MovieChat Forums > G.I. Jane (1997) Discussion > To all the men that say ALL men are phys...

To all the men that say ALL men are physically and mentally stronger....

posted 15 years ago by cfeld2
99 replies | jump to latest

For the men saying that NO women can compete in feats of mental and physical strength with a man, and win.....is really not true. In regards to physical strength, there are a few, though not many that can go toe to toe with a man. I'm 26 y/o 6'2 174lbs, triathlete since age 16 and a bjj brown belt. I've both fought and taken down men my size, or slightly larger, on a pretty consistent basis. The sole reason I fight men, is because there are so few women like me.....extremely tall/strong/same weight class. But by me saying there aren't many, doesn't mean that I'm the only one. There ARE other women like me out there.
In regards to mental toughness, I've run marathons where a large portion of my shoe was filled with blood by mile 19, but finished the race. I've had more broken bones than can be counted on both hands, I've had teeth knocked out. I tried "suspension" on a dare one time, but ended up liking it so much for meditation purposes, that I try to do it at least once a year(though most probably won't know what that is, better yet could wrap their mind around trying it).

The bottom line, is that I can go toe to toe with probably a nice percentage of men on feats of physical strength, and be on par with damn near 100% of men, in regards to mental toughness. This is a man's world and we have to prove ourselves day after day. Do men consistently have to worry about getting paid less for the same type and quality of work? Do men have to worry about getting railroaded at the "spa", the same way we have to worry about getting railroaded by our mechanic? Are the majority of single parents out there, men?.......who have to worry about raising a kid all by themselves, while working to support their family and perhaps going to school too? Do men have to worry about jogging, or taking the bus, or even walking to their car while it's getting dark? Do men have to take self-defense courses soley to protect themselves from being raped? Do men have to consistently be weary of being alone when a repairman comes to your house? Is there an epidemic of roofies being put into men's drinks? Are men required to keep up their superficial image of beauty through painful surgeries and procedures as they get older, while their women are allowed to get fat, bald and let themselves go? Are men consistently ridiculed and degraded through sexual harassment while walking down the street, or even by their much older boss or colleague where they work? And when they finally grow tired of it and take a stand, are they then deemed "too sensitive", "a bitch", or told "it must be THAT time of the month"? Are men, who are good, tough, no-nonsense businessmen, consistently seen for what they are, or are they simply called a "bitch"? Are men expected to carry children for 9 mos, while still working at the same time? And if they could, would they BE ABLE TO carry and push a child out of their ripping hole? Are anywhere between 1/3 and 1/4 men, raped at some point in their lives? And unless they are in prison, or grew up in a bad family, is that something they EVER have to even worry about? I've worked with both men and women rape victims, and I've got to say that the men handle it FAR worse than the women. Are some men required to stay home, take care of the kids and the wife, keep the house clean, do the laundry, cook the food, etc....and then are still told that their jobs aren't as valueable or hard as their wives?

With all these things that women are forced to put up with on a daily basis, living in a "Mans" world, how can anyone say they are not as strong or STRONGER than men, mentally? Please tell me about how men have it so hard.

This is sure to be followed by the residual "You must be a dyke", or "FEMINAZI!" comments. Blah blah blah. Men are allowed to post the same type of post, BUT are just "being men" and "speaking the truth", however any woman defending her gender against attacks made right here on this board, or in the real world, is seen as a bitchy, dykey feminist.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pbrianw 15 years ago

Clearly an impressive feat you got there. Although height doesn't equal to anything really. But then again "as a woman" you are clearly on top. Like I've said in an earlier post its not always black and white there are shades of grey.
I think the 'men' who moan about women being weak are the men who are physically weak themselves.

[–] jamesbarnshaw 13 years ago

scientific fact that the male body has more muscle tissue than the female body. im not sexist or mysoginistic (crap spelling lol) but why do women always have to bang on about this boring *beep* ur worsen than jews and the holocaust or americans and 9/11

[–] pbrianw 15 years ago

Let me crack open your little idealist shell for you. Now if you were a man, with the above credentials you would be far less than mediocre in terms of physicality. BUT as a woman your credentials are superior. ONLY as a woman. You might be a ripe green apple in a sour bunch but the majority is still sour, and you will never taste as good as a red apple.
There are some facts in life we have to live with.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Norm_uk 15 years ago

At any given point in time the strongest human on the planet is a male. The fastest is a male. The dumbest is a male. The smartest is a male.

