Please see my previous post. I get that people have these preconceived notions about what women can and can't do, but may of them are wrong. I am a guy, so I won't pretend to know what it is like to be a woman, but I can tell you that historically speaking some of the fiercest fighters have had their women fight along side their men in combat. As for knowing what it takes to be a sniper, see previous post.Mick Golden Blood said:
Doesn't change the fact that for every 1 woman who is capable of passing that level of training, there are a 100 men who can do a better job.barbzilla said:Before you go insulting someone because you think you know anything about them, you should really try to do some research. Women are very capable of endurance training, and can easily accomplish carrying up to 50lbs of equipment on hikes in high altitude situations, just look at the 73 year old lady who climbed Mt. Everest ( in case you are too lazy to do your own research http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/19/world/asia/nepal-everest-cimb/index.html). I grew up in a military family, and I am very aware of what enlistment is, and how it works. I am also aware that women are not currently allowed to be snipers. This does not mean that I am wrong. Women are well suited to the type of conditions that snipers are placed under, and are very capable of completing the training (which is usually far more rigorous than the missions) as they are the actual mission. The biggest (environmental) problem that most snipers face in the field is hunger. Snipers on mission will often go days at a time sitting in the same place with minimal movement and very limited supplies. Intel is not very accurate and they work off of known habits. This doesn't mean that their target will actually go to the place they are expected to in the time frame they hope. The sniper is in place and they don't scrub the mission, they wait.Aaron Sylvester said:Video games are great, I know! But they don't show you the part about sniping where you have to carry ~20-25kg of equipment and climb/hike up to 10km+ on foot in hostile areas and difficult terrain. They also don't show you the part where the snipers are put through even MORE gruesome physical training compared to frontline soldiers/marines, people can't simply walk into the army and tick a box which says "I wants 2 be sniper!", this isn't Call of Duty.
So of you think it's a good idea to start enlisting small flexible women into the army solely for the purpose of becoming sniping specialists some day, all I can say is...well actually no, nothing needs to be said
And on the topic of wanting "equal treatment", in the past 10,000 years of recorded history there hasn't been a SINGLE culture/society/civilization where women were expected to do exactly the same work as men, take on exactly the same roles, and therefore be treated exactly the same. No such thing exists or has ever existed, and even if such a society did exist it obviously didn't fucking work and they went extinct.
So please go do some research before you go around insulting people. It is very crass, and tends to make you look like something that rimes with a word in this sentence.
"There are instances recorded where women participated both in warfare and in kingship, although they were in the minority in these areas."barbzilla said:
I really don't see the hypocrisy. All men are not built equal, nor are all women. I think in general, women and men should be pretty equally able to defend themselves to the best of their ability, but that doesn't mean everyone is equally brave or capable of doing that.barbzilla said:
I have done my research. Celts had their women fight along side with them, same goes for Vikings. As a matter of fact Vikings is where we get the term battle born, that is where a child is born during a battle. As for the every 1 woman we have 100 men passing, that is because of social stigmas and expectations. If as many women tried as men we would see much closer to equal numbers. But instead we tell women they have to wait for their knight in shining armor to rescue them, and that they are all princesses when the grow up. Society is what makes women out to be what they are, not the other way around (as proven by the celts and vikings).Aaron Sylvester said:
Um... I agree? That is pretty much what I said, with the exception that making broad generalized statements and then not following through on them is hypocrisy. They are saying one thing and doing another, which is the very essence of hypocrisy.Chemical Alia said:
Pretty ironic coming from a someone who hasn't posted a shred of research or source material themselves, other than playing the "I've done my research" line (which FYI doesn't count). I'm the only one who has posted a quote sourced from wiki, and yet it is me again who is sourcing more stuff and I can't find any evidence of anything you have said so far.barbzilla said:
5 years old actually. And they didn't have armies made up of them. The rigorous training those 5-year old girls went through killed 90% of them. They were small elite teams given the finest armor crafted by Hephaestus himself; made from the bones of falling kings, forged in the fires of hells fury and cooled with the wailing tears of the men they rejected. Warrior goddesses one and all, they could tame the mightiest lion with their courageous gaze, and lived life on the edge of their blades. Why, they could fight 20 men without breaking a sweat, all without ruining their perfect hair. Their prestigious order was so secretive, even Leonidis didn't know only 4 of them held off another 2 million Persians on what was commonly referred to as the "cool gates". It's been speculated that they are responsible for the original myth of the 'Valkery', since they were known to swoop in, as if from the heavens, and carry off the bodies of the fallen heroes. No doubt to harvest their genes to spawn more of their bad ass sisters. It's where the inspiration for Xena came from no doubt. And that's what one might look like after the tolls of middle age start affecting their fighting skills; they tend to lose their quick step.Aaron Sylvester said:
If you came up with all that yourself then bravo, you made me laugh pretty hard especially at the "cooled with the wailing tears of the men they rejected" part XDDevilWithaHalo said:
He shouldn't have as necros are actually a reportable offense.ruedyn said:
Sorry, you are correct, I mispoke, women fought against the roman army and won when they went against the celts. I wasn't paying attention when I wrote that post. It will be edited to reflect as much. Sorry again.Mick Golden Blood said:
Yeah, as I said to the previous poster I was wrong about rome, I wasn't paying attention, that should have read women fought against a roman legion. I am actually a dunce this time, and I apologize for that. I have edited the previous post to reflect what it should have said. I do love how you jumped on my one mistake though, yet you fail to provide any hard proof on the topic at hand. Anyway this topic isn't about history lessons, I was only pointing out that historically women have fought alongside men and have done well.Aaron Sylvester said:
Yes, because:Bhaalspawn said:
