ulmaguest Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 This is my first post, so hello... I have athsma, and the US Army recruiter said mine was probably too bad to join, so I guess it depends. I think the Air Force and Navy are more flexible. And if you recall Starship Troopers, Heinlein said women make better pilots because of pressure and stuff like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solfius Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 but that was a film. I was actually aboard HMS Ledbury a while ago and talking to one of the crew he said that he knew lots of people in the Navy who used inhalers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 but that was a film. actually the heinlein version was a book. and it was something about being able to withstand higher g-forces (i think). the film.... while interesting in its own right, is inferior to the book i several ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouse Nightshirt Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Women cannot fulfill their roles as soldiers in the UK due to Beaucratic Red Tape. They can join the army, but they are not allowed to fight on the front line; The closest a Woman in the UK Army to the frontline is a Tank Commander (Who in times of war, may not get in a tank. Kinda strange really) Women could easily make top class soldiers if the ancient tradition of "men protect while the women do the chores" could be dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 I think Floaters are biased too, I just had a terror attack go extremely sour, when I finally finished off all the aliens, all my male soldiers had been killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snikers Posted December 30, 2002 Author Share Posted December 30, 2002 Yet another reason women can be soldiers! They don't die! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Of course, I did have one female casualty, and that was at the hands of another female soldier taking a VERY poorly aimed autoshot... so I dunno what to tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammy Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Now you see why my friends are almost always male. Women are too prone to turn on each other due to jealousy and envy. Was the one who got shot prettier than the other one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Must have been. My theory as to why only males were killed in that mission: Floaters are horny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammy Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 *hopes Scott had not yet picked up the XTC habit of naming a female soldier Tammy* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Heh, no, not yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammy Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Whew! No floater nightmares! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 What's the matter? Not interested in some hot you-on-Floater action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammy Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 I think I'll pass--they remind me of Darth Vader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonie Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Anyway back to some of your earlier discussions. The reason why there are less female soldiers than male soldiers in real life is because mother nature did not build human females for expending energy and preforming intense physical activities. Nature built most mammals like this: (WARNING: explenation is not for you shy types ) 1.)Males - They compete amongst themselves for as many females as they possibly can have under their control, they protect their females, kids, family, pack, pride,... from other threats like predators or other jealous males and bring home the food. These are their primary roles. For these they need stamina, strength and overall great physical abilities, though they do not need a great amount of care and compassion for their offspring. In short they are mainly brutes (though there are several exceptions in the wild and in humans ). 2.)Females :inlove: - They are simply there to breed and to care for the young that they have. In some cases (like legally ours species) they choose the strongest and most outstanding male that they want for their child (because of genetics) or (also like ILLEGALLY our species - wont go into details about either one ) the males simply claim them and the strongest amongst them naturally wins and gets to breed. After they have their child they take care and nurture it as much as possible and finnaly release it into the wild. For this they do not need great physical abilities and therefore mother nature didn't give any to them. But it has given them the ability to be more patient and understanding than males (though once again there are several exceptions in the wild and in humans ) The point I am trying to make? Females were not physically nor mentally built for combat - males were. PERIOD! (as rough as it might seem to some of you, you still have to remember however that there are always exceptions ). That is why you will find more males in the armies. Because they already have the physical abilities granted from mother nature and therefore do not need a great amount of training in order to be effective soldiers. Although I must admit that I once met a true woman soldier of our army and believe me, she could chop a guy in half with her freaking gaze!! That's also my second point that I would make. True female soldiers (not just those passing the time or things like that) are scarcer in the world's armies, but the few of them in a team could easily chop up an equally trained and numbered male team to peices since their drive must have been much stronger than that of the males. No doubt about THAT! JESUS! I must be more tired from the mountain hike than I thought. PHEW!