We just have a lot more range than women...you're an exception to the rule which is males are ON AVERAGE taller and stronger than females. That's not going to change if you bench press a car...most men will still be bigger and stronger than most women.

So what? Is our drive for equality now so ridiculous we have to attack our biology? Can't we just accept the general situation, as well as the exceptions and get on with bettering ours and our fellow human's lives without all this gender politics crap?

As for mental strength - that's more of an individual thing than a gender thing. Most women I know have amazing mental fortitude compared with a lot of men. Women seem to have a lot more stamina than men in many areas outside of just running and jumping and climbing.

N.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful"

[–] BrotherZed 15 years ago

To the OP, you are clearly in the top 1% of women physically. But make no mistake, the top 1% of men are still physically superior to you.

Look at Christiane "Cyborg" Santos. She is an absolute wrecked every woman that has gotten in the cage with her and is currently considered the best female MMA competitor in the world. But pretty much any male 145 pounder in the WEC would wreck her.

[–] mexicanfirewoman 15 years ago

To OP, height and your feats are impressive, truly great. Even as a previous power-lifter(and yes I was stronger than most of my female counter-parts)but even then and now as my husband says you have freakish strength. I still respect men in the physical strength department, even the most weakling of a man is still stronger than most of the strongest women. The caution here is to never let your guard down because you can beat some guys. If and when I am alone with a total starnger who is a male, I am always cautious and alert to my surroundings and never once do I let my guard down just because I'm strong.

Another side to this is that I still believe that women are mentally stronger than men.

He makes love like the way he works on the streets,as gentle as a jackhammer.

[–] aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrg1 14 years ago

Sorry, Norm.

The two highest IQs every recorded belonged to women.

[–] barovian20 13 years ago

Guinness retired the category of "Highest IQ" in 1990, after concluding that IQ tests are not reliable enough to designate a single world record holder. IQ tests aren't accurate enough to make any meaningful decision.

Marilyn vos Savant was the last record holder at 228. William James Sidis was estimated at 250-300.

[–] jesusroblesazul 13 years ago

aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrg1 yeah, surely two very famous unknown women!

[–] rachaelray007 15 years ago

6'2 is pretty tall for a girl and 175 sounds kinda fat too. Anyways with all due respect you are not going toe to toe in a fight with a guy.
You're not
any guy who isn't handicapped would take you down in a regular fight. Ya it sucks but they would
It doesn't mean women are bad but they aren't the same and woman can't take a punch to a face.
They can't

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

This is by far the most ridiculous thread I have read since "Godfather vs Goodburger"

Thanks for the laugh!

BTW, to the OP, if tour shoes are filled with blood on mile 19 in a marathon, choose better footwear or focus on your running style. Not being a smartass. Just concerned. But by the sound of your frame and weight, I sympathize if finding a good shoe for running is nearly impossible. I, myself have "Fred Flintstone" feet and there's not a running shoe out there that is designed for them.

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

[–] FirebirdCamaro 14 years ago

to rachaelray007

after reading your response, 175 is not fat for 6'2", especially if it is mostly muscle weight. I'm a guy who's 5'9" and weighs 160 and I'm not really fat, so do the math

L: I'm talking about a little place called Aspen
H: I don't know Lloyd, the french are a ssholes

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitespirit26 14 years ago

Women can't take a punch to the face? Sure hon.

[–] whitespirit26 14 years ago

Mexicanfirewoman, your post is mostly true, except the idea that the weakest of men would be stronger than the strongest woman. Uh, no. You really think a skiny stick of a man could beat, say, a female wrestler? Nope.

[–] philipdsj 14 years ago

ALL men have the physical potential to be more physical strong than ALL women.

FACT.

Because women have 40% more bodyfat than men.

FACT.

End of god damn discussion, take all your feminist *beep* elsewhere. It's nature's way.

[–] whitespirit26 12 years ago

Try talking like an adult next time.

[–] mastonae1 14 years ago

I am not denying your physical strength or abilities. But like you said, you can go "toe to toe" with men. But not necessarily with navy seals. I am a man, yet I would never dare challenge them to anything other then feats of mental prowess.

But as for women, I wouldn't necessary square off mentally- I know of many extremely intelligent women. In my experience (consisting of college and grad school) women are just as competent as men are. As for the work place, the women I worked with were not as intelligent as the men for the most part. But that had to do with the company and not women as a whole.

