Viewing Thread:
"I'm not a sexist, but..."

Men and Women are different! C'mon, men are (Naturally stronger than women, but women have abilities better than men (no not ironing or any other crappy joke of the same theme))

A few years back Women were'nt allowed in the fireservice, now some of them had a sh!tfit and eventually the goverment said yes, now women can be firefighters, only problem, mens natural ability to be taller therefor stronger, made them better than MOST women, therefor, women failed the tests and couldnt become firefighters. Fair enough, we have these tests to make sure people are capable of saving and protecting lives...the goverment make the test ALOT easier for women, giving them a pass rate, therefor, more women are now firefighters, therefor my life is to be saved when a 5ft 5" woman carrys me out of a window ever her shoulder...?

Well then, that seems a little unfair, but get this, the women were demanding EQUAL rights! EQUAL. So, what do they do? They go out and make 'Diamond', the only car insurance JUST for women. That doesnt seem fantastically equal to me. But, men, we keep schtoomp, because we cant be bothered to argue. Woman howerever, if this was an advert saying 'Male onyl car insurance' or in other words 'Because its women who cause crashes and raise the rates', would get it banned. Now I dont mind the service, all I'm saying is Ladies, for god's sakes make up your mind, which is it you want, equal rights or privilages for different sexes?

Your veiws?

Oh, but I do just have to say.

If anyone that ever doubts if men are naturally stronger then women just needs to look at the upper echelons of most physical sports.

Athletics for example.

phi11ip wrote:
> I was told on holiday by some woman that I should get used to being
> wrong because women are always right...
>


"I'm not blaming you because its your fault, but because your the nearest man" was my favourite used at me recently

Déb wrote:
> English_Bloke wrote:
> Got to say I disagree a little with you Deb.
>
> A woman is capable of building muscle, no doubt. But it is “easier”
> for men due to their higher levels of testosterone. A lot of
> bodybuilders use steroids, (tablet testosterone), if you took a male
> and a female, without any juicing and put them through the same
> training schedule, the male would put on more muscle mass then the
> female.
>
> Haha, you obviously haven't seen the women down at the animal
> samctuary I volunteer at. They do all the hard work every day and are
> as strong as any of the men (one of the firefighters who works there
> was telling us about the bruises he has from when she punched him in
> the arm!)
>
> I agree with you about the testosterone, but where a woman may lag
> behind slightly in strength, she makes up with steely determination
> and quick wit (ever seen a woman in 'Next' during the january sales?
> ;-) Being a firefighter isn't ALL about lifting people!


woooooo yea!
DéBster hits a home run!
Completely true...who can turn down that kinda value!?

Déb wrote:
> (ever seen a woman in 'Next' during the january sales?

Yep, I'm taking my CS with me next year!

English_Bloke wrote:
> Got to say I disagree a little with you Deb.
>
> A woman is capable of building muscle, no doubt. But it is “easier”
> for men due to their higher levels of testosterone. A lot of
> bodybuilders use steroids, (tablet testosterone), if you took a male
> and a female, without any juicing and put them through the same
> training schedule, the male would put on more muscle mass then the
> female.

Haha, you obviously haven't seen the women down at the animal samctuary I volunteer at. They do all the hard work every day and are as strong as any of the men (one of the firefighters who works there was telling us about the bruises he has from when she punched him in the arm!)

I agree with you about the testosterone, but where a woman may lag behind slightly in strength, she makes up with steely determination and quick wit (ever seen a woman in 'Next' during the january sales? ;-) Being a firefighter isn't ALL about lifting people!

One thing a lot of you are overlooking regarding women in frontline units - there is more to it than shooting and killing. Yes, there are women terrorists, but in nearly all cases they're mentally unhinged so they are not the best example to cite ! Those who joined in the taking of the Moscow Theatre last year with Chechen rebels - around 25 took a theatre and wired it for detonation along with 300 odd people - were indeed willing to die, but instead the lost. Suicide bombers can be anyone or anything, and mostly it's religious brainwashing that persuades people into it.

But back to women frontline units. If oyu mix men and women then there is the logistical side to it, as well as numerous rights issues. You cannot have your unit change in the open air as one, they can't use just one dug out for a toilet and so forth. It also introduces tension in a unit, and there is bound to be a semi protective nature towards female members if they are a minority in the unit. Basically, in this role, women are not equal to me. Can a woman be trained to engage any target, regardless of age or sex ? Statistics on child killers - though admittedly this is in relation to criminals - shows the majority of men, very few women. How many girls/women here could open fire on a kid with an AK47 with no hestitation ? 'cause if you hesitate one moment you and your team could die. Of course there is no evidence to say men could engage any target any better, except that they are more disposed towards aggressive behaviour and during their life will have done activities that build on this - sports, videogames and so forth.

Another aspect is training. You couldn't train male and females together, hence less of a bond between members of the same unit.