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Photon Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 That sounds more of a machist argument than a scientifical one :hmmm: Besides, what use does it make to have more muscles if they don't have the intelligence to survive more? There are science studies that show that women in combat tend to be better soldiers than men as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snikers Posted December 31, 2002 Author Share Posted December 31, 2002 Um, I'm no scientist or psychologist, but wouldn't free will and sentience make a person able to overcome most of nature's limitations? As in, more than "some exceptions"? Not to be offensive to anyone, since anyone knows a lot more of this than I do, but that's only my 0.5 cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonie Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 [besides, what use does it make to have more muscles if they don't have the intelligence to survive more?] Believe me in the army you usually don't need intelligence in order to make it into normal ranks (but you would if you tried to make it into an elite one). What counts in the regular army is training. Adhere to it and remember it and you will always do well on the battlefield (assuming that the training itseld isn't wrong). If a normal grunt would have too much intelligence then he/she would start to question orders or even why the heck is he/she even in the army and that would break his efficency. The army doesn't want regular soldiers to be too smart, believe me. (once again I am not implying that anyone that goes into this thing is a moron or anything). [There are science studies that show that women in combat tend to be better soldiers than men as well.] You didn't read my post too well! I specifically said that at the end of my post that women soldiers might be scarcer but could easily defeat an equally trained male opponent in any situation! Try to understand that I am not a machist. Ask any teacher or person that knows about human anatomy and he/she will tell you the same thing that I said in my post. But if he/she claims the opposite...well...I have my opinion about that, but still I do not consider myself as being machist. I firmly believe in that. :hmmm: [um, I'm no scientist or psychologist, but wouldn't free will and sentience make a person able to overcome most of nature's limitations? As in, more than "some exceptions"?] It would, but most people of a certain gender do not consider doing a task for which they originally weren't geared to (once again I am afraid of sounding like a chauvinist or anything but still I'd like to reply at least... )Like I explained earlier, nature had originally planned females to be more at home, take care of things,... Now this doesn't mean that they cannot be brilliant soldiers. ANY woman that really wants to become one can become an excellent soldier! (except if the army has sexual restrictions) But the reason why I wrote that there are only "some exceptions" is because MOST women do not want to become soldiers but some of them do. Once again I don't like to be forcing anything unpleasant in so if you really want to I can shut up about this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solfius Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 The army doesn't want regular soldiers to be too smart, believe me. (once again I am implying that anyone that goes into this thing is a moron ).Its a well known fact in the cadets that the stupid people join the army sections to be macho etc, while clever people join the navy, and the rest join the RAF. (BTW I am heavily biased being in the navy cadets. There are always exceptions. And I apologise for doctoring the quote, but i couldn't resist ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonie Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Hehe, that's allright. I don't take anyone's opinion (including mine) to heart. I just express it, that's all. BTW how in the world do quote someone (i've still not figured it out though I might be the biggest jackass not to have found it out on my own ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NKF Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 *points* There, in the upper right corner of each post is a 'quote' button. Works just like the 'add reply' thingy, but it tacks on a copy of the quoted message at the beginning of your message once you hit the preview button or you post your message. Or you could make your own quotes by using the QUOTE tags. - NKF edit: Coming to think about it, what I'd like to know is if you can use strikethrough text... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonie Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Thanks a bunch NKF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Well I totally agree with Heinlein's approach, put the women in piloting roles and the men in combat. It just works. Women have been proven to withstand g-forces a lot better and stuff. If women want to go into armed forces, be a pilot or navigator in navy or something. Personally, if I were a soldier, I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing some hot babe is up in the skies watching me If a woman wants to be a soldier, tough shizzity. If a man wants to be a pilot, hey, tough crap buddy. But the real solution would be for some fine old chap to take over the world quickly and efficiently, join it as one nation, and there wouldn't be any more wars. Then all we'd have to worry about would be... sectoids. (scary music ensues) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 *chuckles* narrow minded. imho, if someone has the skills to do a job, then they get a shot at it. regardless of gender. and, yes, when my evil plans to fruition come, and the world mine is, no more childish in fighting will there be. and xcom for all! mwhahahaha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snikers Posted January 5, 2003 Author Share Posted January 5, 2003 XCOM for all? I'd like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now