I have two brothers in the military. My brother went through SERE school where he was left alone in the woods in winter, had to avoid capture to reach a destination, was eventually captured, beaten, bound, and tortured until he gave up the information he was told to protect. Another man in his unit was not so lucky. He was bound but not beaten. Instead, a woman in the unit was beaten in another room until HE gave up the info. He could hear her cries of pain.

Here is my only point: there is (in my humble and inexperienced opinion) potential that women in the military make men weaker. Men may take unnecessary risks in order to protect the woman in the unit. That to me seems to be the issue. So to allow the few women who are combat-ready into combat puts the unit into greater danger.

In addition, women have many hygiene issues that men do not experience. This is would add obvious complications in the extreme situations that soldiers may face (prepare for the worst, hope for the best).

[–] AlternativeReality 14 years ago

"...there is (in my humble and inexperienced opinion) potential that women in the military make men weaker. Men may take unnecessary risks in order to protect the woman in the unit. That to me seems to be the issue. So to allow the few women who are combat-ready into combat puts the unit into greater danger."

As the Master Chief said in the movie, after O'Neil broke his nose, "The problem isn't hers. It's ours."

I spent twenty years as a Woman Marine. I trained with the men, worked out with the men, went to the field with the men, and there is a lot of truth to his statement. The one up/one down attitude of men is what needs to change, and men need to see women as peers and fellow service members to be respected, and not liabilities to be protected. And it's changing, but it's going to take time. So Guys, give them the chance they deserve, and Gals, hang tough and keep on proving that service to your country is as important to you as it is to your male comrades. Just check out the women in military service today, and you'll see what I mean.

Semper Fi.

[–] james_oblivion 14 years ago

Here is my only point: there is (in my humble and inexperienced opinion) potential that women in the military make men weaker. Men may take unnecessary risks in order to protect the woman in the unit.

You mean the way that soldiers already take "unnecessary" risks when it comes to "leaving no man behind?" As a matter of honor, units often sacrifice NUMEROUS lives by refusing to leave ONE soldier behind. Certainly, that behavior - lauded as the honorable standard by which heroic soldiers are measured - qualifies as taking unnecessary risks.

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

These are facts:

1. At the Olympics, no woman can compete with the men, which is why women don't compete with men, if they did there would be no medals for women.

2. Women don't possess the upper body strength - as a gender - that men do. There are exceptions, yes, and women can train themselves to excel in this area. At the end of the day, there are only the exceptions to this rule.

3. The Israeli military experimented with women in combat, it was - for the most part - a disaster. I won't discuss how the women did, because it's not important. What is important is this, the men couldn't handle it. When women were killed in combat, the men would be found sitting in circles, mourning around her corpse. In training, when a woman was sexually assaulted to elicit intel from the men, they cracked in minutes.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] james_oblivion 14 years ago

It is actually important how the woman did, because they did quite well. It's not their fault that the men fell into fits of pathetic weeping when a woman died in battle. Those men need to sack up and act like soldiers.

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

As I said, it wasn't just that. However, I'm proud of those men. Too many men today have lost their instinct to protect women, including those they are in relationships with. You can't "sack up" the instinct to protect women, and if you can... God help you.

Israeli soldiers are some of the most well-trained, courageous and toughest in the world. Try fighting with them in the Six Days War or deal with the terrorism they have to handle constantly, then we'll see how "sacked up" you are.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] james_oblivion 14 years ago

I guess I just don't find patriarchy as touching as you do. To each his own.

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

Who said I find "patriarchy... touching"?

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] whitespirit26 12 years ago

Blade has good points.

[–] aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrg1 14 years ago

Error in "Fact" Number 1. You have obviously omitted the equestrian events from this statement of "fact".

Don't even *try* to imply that these animals are muscled around the courses (eventing, jumping, dressage). Average weight of a male equestrian: 160 - 180 lbs. Average weight of an Olympic mount: 1300 - 1600 lbs.

Do the math.

As for men and women competing on par. All past arguements have not included one factor: social conditioning. Girls are told on a fairly consistent basis not to hurt (Has anyone ever heard a parent say "Girls will be girls." ?).

To illustrate this arguement, there's a fascinating story regarding "strongmen" around the turn of the 20th Century. There was a (scientific) belief that it was physically impossible for a human to lift 500 lbs, and, as if to support this, no one had. Then, finally one man broke this barrier. How did he do it? He didn't. His coach did.

The coach had him lifting very close to 500 lbs, but whenever he was told that he was going to be lifting the "magic weight", he couldn't do it. They tried and tried, but each time that weight was to be lifted, the strongman crashed and burned. So, out of frustration the coach lied to him and told him that he would be lifting in the high 490's. The strongman lifted the weight. No broken bones, no snapping of tendons/ligaments, no exploding muscles. Nothing that was claimed to happen happened. The coach's suspicions were confirmed -- that this was a psychological barrier, not a physical one.

Once the rest of the strongman community heard about this, then there were many others lifting 500+ lbs.

Now, I'm not claiming that women could ever be physically stronger than men. However, I do put forth the question: How much stronger would women be if the social conditioning to hold back physically didn't exist?

[–] Chainsaw-wrecks 14 years ago

The SEAL TEAMS were not organized as a cavalry unit so that reference is farfetched. Women will never make them on a fair, competitive basis unless training is "girled down " as basic does now. This would lower the capability of the entire unit and increase danger via a weak link.

[–] whitespirit26 12 years ago

Social conditioning doesn't determine biology, aaaaarr.

[–] nosybummer 14 years ago

iam sorry dear but you cant defeat a million years of evolution and social structure which made both males and females uncomparable mostly on physical dimensions

come on how much % of women population in the world do you think possess physical dimension which is even remotely closer to yours

such difference is not large in the section of mental toughness i guess

[–] wolf_blaze-1 14 years ago

They shouldn't ban women based on the fact that they have a vagina, that's simply ridiculous. If she can succeed in the standard training program, then there's absolutely no reason for her not to be allowed to join. It's not women's fault that men "can't handle" a woman being hurt in war; don't they have training for that? It's ironic how soldiers are supposed to fight for equality when women can't even have it within their ranks. If no woman can meet the standards, so be it, but it's not like SEALs do penis battles or something.

[–] wolf_blaze-1 14 years ago

Also, did anyone ever think of the advantages of having a woman around? She could fit into smaller spaces than men, her weight can be supported more easily, her flexibility and agility could be a key asset, etc.

[–] Chainsaw-wrecks 14 years ago

Wolf is not making a realistic or experience based argument. Its clear she is not familiar with special operations. Women would be in the NBA, NFL.... if the world she imagines were real! Be as butch as you want, just don't confuse that with reality when lives are at stake!

[–] bengt-ove 14 years ago

Political correctness is one thing, but it's really serious when these consideration outweigh the issues of life or death.

In my country, in their eagerness to get women firemen, they have actually lowered the passing marks on physical exams just so women can pass. This means that what was considered minimun physical strength to carry a body out of a burning building is no longer valid. Which as a result means that some day, someone won't be rescued because the female fireman just had not the strenght to carry him/her out.

Then who is responsible? Not the female firewoman, of course, but the PC nuts in power. The same is of course true of the mad dash to get female soldiers and policewomen.

[–] delriosong 14 years ago

They shouldn't ban women based on the fact that they have a vagina, that's simply ridiculous.

Actually it's just good sense to ban women from the toughest units with the most critical missions.

In the U.S. military when the going gets tough the females get pregnant. During Desert Shield/Desert Storm the pregnancy rate for females deployed in theater was 10x above normal.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

[–] wolf_blaze-1 13 years ago

There's no real evidence to say that women that perform on par with men reduce the effectiveness of any team. It's not this "evil political correctness", it's a right (like the right to an education). Would you guys whine about how "awful" political correctness is if I said ban all the blacks from schools because they're not naturally as intelligent as whites? I don't think so.

It's like saying "women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars or be in public without a veil, they could drive men crazy/ruin the man's world/ruin everything in general because they suck/etc". Sound familiar? I'd definitely give up this so called "protection" we gain by allowing only men to fight, for the freedom to choose to be a combat fighter as a woman. And I would satisfy the male physical requirements. Women are indeed different than men, but they could definitely bring a whole new set of amazing skills to the battlefield, just as they have in the workplace.

Oh, and don't even get me started on pregnancy; it's called discipline and freaking birth control.

[–] delriosong 13 years ago

Well you have your opinion and are welcome to it.

