in combat roles in war zones and are passing their training.

You are the one who keeps glossing over these facts and you are the one trying to deny reality because it doesn't fit into your views on women.

But men aren't doing it better. And you can laugh as much as you want. You keep making these claims, but you have nothing to back it up.

Perhaps you should stop projecting and allow women who can do the work, to do the actual work if that is what they want to do with their lives. It is their choice. Not yours.

Hate to break it to you, birch, but you are being sexist.

 

Mod Note

birch, are you able to try to post and respond to people without swearing at them? At all? Are you able to substantiate your argument with anything aside from 'because I said so'?

If you are incapable of conducting yourself in even a semi-mature manner, then I will shut the thread. We have had numerous complaints about this thread, because you are trolling and flaming it. This would otherwise be an interesting topic, but if you cannot stop swearing at people and frankly, flaming the thread because people dare to disagree with you, then I will close it and moderate you again, if you keep it up.

 

Geez indeed. You appear to be the only one here who has an issue with women going into combat. You have yet to substantiate or address the links and studies that have been posted that clearly prove you wrong. Instead, you have simply chosen to flame and you keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Not to mention, you are being completely disingenuous.

Of course there are fewer women, because they have only been allowed to apply and take part in the training programs in the last year or so. You do understand this, yes?

You keep demanding that women are weak, despite clear evidence that they have other qualities that make them good combat soldiers. Science backs that up, as has been linked previously in this thread.

If women want to go into combat and pass the training, what is your issue? Why do you keep demanding that they have to be weak, despite overwhelming evidence that women who are choosing to go into combat are clearly not weak? You keep saying they have a high fail rate, while ignoring that men who go through these programs have, thus far from the women who have completed the courses, a much higher fail rate than the women who have completed them if we are going to look at averages. But you ignore that as well. In other words, birch, your argument seems to stem more from your stereotypical and very sexist view of women, the same views that men used to try to use when women wanted to be allowed the right to vote and work outside of the home.

Women are qualifying for the training and graduating from the training. So what, exactly, is your problem with this? Why are you so against them doing what they are trained to do because they are women?

 

Who has said they do not have to pass any courses? You are the only one making this claim when it has been proven that you are wrong. So why do you keep making these false claims?

Women are passing those courses and in some instances, doing better than the men.

You are relying on an argument that is not based in reality. And despite being repeatedly advised and provided with information which clearly and repeatedly proves you wrong, you are still relying on a false argument that you cannot substantiate and you are only relying on 'because I said so' as evidence. Which is ridiculous.

You appear to be very angry that women will be on the front lines. Poor you. Frankly, if that is what they choose to do, then good luck to them. It is their choice. Not yours.

 

And you have been insulting people willy nilly because they dare to disagree with you or you with them and then you take to harassing people on their profiles because they disagree with you. Disagreeing with you is not insulting you, nor is it flaming you. People have a right to their opinions, as much as you have a right to yours. I do not particularly care that you think women are too weak. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Don't go into combat if you cannot do it. But that does not mean every woman is like you and clearly, there are hundreds, if not thousands of women, who are actively fighting in wars, as ground troops and are very successful and good at it. Good for them. This is what they choose to do and they should be respected for their choice.

If you cannot participate in a discussion without calling people names, then perhaps you should find a new hobby. I hear crochet is very calming.

You have consistently argued from a position that is not based on reality. Women are completing the training and in some areas, are beating the men. And you keep asserting that they are weak and therefore cannot get through the training, despite the fact that they have and are getting through the training. You claim you are all for it? Really? So why do you keep arguing against it based on a sexist ideal that women cannot cope with it? Not only that, you have frankly, pulled stuff of whatever hole you pull stuff from and made comments that cannot be supported in any way. You claim they cannot get through the training or cope with combat situations. You are provided with clear examples of women getting through the training and fighting in combat roles on the ground. You keep making the same false assertion and all without anything to back you up. No one here has said that women are not physically stronger than men. Some are and some are not. But they have other qualities that allow them to complete the training and according to the US Army Rangers, are doing better than the men they are competing against. Why? Because women are physiologically better at coping with endurance scenarios. You keep arguing that they are too weak to carry the heavy packs. Women are completing the training, with the same packs as the men are and they are doing better than many of the men in the same course. Why is that? It certainly cannot be because they are too weak. I provided you with scientific studies that explain why this would be so. And instead of reading them and actually learning something, you keep on with the exact same baseless argument.

And let me make something clear to you. My moderating you is not because of your arguments in this thread. The warnings I issued you were because you have been so insulting, calling people names and even taking to harassing at least one member in their profile posts. Do you understand the difference? Just because I happen to disagree with your argument on the subject of women in combat, does not mean that I am going to moderate you for it. We have had reports about your conduct and in at least one instance, your offensive name calling and harassment was plastered on the front page of this site. You can argue that women are weak petals who should be tied to the kitchen sink for all I care. But the moment you take to insulting and calling people names and harassing people, then you have cross the line and that is what you will be moderated for. If you wish to argue about integrity, how about you look at how you address people and the names you call them and then get back to me.

I'll put it bluntly, if you cannot participate in a discussion without calling people "bitch", "fucking idiot", "stupid as fuck" to name just a few, then as I noted above, perhaps you should find a new hobby. But if you choose to participate in discussions and you are going to address people in that way, then you will be moderated.

No one, and I repeat, no one has said that the position should be handed to them. Women are completing the training in the US military, along with their male counterparts, without any special favours and they are passing and graduating from the training itself. To then turn around and say to these women that they are too weak to go into combat when they have, in some areas, done better than their male counterparts, because they are too weak as women, is ridiculous. Women who are able to prove their ability and are able to get through the same training, without any special favours, and who wish to go into combat roles, should not be denied the right to do so because of an outdated belief that women are simply too weak to do so.