Calls for UK to allow women in combat

[Alan.Wake]

That is of their own fault if they can't abide by the rules set out for them

Aye, they get discharged, reduced payment or rank, or even get away from it. Very righteous man-made laws indeed. Note, some high "dignitaries" don't exactly follow the laws themselves.

[Kirgiz]

Theres jobs that women do that men don't

Being a prostitute is one. Name me more?

, the UK isn't sexist at all, infact it tries to make things as fair as possible, for example the Welsh government has been told they need more women, by a man.. That seems sexist doesn't it? :roll:

Do you even have an idea what's sexist or you are engaging full retard mode?


Post Merge: January 31, 2013, 02:03:21 pm

So you are saying by not allowing women to go into frontline combat we are sexist? Well I disagree as the research shows that men are better suited to combat roles than are the women, due to science of their body construction. We do not have total women/men equality in everything as some jobs you can't, but to generalise and say we are all sexist is a bit far.

I was saying in general. I've read multiple times that throughout Europe there is a big issue of sexism job-wise, UK having the most. I can't find the article right now so you may consider that as speculation, but still.
Post Merge: January 31, 2013, 02:06:56 pm

Back up your statements with evidence if you are going to say they are scientific facts, instead of provoking people with name-calling.

I guess everything's a provoke for you, but back on 3rd-4th page I asked you to give scientific proof that women generally can be stronger than men, yet you decided to ignore my message, and now you're the one provoking by saying "NO YOU"RE WRONG" like a little child in the kindergarden. If you're the one to counter the claims, you're the one to bring up the evidence.

[Batta]

Being a prostitute is one.

Wrong..

throughout Europe there is a big issue of sexism job-wise, UK having the most.

Actually the English people is known for being/having been quite racist as well, that wouldn't surprise me.


In any case, you guys keep generalizing. That's true. Women are generally weaker and sensitive than men. Is this a reason to keep this ban in general even if there are patricular cases, that would actually suit a soldier duty?

[Mikal]

Sugar, I gave you your scientific proof and you ignore it, proven wrong are we?

Do you even have an idea what's sexist or you are engaging full retard mode?

I'm not being sexist, I'm putting a fact forward which is true.

Typically in Western societies, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.[12] This sex difference does not apply equally to all human societies, however. In Bali, for example, where men do not usually participate in heavy work, there is less difference between the muscle mass of men and women.[13]
Gross measures of body strength suggest a 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength.[14][15] The smaller difference in lower body strength may be due to the fact that during childhood, both males and females frequently exercise their leg muscles during activities like running, walking, and playing.[16] Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength.[16] One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.[17] Another study found men to have significantly higher hand-grip strength than women, even when comparing untrained men with female athletes.[18] Differences in width of arm, thighs and calves also increase during puberty. Exercise can lower the degree of sex differentiation in muscle development as adults. For example, the amount of oxygen that the blood can carry is very similar in male and female athletes, while in untrained people women cannot carry as much oxygen.[13]
Most statistics in the areas of strength, power, muscle mass, and height of human males and females is based on mean numbers, but these numbers are not exact representations of a society as they exclude information on the spread of the data. When considering the spread of most statistics, there is significant overlap in the values of physical traits between men and women. In addition, there are a significant number of individuals who deviate from from the average statistics.[19]

You are 'engaging in full retard mode' by not being able to decypher the difference between sexism and factual comments.
Am I being sexist to men if I say women have a better pain tolerance which is true? No, I'm stating a fact.

Men = Stronger because of human evolution, men have always had the physical work such as hunting and building.
Women = Better pain tolerance as they're the ones that birth kids which as everyone knows is extremely painful.

Actually the English people is known for being/having been quite racist as well, that wouldn't surprise me.

So by singling out English people, you're saying Welsh, Scottish and Irish people arnt as racist?
Just saying this as alot of people think everyone in the UK is English, derp.

[Batta]

Am I being sexist to men if I say women have a better pain tolerance which is true? No, I'm stating a fact.

This is true generally once again.

So by singling out English people, you're saying Welsh, Scottish and Irish people arnt as racist?
Just saying this as alot of people think everyone in the UK is English, derp.

UK then. Happier?

[Mikal]

This is true generally once again.

Generally being the larger amount which makes it a fact that the opposite sex has better pain tolerance or muscular capacity.

UK then. Happier?

British.* :roll:

[Batta]

Generally being the larger amount which makes it a fact that the opposite sex has better pain tolerance or muscular capacity.

Why making rules that exclude the minority who actually have the skills needed?

[Mikal]

Why making rules that exclude the minority who actually have the skills needed?

Well it'd be costing millions to sort through the people that actually have what it takes, that is why they don't allow women, as the 'general' amount of them have been proven to be the weaker sex, they would have to go through loads at a time just to find the ones that are physicly strong enough, and all that work/training would cost to much, the UK's military already has alot of budget cuts, the last thing they need to do is blow more millions on just going through a group of people to find 1 specific person that suits a combat role.

[Jones]

Women are already out there. They just aren't in the combat zones. If those men can't control themselves, they need to be retrained or transfer.

It's not that they cannot control themselves, it's the fact their instinct would be to 'protect' the women that are in danger, which in the front line would be always. There was an American study which showed that men, on average, would protect women even if it meant putting others at risk. It's their subconscious, their instinct, not their mental capability.

[[WS]Jacob]

There was an American study which showed that men, on average, would protect women even if it meant putting others at risk.

Which is a potential for catastrophe if in the wrong situation.

[Batta]

Which is a potential for catastrophe if in the wrong situation.

A man would obviously press the "destroy your country" button to save a girl.. oh, come on!

If you let skilled people to join the army you won't have these problems.

What's the difference between man and woman with the very hard rules/behaviour a soldier goes under?

[[WS]Jacob]

What's the difference between man and woman with the very hard rules/behaviour a soldier goes under?

It's not that they cannot control themselves, it's the fact their instinct would be to 'protect' the women that are in danger, which in the front line would be always. There was an American study which showed that men, on average, would protect women even if it meant putting others at risk. It's their subconscious, their instinct, not their mental capability.

[Batta]

Oh well you want to play with quotes, here you are!

If you let skilled people to join the army you won't have these problems.

[[WS]Jacob]

First quote is blank #awkward It doesn't matter if you are skilled or not, you see someone in danger and your instinct takes over which would be to save them. As Jones has said in males if a female was in danger they would be compelled to instinctively save the woman, putting themselves as well as comrades in potential danger.

[SugarD]

First quote is blank #awkward It doesn't matter if you are skilled or not, you see someone in danger and your instinct takes over which would be to save them. As Jones has said in males if a female was in danger they would be compelled to instinctively save the woman, putting themselves as well as comrades in potential danger.

Not necessarily. Some women instinctively save children or men first too.