However if you have never humped Alice to the top of the Tennessee Valley Divide or exited a high performance aircraft while in flight with 68 lbs of parachute and another 100 lbs of combat equipment I'll consider my opinion as being infinitely more informed than yours.

As to considering the ability to serve in elite combat units as being a right, it is not. The United States military is a finely honed tool designed to do two things very effectively; kill people and break things. The military is not a social science experimentation lab designed to facilitate individual self-actualization goals. The taxpayers have a right to get a well trained, effective force in an economical way. The cost to send one soldier through the Basic Airborne Course alone is over $200,000. The failure rate for the Ranger Course among men is historically 50%. Keep in mind that soldiers who attend this course have been rigorously groomed for it and still half can't meet graduation requirements.

There's no real evidence to say that women that perform on par with men reduce the effectiveness of any team.

The problem with this statement is that when you are talking about the elite units of the military there are no women who perform on par with those men. There never will be. Have you ever worked with any of these men? Do you know what they are capable of? The are the best of the best. There are no women who can do what they do. There are women who can do what some men do. There are women who can do what a lot of men do, but, there are no women who can compete with men who are the very tip of the spear.

Would you guys whine about how "awful" political correctness is if I said ban all the blacks from schools because they're not naturally as intelligent as whites?

This analogy is fallacious due to the fact that education is universal in the United States, while available slots in elite units is limited to the number of personnel needed. Most of the men who want to do the jobs are denied because they are not good enough. If a female has a "right" to be a Navy SEAL wouldn't that "right" also extend to your fat little brother who can't do five pull-ups?

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

[–] wolf_blaze-1 13 years ago

This analogy is fallacious due to the fact that education is universal in the United States, while available slots in elite units is limited to the number of personnel needed. Most of the men who want to do the jobs are denied because they are not good enough. If a female has a "right" to be a Navy SEAL wouldn't that "right" also extend to your fat little brother who can't do five pull-ups?

Why is it so hard for you to understand the point? My fat little brother can't satisfy the requirements, so of course he can't get in. But they currently disqualify women based on their gender, not their abilities. I'm perfectly happy if no woman manages to make it, but it's sexist to not allow them to try. I honestly don't see why it's so difficult to comprehend this; it seems like everyone is always rushing to attack the "evil feminazis" or something.

Also, if it's such a good idea to ban women because "most couldn't handle it", why not make a law banning Asian-Americans as well? Their slight frames surely couldn't handle it. While we're at it, let's make a law banning people below 6'5" in height, because surely they'd be a liability. See what I'm saying? It's ridiculous to have actual legislation like this.

[–] delriosong 13 years ago

Also, if it's such a good idea to ban women because "most couldn't handle it", why not make a law banning Asian-Americans as well?

It's not a question of most not being able to handle it, it's a question of none being able to handle it. There is no law against there being women in the NBA or NFL or fighting for the heavyweight belt against a man, but there are not any who could be successful. If you don't understand this you have been watching too much GI Jane and playing too much Lara Croft. Try living in the real world.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

[–] whitespirit26 12 years ago

You've apparently never seen sumo wrestlers, Wolf.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wolf_blaze-1 13 years ago

As to considering the ability to serve in elite combat units as being a right, it is not. The United States military is a finely honed tool designed to do two things very effectively; kill people and break things. The military is not a social science experimentation lab designed to facilitate individual self-actualization goals. The taxpayers have a right to get a well trained, effective force in an economical way. The cost to send one soldier through the Basic Airborne Course alone is over $200,000. The failure rate for the Ranger Course among men is historically 50%. Keep in mind that soldiers who attend this course have been rigorously groomed for it and still half can't meet graduation requirements.

You know, did you ever realize that it was this same sort of thinking that kept women banned from doing everything else in life? "Women would clearly make bad doctors, and the taxpayers have a right to good medical care, so women shouldn't be allowed!" Er, what? Did you ever think maybe women could even be amazingly useful on an elite military team, because of the fact that they're female? (Fitting into small, cramped spaces; better vision and flexibility, etc). I hate how such retarded conservatism is still so prevalent these days, it's really holding us back.

[–] delriosong 13 years ago

Did you ever think maybe women could even be amazingly useful on an elite military team, because of the fact that they're female?

No I haven't due to the fact that 22 years in the United States Army as an Infantryman, (20 of them spent in Airborne units), informs my opinion as to exactly how worthless they would be in elite units. The very best female soldiers were, at best, comparable to an average male soldier.

Rangers and SEALs are so far above average that you can't even imagine it. Go cry about "being held back" to someone else.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

[–] wolf_blaze-1 13 years ago

You haven't actually tried to explain yourself, except for "yadayada I'm experienced so what I think is right". Hmm. I think this is more about women imposing on "your turf" than anything. By the way, I never said anything about my military experience so don't assume anything about me. It seems that you don't understand the vast variety of operations that need to be done where it could be useful to have a woman. It's not always "man A punches man B in the face and man A wins because he's stronger". Think.

[–] delriosong 13 years ago

I thought we were talking about top tier field operations. Like Navy SEALS. Like what is in the movie that this thread is about. So it now seems like you are attempting to move the topic away from that direction.

It seems that you don't understand the vast variety of operations that need to be done where it could be useful to have a woman.

You're right I can't. Like what? And don't say going in a hole because any hole you are going to need to go do will have been made by a man to fit a man. Don't try the they can see better crap that you posted earlier because that isn't completely true. Men see better in daylight while women see better at night. This point is completely moot however because all special operations unit use night vision devices which are the only way that they can aim their weapons using infrared aiming lasers.

I've explained myself perfectly. Women cannot compete with men at the very highest level of performance. They don't compete with men at the top level of any endeavor of physical performance like swimming, track and field, weight lifting, bicycling, football, basketball, boxing, or even baseball. Military Special Operations falls into that category of the highest level of performance.

Yeah I notice you haven't made any claims to any military experience, and you still aren't. If you have any military experience you will also know that one of the most precious commodities that exists in the military is training time.

When you waste time indulging a whim of someone with an agenda you make everyone less safe.

So do you want to argue that females can compete with males at the highest level of physical performance? Because if you don't you must admit that these teams would be negatively impacted by females and we would be less safe. (And if you don't accept that the whole country would be less safe you must still admit that the team members would be less safe. Are you comfortable telling America's special operators that they must accept unneeded risk to satisfy your agenda?

Do you want to argue that top tier military special operations does not require the highest level of physical performance? Because if you don't then you must admit that females could not perform to the required standard.

Do you want to argue that it is acceptable to waste time and money attempting to qualify people for a duty position for which failure is 100% certain, thereby making everyone less safe? Because if you don't then you must admit that it is reasonable to exclude females from consideration for these jobs.

Your entire position seems to be that you don't know what you are talking about but you want to spout your uninformed opinion and argue the indefensible because you have an agenda.

If you are not prepared to address the specific points that I have raised here be advised that I am not inclined to want to read anymore of your blathering.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

[–] wolf_blaze-1 13 years ago

You still don't seem to understand. I'm saying, let women join if they can do the same job as a man. Therefore, by definition, there's absolutely no way it's "less safe". If they can't do it, don't let them. I know you're saying "well no woman would be able to it!", but well hey! If that's the case, then why do they need to actively prevent women from trying if they could "never make it"? Having this sexist law is against human rights, why is it so difficult to comprehend this? Also, you still haven't addressed my comment about enacting laws banning Asian-Americans and people under 6'5" as well.

The point is, if I don't get in I want it to be because I can't do the job, not because of my gender. I know you're going to whine about "well if you're female, by definition you can't do the job", but yet again, why does there need to be a law in place? The law is what bothers me.

[–] delriosong 13 years ago

I'm saying, let women join if they can do the same job as a man.

But since they can't there is no reason to let them join. To do so wastes money and training time and resources.

Therefore, by definition, there's absolutely no way it's "less safe".

When you take away time from worrying about candidates who may meet the standard to spend with a candidate who will never meet the standard things become less safe. This is something I know from having conducted high risk training.

Having this sexist law is against human rights, why is it so difficult to comprehend this?

It's not a sexist law, it's a common sense law with saves time and money while providing the best trained special operations forces in the world.

Also, you still haven't addressed my comment about enacting laws banning Asian-Americans and people under 6'5" as well.

Your comment about Asian-Americans is stupid and racist. You obviously use them as an example because you incorrectly believe them all to be about 5' 0" and 1/2 and 105 lbs. This is wrong. Asian-Americans and East Asians who are raised on a balanced nutritious diet grow to be scary big. But you don't know this obviously.

