Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, lets play nice, like me, because I'm always nice.

Your level of maturity never ceases to amaze me AustonT.

Amaya wrote:Your level of maturity never ceases to amaze me AustonT.

NO you need to say it like this:

"Like, you're like, so mature... "

Much better.

I live for your approval

I don't get it...

I think he may be being sarcastic.

MrDwhitey wrote:I think he may be being sarcastic.

No, I meant I don't get the TMNT thing...

purplefood wrote:No, I meant I don't get the TMNT thing...

He was being a prick so he changed the image to avoid a ban.

Amaya wrote:

purplefood wrote:No, I meant I don't get the TMNT thing...

He was being a prick so he changed the image to avoid a ban.

Oh right...
Makes a bit more sense then...

Posting things like this means you don't get to post at all.
Reds8n

Okay, i'm glad we got that sorted out...

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/04/marine-women-combat-marines-infantry-041911w/

To sum up the article, some women (less than 5%) are capable of serving in an 0311 slot, but due to sexual tension, hygiene issues (I had forgotten that this is more prevalent for women), and the Marines refusal to evaluate on case by case basis due to it being cost prohibitive prevent women from serving in infantry slots.

There are good arguments from both sides, but simply saying no woman is physically capable of serving as a riflemen is simply false and a horrendously poor argument.

Amaya wrote:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/04/marine-women-combat-marines-infantry-041911w/

To sum up the article, some women (less than 5%) are capable of serving in an 0311 slot, but due to sexual tension, hygiene issues (I had forgotten that this is more prevalent for women), and the Marines refusal to evaluate on case by case basis due to it being cost prohibitive prevent women from serving in infantry slots.

There are good arguments from both sides, but simply saying no woman is physically capable of serving as a riflemen is simply false and a horrendously poor argument.

I don't think anyone is saying that actually.

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/04/marine-women-combat-marines-infantry-041911w/

To sum up the article, some women (less than 5%) are capable of serving in an 0311 slot, but due to sexual tension, hygiene issues (I had forgotten that this is more prevalent for women), and the Marines refusal to evaluate on case by case basis due to it being cost prohibitive prevent women from serving in infantry slots.

There are good arguments from both sides, but simply saying no woman is physically capable of serving as a riflemen is simply false and a horrendously poor argument.

I don't think anyone is saying that actually.

Several people in this thread have said that and if you look at arguments against woman in the infantry, the claim that they aren't physically capable almost always shows up by page 1.

Amaya wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/04/marine-women-combat-marines-infantry-041911w/

To sum up the article, some women (less than 5%) are capable of serving in an 0311 slot, but due to sexual tension, hygiene issues (I had forgotten that this is more prevalent for women), and the Marines refusal to evaluate on case by case basis due to it being cost prohibitive prevent women from serving in infantry slots.

There are good arguments from both sides, but simply saying no woman is physically capable of serving as a riflemen is simply false and a horrendously poor argument.

I don't think anyone is saying that actually.

Several people in this thread have said that and if you look at arguments against woman in the infantry, the claim that they aren't physically capable almost always shows up by page 1.

So far the arguments have been:
*If they make the grade go for it.
*They won't make the cut in British Royal marines.
*Women wear out more quickly.

Am I off?

Amaya wrote:
There are good arguments from both sides, but simply saying no woman is physically capable of serving as a riflemen is simply false and a horrendously poor argument.

Well who said that? I certainly didn't.

I said that its far harder for a woman than a man, and of course it is, so, well, its just a bit pointless isn't it?

Its not like we are short of men.

mattyrm wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Anyone who joins any SF to be 'killy' has no business in the military to begin with.

Yeah! We should hire people who work for Oxfam to be SF.

You just flew off the wrongometer. Are/were you SF? I don't believe for a second that you are after such a statement, do you have any good friends who are? I don't wish to sound like Im flexing my virtual ballbag, but it needs to be said because your flat out wrong.