Israel is a unique situation, they use women, but they are not at war and are never likely to be. Plus Israel puts more money into battlefield technology per trooper than most other nations like the UK, and the kind of mission they perform is not the ones we train out army units for - they don't do peacekeeping, rarely involve in situations like the Gulf - for obvious reasons, and so on. More of a national guard than a military.

Then of course there is the mental side to it. I may be wrong, but men seem more likely to take in seeing emotional scenes and not openly let it affect them than most women. I'm generalising but its something I've seen to be true, maybe I'm wrong. Frontline troops see war up close, of our military units sent to Bosnia 1996-1999 we had something like a 25% drop out rate as a result of what many saw over there.

In addition, should women be allowed to serve, then they still would not gain access to many units like the Royal Marines, and Special Forces.

The areas where women are allowed to serve - air force, navy, intelligence, are all those where contact with the enemy is removed. There is still danger, but not imminent, and in a role like intelligence women can sometimes do better than men depending on the target.

Ultimately, the only people that have any say in this are the military top brass, and we're entering an age where warfare is rapidly changing, hence it's impossible to truly predict what will happen in the future.

Déb wrote:
> What a good debate!
>
> I am 5ft 11ins, and if I did the neccessary training, I could perform
> the duties of a fire-fighter just as well as a man with the same
> height:weight ratio. Similarly, the argument that a 5ft 5ins woman
> would find it difficult to lift people out of a burning building- so
> would a 5ft 5ins man of the same build. It all depends on strength,
> and a woman is capable of building just as much muscle as a man with
> the correct fitness training (anyone ever seen a female
> bodybuilder/weightlifter?)
>
> As for front line fighting, I know for a fact that the Israeli army
> uses females on the front line. Women can be just as agressive as men
> (if not more- for example, a large number of suicide bombers and
> terrorists are female, and their victims have reported them to be
> more ruthless than their male counterparts.) Remember, it is the
> lioness that defends the cubs and catches the prey, the lion just
> sits around looking proud all day ;-)
>
> A scientist called Margaret Mead did a study of various, previously
> unstudied, tribes in New Guinea and found that gender role varied a
> lot amongst the tribes. For example, in one tribe, the females caught
> the food, looked after the tribe and were extremely aggressive and
> the males sat and made jewelery and put make-up on.

Very good arguments deb. I agree. I think that if a women is proved capable (in taking the same tests as men) then there is no reason she should be deprived of a job she fits. And very true some men are as small and less strong as women. It depends on the individual and the physical ability/height etc not simply on gender.

Déb wrote:
> It all depends on strength,
> and a woman is capable of building just as much muscle as a man with
> the correct fitness training (anyone ever seen a female
> bodybuilder/weightlifter?)


Got to say I disagree a little with you Deb.

A woman is capable of building muscle, no doubt. But it is “easier” for men due to their higher levels of testosterone. A lot of bodybuilders use steroids, (tablet testosterone), if you took a male and a female, without any juicing and put them through the same training schedule, the male would put on more muscle mass then the female.

What a good debate!

I am 5ft 11ins, and if I did the neccessary training, I could perform the duties of a fire-fighter just as well as a man with the same height:weight ratio. Similarly, the argument that a 5ft 5ins woman would find it difficult to lift people out of a burning building- so would a 5ft 5ins man of the same build. It all depends on strength, and a woman is capable of building just as much muscle as a man with the correct fitness training (anyone ever seen a female bodybuilder/weightlifter?)

As for front line fighting, I know for a fact that the Israeli army uses females on the front line. Women can be just as agressive as men (if not more- for example, a large number of suicide bombers and terrorists are female, and their victims have reported them to be more ruthless than their male counterparts.) Remember, it is the lioness that defends the cubs and catches the prey, the lion just sits around looking proud all day ;-)

A scientist called Margaret Mead did a study of various, previously unstudied, tribes in New Guinea and found that gender role varied a lot amongst the tribes. For example, in one tribe, the females caught the food, looked after the tribe and were extremely aggressive and the males sat and made jewelery and put make-up on.

Lil Ginge wrote:
> Petty assumption I think
>
> I have had this discussion with a group of friends. Some being Men
> and some being women..
>
> The outcome was that some women would like to/want to out of the
> group. They would gladly fight for their country once properly
> trained.
>
> Some of the guys were also in the same mind frame - Although some of
> the women AND men would not want to fight frontline. Most of them if
> they had a get out said they would rather use it and that was for
> both of the sexes.

I believe that the argument for women *not* fighting on the frontline is because the dynamic between a man and another man is often different that the dynamic between a man and a woman.

Basically, like I said earlier "all men are perverts".

Also in some situations a female hostage is at greater risk than a male hostage because of the different cultures around the world.

I'm not saying that I agree with it. Just making a point.
I can see how all male groups might be more efficient that mixed groups, but that's not because women are not capable.