As to banning persons under 6'5", this is another stupid comment, most Americans are not this tall and many who are are quite ectomorphic and therefor may not be good candidates for elite units.

The point is, if I don't get in I want it to be because I can't do the job, not because of my gender.

But since you can't do the job what is the difference? None.

I know you're going to whine about "well if you're female, by definition you can't do the job", but yet again, why does there need to be a law in place?

Really? I'm the whiner? I thought I was making logical, common sense arguments which are well defended by the facts. You, on the other hand come across as an immature crybaby who believed her mommy's B$ about how women can do anything men can do and is now bent out of sorts to find isn't so.

As long as the law exists it allows you to pretend that it is the law holding women back in this arena and not biology.

As I posted before the military is not a social science laboratory for you to attempt to realize your self-actualization goals.

So at this point either grow up and get over it or go outside and practice writing your name in the snow.

You can't be a Navy SEAL, and even if the law were changed to allow females to attempt to become Navy SEALs you still could not qualify.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

[–] wolf_blaze-1 13 years ago

Your comment about Asian-Americans is stupid and racist. You obviously use them as an example because you incorrectly believe them all to be about 5' 0" and 1/2 and 105 lbs.

And you incorrectly believe all women to be unable to fight. There are some very tough girls out there, though they're rare. Big buff Asians are rare as well, but they do exist.

As to banning persons under 6'5", this is another stupid comment, most Americans are not this tall and many who are are quite ectomorphic and therefor may not be good candidates for elite units.

Okay, how about banning people that are over 6'5 cause they're "mostly ectomorphic" and thus waste time and resources? See what I'm getting at? You can't just completely single out a group of people like that. By the way, I'm the one logically arguing my point while you seem to be going crazy with defensiveness and lashing out. If anyone's whining, you are.

And by the way, there are many countries that allow women in higher up combat roles, and they're doing just fine, like in Canada.

[–] delriosong 13 years ago

There are some very tough girls out there, though they're rare.

Not tough enough to compete in the NFL, or the NBA, or the MLB, or fight a man for the heavyweight championship of the world, or be a Navy SEAL. What you don't seem to want to do is to definitively say that you think there are women who can do these things. You know it is false and will open you up to ridicule.

If you are not going to argue that a woman could compete at this level then no laws need to be changed.

And by the way, there are many countries that allow women in higher up combat roles, and they're doing just fine, like in Canada.

"Higher up combat roles," does not sound like, "elite special operations units" to me. So once again you are being disingenuous and attempting to redirect the course of the argument. Beside you mention many and provide one example, again a disingenuous tactic. Name one country that allow females in their elite special operations units. You can't because they can't compete with the men.

I don't really expect you to address this because I am still waiting for you to specify all the unique circumstances where a woman in these units would prove so vital. Because you can't.

You don't address any of the points I've made.

You cannot justify to the taxpayers why they should foot the bill for the indulgence of unrealistic whims.

You cannot argue that women can compete with men at the physical levels of performance required of one serving in an elite unit.

You cannot refute the fact that if a SEAL team has to deploy a person short because Judy is pregnant that they are now less safe.

I am the one defending the status quo with facts and logic.

You are the crybaby who claims that your human rights are being violated. Go cry to your Senator, or just cue up G.I. Jane for another go around. In a fantasy world women can be Navy SEALS, in the real world they can't.

No matter how well qualified a woman may be there will always be many men who are more qualified for the limited number of slots in this nation's elite special operations units. When lives are on the line and critical missions at the highest level of national security are involved common sense dictates selecting the very best.

That will always be a man for those types of jobs. Accept the realities of the world in which you live. Dry your eyes, go see The Vagina Monologues.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

[–] wolf_blaze-1 13 years ago

It would be easier to infiltrate an area that's designated as female-only if there's a female special ops member. Foreign women with important information may be more receptive to a female rather than a male soldier. If someone needs to fit through a tiny gutter to access somewhere, a woman can more easily do it. Women are less of a burden if they're injured because they're not 250 lbs of dead weight to carry. Women can hide in tinier places, be much stealthier, and many countries actually use women to make their opponents less wary. Discounting 50% of the population from taking part in such important missions (that affect all people) is complete bs.

I think a woman could be a SEAL. There. You don't, and it appears that we both stand firmly by our beliefs and are not going to budge. Why don't you accept the reality that things can change? Everything in our society that's come to be is a result of an ever changing world that's been changed by people.