I joined up to be killy, loads of my mates did too. My good mate Chuck was Delta, he joined to be killy too, and my mate Andy is in the SEALs, he wanted to be killy. Your sentence is like something from a corny Hollywood movie.. "Nobodys wants to be a killer, were trained to be the best.. but nobody wants that"

Two questions.

1. What outfit where you in that only recruited people who didn't actually want to hurt anyone? The army catering corps?

2. Do you honestly think that somewhat immature young men (most guys under the age of 25 are) test themselves to the very limits of their physical and mental endurance for no reason other than "personal pride"?

As I said, your flat out wrong. Sure its not the ONLY reason, but its A reason. You apply for SF operations because you WANT to be at the tip of the spear, it might be childish, but its a very big motivator to a young man. Im 32 now and I can see where your coming from, but to say that "nobody who wants to kill people" should be in special operations is flat out wrong, and laugh out loud funny, because go talk to a load of blokes in Delta and Im sure they will happily say things like "I joined up after 9/11 cos I wanted to kill rag heads"

Sure its stupid, but its true. Your giving too much credit to fallible human soldiers after watching all them sentimental movies maybe?

God Matty, you are seriously one of the coolest people I've ever had the pleasure to communicate with digitally.

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:[snip]Society essentially pushes a man to become an athlete while it pushes a woman to become a model instead.

All of this is true Mel, but the point I am making is that sure some women can be as fit as men, but they just have to work so much harder at it.

We're not disagreeing on this part, Mattyrm. I just disagree that it is relevant. See below:

mattyrm wrote:The world record for the womens marathon is ten minutes slower than the mens

That's not something I see as being at all relevant. Soldiers aren't pushed to the upper limit of human marathon running capability-- most male soldiers couldn't even get close to the record for womens' marathons, never mind the mens'. If you use that as a basis, you'd have to kick out most of the male population too.

What's relevant is that the requirements actually fit the job, and that the training is the best it can be to make sure that the aspirants have the best chance to meet the requirements-- if they're able. As far as financial arguments go, the extra expenses incurred by what I suggest is pretty much irrelevant compared to, say, utterly meaningless and failed projects like the F-35 program, which cost billions of dollars while failing to produce any decent results. It's well worth it to ensure that we get the best of the best not just physically but also mentally as well.

mattyrm wrote:Seriously, I think a woman who wants to go SF needs her head read anyway. At least we only have to worry about getting tortured and killed, they would probably keep a woman for recreational purposes, and it doesn't bare thinking about. :S

ANY person who wants to get in to the SF needs their head examined to begin with. Otherwise you'll end up with whackjobs that have special forces training, and nobody wants that.

I do. I want the craziest psycho sumbitches on the planet, aka Matty...

So you want Ted Bundy with special forces training?

Personally, I want people who are sane, not uncontrollable psychopaths. But YMMV apparently.

"If you kill for money, You're a mercenary
If you kill for pleasure, You're a Sadist
If you kill for both, You're a RANGER"

Sadism isn't the worst thing for a special forces dude to have... I'm sure a little bit of it keeps you sane. There's no room for pity and the contemplation of death in those elite forces.

I don't think it's healthy to join the SEALS/Delta/whatever for the sole reason of killing, but if a little sadism rubs off on an otherwise smart and capable person, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world.

There's a different between someone wanting to kill (and perhaps even enjoying it) and someone who is unhinged, though, which was my point.

Samus_aran115 wrote:"If you kill for money, You're a mercenary
If you kill for pleasure, You're a Sadist
If you kill for both, You're a RANGER"

Sadism isn't the worst thing for a special forces dude to have... I'm sure a little bit of it keeps you sane. There's no room for pity and the contemplation of death in those elite forces.

I don't think it's healthy to join the SEALS/Delta/whatever for the sole reason of killing, but if a little sadism rubs off on an otherwise smart and capable person, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world.

