... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:



Actually, that one's not made up.  It's quite well known (and often quoted).

It's discussed in an old book by Dave Grossman, called 'On Killing'.

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:



All they need to do is provide the male soldiers with these:



And the female soldiers with these:

... wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:41pm:


I tend to agree with you.

Anyway, for those interested:

"In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman ...

"Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor, even making concessions to sexism, reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered. Similarly, Iraqi and Afghani civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers. However, in such environments, having female soldiers serving within a combat unit does have the advantage of allowing for searches on female civilians, and in some cases the female areas of segregated mosques, while causing less offense amongst the occupied population. A notable example of this would be the so-called "Lionesses," female US military personnel who are specially selected to participate in patrols and raids for this purpose."

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:00pm:




Kudos meat, you're a gem in the rough of inanity. 


Pls tell us about your time in uniform from which you have formulated your 'expert' opinion. 

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:



Women not being as strong as men is not a stereotype, it's a biological fact.

I can see your military experience comes from playing Call to Duty 4 and not much else, so here are some facts.

A soldier goes through a bit more than basic training before they get to be called a soldier. The job is hard enough for most males and near impossible for females.

Sh1t the last time labor had one of these brilliant plans, all it did was lower the standards required for males, just so the females could say they were 'equal' and we ended up with lesser males getting through the system.

These social experiments are best kept to the 'arts' departments of our more progressive universities and leave the job of killing to those who can do it properly.

It's just another labor party distraction to divert the ADHD labor faithful from the disaster that is the current government.

BigOl64 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:22pm:


Read what i said. I said basic traing AND ALL THE EXERCISES NEEDED jesus. I never claimed any "military experience" so your insults are lost on me there because you have no idea if i have or not.

It is a stereotype. SOME women are as strong and even stronger than SOME men. Jesus.

What has it got to do with labour? Either party would do this because its a natural progression in human rights. Everyone should have the chance to die.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:32pm:


Yes, but those men are what we in the business refer to as 'wusses" (among other terms)  They won't pass the basic requirements of the army, and should really consider handing back their Y chromosome.  They are irrelevant to both this argument, and life in general.

Although strength isn't the right measure, as a baalnce is needed between strength and endurance.  There are 6 foot 5, 200kg "women" in the world who have the strength you'd expect of someone their size.  But, it ain't much good if you've also got the endurance associated with someone that size.