Also, that "biology" argument? A joke. Remember the "good ol days" when scholars actually argued that a female's biology made her only capable of caring for children and nothing more? Ha. The sky's the limit; maybe not even that. I'm glad lots of us continue to ignore people like you who prefer to keep the status quo. Otherwise we'd have never abolished slavery, made it to the moon, invented computers, etc.

Oh, and your comment about "pregnant Judy" is the height of misogynistic military sexism. Screw off where people care.

[–] delriosong 13 years ago

You are completely delusional.

It would be easier to infiltrate an area that's designated as female-only if there's a female special ops member.

I wonder how often we find it necessary to infiltrate harems or nunneries. And that isn't a job for a Navy SEAL.

Foreign women with important information may be more receptive to a female rather than a male soldier.

That is a job for a CIA Operator, not a Navy SEAL.

Women are less of a burden if they're injured because they're not 250 lbs of dead weight to carry.

This is just stupider than hell. I can't believe you even make this argument without seeing that the flip side of this coin is that if I get shot I've got a team member who is too weak to help evacuate me.

I think a woman could be a SEAL. There.

There it is. You have finally proven yourself to be absolutely delusional. There isn't a woman in the world that could meet the current standard to complete SEAL training. I doubt that you even know what the training entails.

Why don't you accept the reality that things can change?

I do. I have successfully dealt with a huge amount of change in my life. The problem is that you want to change an elite organization into a second rate joke where people with vaginas can play too because you refuse to accept reality. As it stands now there is not one woman in the world who can do what these men do.

Also, that "biology" argument? A joke.

No reality. During Desert Shield there were 2% of male soldiers who were non-deployable vs. 9% of females. The additional 7% was due to pregnancy. Therefore a female military member is 4.5 times more likely to be in a non-deployable status when orders come down. In what way is this not less safe. Further an addional 3% of female soldiers who did deploy were evacuated from theater due to pregnancies "contracted" in theater. So by the time combat operations started a full 10% of female military members were not in theater due to pregnancy. But you want to argue it's not "less safe." You must really be stupid as all get up.

Remember the "good ol days" when scholars actually argued that a female's biology made her only capable of caring for children and nothing more? Ha.

No, I don't. How freaking old are you?

I'm glad lots of us continue to ignore people like you who prefer to keep the status quo. Otherwise we'd have never abolished slavery, made it to the moon, invented computers, etc.

This is a truly moronic and disingenuous argument. I argued for the status quo in this instance due to the fact that it is based in reality and good sense, yet you want to put me on a moral equivalent with slave holders. Dumbazz.

Oh, and your comment about "pregnant Judy" is the height of misogynistic military sexism.

Typical argument from the lunatic left-wing fringe. Pointing out reality is equated with hate in your eyes because you hate to face facts.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

[–] elizabethdueker 13 years ago

Hailey Wickenhauser is a female who plays hockey with men in Europe, so don't say females can't compete with men in sports.

As a female though, I will agree that women shouldn't be in the SF. Sorry.

Whatever. Everybody has problems. Now get your ass out of bed and get to work.

[–] Chainsaw-wrecks 13 years ago

Try to demonstrate that in the NHL, NFL, NBA ..
see how far your little exception gimmick novelty act gets.

[–] Chainsaw-wrecks 13 years ago

Try to demonstrate that in the NHL, NFL, NBA ..
see how far your little exception gimmick novelty act gets.

Exceptions prove the rule. She is not truely competitive with the men, its a publicity stunt!

Duh!

[–] wolf_blaze-1 13 years ago

No matter how well qualified a woman may be there will always be many men who are more qualified for the limited number of slots in this nation's elite special operations units. When lives are on the line and critical missions at the highest level of national security are involved common sense dictates selecting the very best.

The law should be changed because it is sexist. Period. Deny me based on my qualifications, not my sex. Why is that so difficult to understand? The sheer idiocy amazes me.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitespirit26 12 years ago

Wolf, you're making a spectacle of yourself, for cripe's sake. This is BIOLOGY, not a battle over how smart women are or whether they're fit for the workplace. You're not going to win this battle and your accusations of sexism are nonsense.

[–] whitespirit26 12 years ago

Wolf, you had valid points in your first post. But claiming that women have a "right" to fight is getting ridiculous.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]