A lot the 'killy' talk is nothing but bravado.

Unless they mean it.

Frazzled wrote:Unless they mean it.

Anyone that actually enjoys killing, not just claims to enjoy it, but actually truly does, is fethed in the head.

Current Men's marathon record is 2:03, 123 minutes.
Current Women's record is 2:15, 135 minutes.

Men's time is about 10% faster.

Current Men's 100m record is 9.58s (small wind assistance)
Current Women's record is 10.49s (no wind assistance)

Men's time is about 10% faster.

Men's 181lbs class bench press record 501lbs
Women's 181lb class bench press record 363lbs


Men's record is 38% heavier.

I've read that a 315 bench press is heavier than what 90% of the male population will ever achieve. The women's record at 181 is nearly 50lbs heavier than that.

Men's 181lb class squat record 710lbs.
Women's 181lb class squat record 505lbs.


Men's record is 41% heavier.


Top tier male runners (marathoners and 100m sprinters) are roughly 10-15% faster than women.
Top tier male powerlifters are roughly 40-45% stronger than women.

Men's record total in Olympic Lifting for 77kg class is 378kgs. (831.6lbs roughly)
Women's record total in Olympic Lifting for for 75kg class is 296kgs. (585.2lbs roughly)
Following the pounds comparison, the male record is roughly 38% heavier.

In terms of speed the upper limit for men is roughly 10% faster.
In terms of strength the upper limit for men is roughly 40% stronger.

The strength and speed of top tier male athletes is far beyond what is necessary for the basic infantry and even special forces.

Women can certainly achieve the strength needed to perform in these roles, but it would be a significantly smaller percentage of women who could potentially perform at the required physical levels.

Edit: The discrepancy in strength and speed is due to female runners typically being lighter than their male counterparts which requires them to exert less force to move at a given speed.
For example a 7" 280lb center must exert much more force to jump 36" high than a 6" 180lb guard.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:[snip]Society essentially pushes a man to become an athlete while it pushes a woman to become a model instead.

All of this is true Mel, but the point I am making is that sure some women can be as fit as men, but they just have to work so much harder at it.

We're not disagreeing on this part, Mattyrm. I just disagree that it is relevant. See below:

mattyrm wrote:The world record for the womens marathon is ten minutes slower than the mens

That's not something I see as being at all relevant. Soldiers aren't pushed to the upper limit of human marathon running capability-- most male soldiers couldn't even get close to the record for womens' marathons, never mind the mens'. If you use that as a basis, you'd have to kick out most of the male population too.

What's relevant is that the requirements actually fit the job, and that the training is the best it can be to make sure that the aspirants have the best chance to meet the requirements-- if they're able. As far as financial arguments go, the extra expenses incurred by what I suggest is pretty much irrelevant compared to, say, utterly meaningless and failed projects like the F-35 program, which cost billions of dollars while failing to produce any decent results. It's well worth it to ensure that we get the best of the best not just physically but also mentally as well.

mattyrm wrote:Seriously, I think a woman who wants to go SF needs her head read anyway. At least we only have to worry about getting tortured and killed, they would probably keep a woman for recreational purposes, and it doesn't bare thinking about. :S

ANY person who wants to get in to the SF needs their head examined to begin with. Otherwise you'll end up with whackjobs that have special forces training, and nobody wants that.

Too true, as I said, a marathon is not the same thing obviously, just an example that men are faster and stronger than women by the accident of their gender when in the womb.

Im not saying women cant be awesome soldiers, Im just saying they have to work far harder to get to the level that a man does, which is why the standards are different. Female SF operators in the UK cant join the SAS/SBS, but they have a role, they can join the SRR (Special reconnaissance regiment) and they do a very high standard of training, but its still significantly lower than the mens. I forget now because It was a few years back when I was at Poole but I recall that the required timings for the women were significantly slower.

Then point im making is that I think the UK is at the right point. Smarter people than us make the big decisions, maybe it sits easier with me following orders being a soldier, but thats what I was always told and I believe it.

If a decent proportion of women could pass it, why would they not make the SRR physicals for women as tough as the SRR ones for men? They train together, the women just get more time for the criteria marches over the hills.

I reckon its because its that much harder for women, and they don't want to risk losing a woman who is an exceptional and talented and intelligent operative simply because she cant carry a 105lb backpack quite as fast and quite as far as someone who is 205lbs of lean mean manly muscle.

Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying women cant be as fit, im saying its really hard for them to be as fit, and the current system works, women can do anything up to and including SRR training, but the actual killing gets done by the guys, I think it works.

If you really need me to pick a side, then yes, I would say that if a woman completes absolutely every test the same as the man then yes, she should be able to serve in the male only regiment, but I honestly believe it would be detrimental to not only a great many women's health (injuries are very common, so more so for women if they completed the exact same criteria) but also the military as a whole, an organisation that could use an exceptionally talented female soldier in a far better role than the one we already have loads of guys for anyway!

Think about it.. SRR is always crying out for women. Exceptionally fit and robust women with an interest in joining are very rare in the military, they are needed for covert operations that could be better handled by a female.

But hard as nails, really fit guys who are willing to shoot people?

Weve got plenty of them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:
Women can certainly achieve the strength needed to perform in these roles, but it would be a significantly smaller percentage of women who could potentially perform at the required physical levels.

That's basically all I am saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I do. I want the craziest psycho sumbitches on the planet, aka Matty...

No but that illustrates my point, I mean, I really am totally normal, but I genuinely wanted to kill people, that rage and hate is what spurred me through all of my training!

It went away as I got older, but it was definately there.

So my point was, as Samus said, I dont think its as horrible and base as Amaya seems to think it is. A young American who treats his mom nicely and treats his girlfriend like a lady and likes animals and all that gak can still have a desire to kill people. I dont think its as black and white as he seems to think it is.

A desire to kill certain group that you have made your mind up totally deserve it (say members of Al Queda cos your best mate died in 9/11) isn't as bad as it might sound. I mean, I grant you its base, and not a noble thing, but its not really THAT bad is it? I mean, its logical, its not like being a serial killer or a guy who tortures animals for some bizarre sick pleasure?

Chongara wrote:

Height/Weight aren't particularly relevant.

I'm talking about a desire to kill in general opposed to a desire for vengeance or to defend/serve one's country.

There is a difference imo, between killing terrorists and desiring to kill "rag heads".

Edit: I certainly joined up with a desire to kill terrorists and I don't consider that to be a good thing especially now that I question the merits of even invading Iraq.

Hypothetically speaking, if someone kills a loved one then wanting revenge is both normal and acceptable. Same is true if someone attacks your country.
If someone is rude to you, getting pissed is normal, acting on it really isn't depending on the situation.
Killing someone over cultural, religious, or political differences is outright evil.

It us useful and can be channeled. EVERY good combat arms soldier who has not yet done so WANTS to fight and engage the enemy. They WANT to prove themselves to themselves and to the team. They do not have to be 'pissed' to want this, they have to be normal combat arms troopers. They WANT to know the answer to the question: Can I Pull The Trigger On Another Human? It is the ultimate test in their chosen life.

Good leaders ENCOURAGE this NATURAL behavior, and teach the troopers to control the feeling, understand the when and when not to, evaluate every situation, follow their leaders example and so on.

Why do you think we kept bayonet training as long as we did?

Why do you think pugil stick pits and MMA style training are used?

Why do you think targets are shaped like (surprise!) people?

Because combat arms WANTS and NEEDS young men to kill bad guys.

To consider it 'outright evil' to kill unless directly threatened is outright asinine. Of course we as a nation kill for political reasons. Do you pay taxes? If so, you must be evil for supporting that killing.