Do you call this Opportunity?

DK,

If the women are equal to the men in strength then why do the men so often overpower the women?

If you take a man and a women and subject them to the same training, I wager the man will come out superiour.

My husband and I walked, ran and climbed mountains. In walking we were equal, in running he easily outran me.

In mountain climbing--no contest. I could have run zillions of miles per day for eternity and never caught him in running.
I am too broad- hipped to be a runner.

Explain please.

What was the age cut-off for induction into the US Army during WWII? What is it now? I'm not trying to change the subject, but seems to me that if we let everyone go into the military regardless of sex, then niether should age be an arbitrary limitation. I know some guys in thier 50s and 60s who are in fighting shape still.

Actually, We should change the criteria for the soliders.

Instead of having hospice--induct the terminally ill into the armed forces.

That way they could die as heroes and instead of a drain they would be a gain.

This would save our perfect young men for life, romance and children.

domenic Pappalardo wrote:

Shelagh wrote:

Domenic,

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the bible. The stories in the bible are stories written by men, not by God. These stories mean a great deal to some Christians, especially those who choose to believe everything they read. I don't have a problem with this. If something brings comfort, gives people a sense of direction and hope and makes their life better than it would be without the teachings of the bible, then I'm all for it. I just don't believe the world was created in seven days and seven nights ...

The bible says God created the things on the earth in seven days, not the earth. It could have taken billions of years to create the earth.
I have made a life study of the bible. I believe only what I can prove. The bible does not give me comfort. It turns ones world upside-down. I believe in science. Together( the bible & science) make a very different tale.
Clay of the Gods is written as fiction, but, everything within it, can be proven with the aid of science. I don't like what I can prove...the fairy tale religious leaders offer, gave me comfort.

For someone who has studied the bible, I think you should re-read Genesis:

Genesis 1 – 26:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…..”
“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.”
Genesis 2:
“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done…….”

As Shelagh said, it is a good story.

Hmmm. This is something of a sensitive subject.

There was a time when women as doctors, lawyers, politicians was rare. Now they are quite common.

Now we see more women paramedics, police officers, firefighters, and TRUCK DRIVERS!!! Yay!

And yes. We have women soldiers.

Sure I think women should be given the same chances as men. If they can do the job as well. Which means passing the same tests ... including physical. And that means passing the SAME test ... not one adjusted to allow for their 'weaknesses'.

My son was a wildland firefighter for three years. The women firefighters had to do the same physical training. His captain one year was a woman who was as strong as horse. These guys (and gals) have to go out there into heat and smoke and trust each other with their lives. He trusted her and respected her skill and knowledge.

But he's also a soldier and has been to Afghanistan. He isn't so comfortable trusting his life to some of the female soldiers he has worked with.

Marie wrote:

Quote :

Gender roles were defined thousands of years ago
as our societies developed. As our earliest civilizations were born
childbirth was a particularly risky proposition and in order to ensure
the growth of populations, women gave birth and became nurturers while
men took on the tasks of providing for and protecting women and
children. Men also took the leadership roles in the individual
societies that developed.

I agree with you about most of this statement, except for the leadership roles. The earliest cities developed from the planting societies, which were generally matriarchies as opposed to patriarchies. They had female deities and valued "feminine" ideals, like compliance and responsibility over the risk-taking individualism of the hunters and herders. The planters saw no need for developing better hunting implements, which became the first war implements, so as the hunters saw how the settled societies were developing, and the easy to get stores of food after the animal herds were dwindling, they began to raid, and eventually overtake the cities. Joseph Campbell's Primitive Mythology is one good source for the history. Nancy Chodorow, in Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory does a thorough job of researching and explaining the early development of traits we now consider to be masculine and feminine.

As you pointed out, Marie, much centered on the fact that it was women who gave birth to the children.

Ann

Richard, the age limits for entering Army service in WWII were 18-38. The Navy and Marines took them at 17. As time passed, some men grew older than 38, of course.

As for men in their 50s and 60s being in fighting shape, they aren't. For a short time, perhaps. How about after three months? No way.

When preparing the Normandy beaches for invasion, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel said his infantry units were not capable of doing the job because their average age was 25. I read that after the war and didn't believe it. Then I went back into the infantry for the Korean War at age 26. Then I believed it. I could still do it, but the difference between 18 and 26 is greater than most people realize. Those men in their 50s and 60s would be fine for rear echelon jobs, not the infantry. During the last months of WWII in 1945 the Germans were using men in their 50s at the front. They were pathetic, easy pushovers. Young men of 15 and 16 were worthy opponents. Younger than that they were not once things turned nasty. Until then, boys of 12 and 13 were tough competitors, but they reverted to being boys when things heated up.

Dick,

I was thinking about this regarding my son-in-law who is a Navy doctor. The Navy paid for his medical school and he intends to stay in to reach a total of twenty years. He had been in the army in his late teens and twenties and then became a nurse and went to undergraduate and medical school. The years in the army count, but he will be over fifty if he continues to retirement. What I wonder is those who are doctors on the front lines, sometimes in the line of fire, who are probably older, doing the impossible without sleep, carrying people and equipment.

There are a lot of issues on this thread, good ones.

Also, thanks for your compliments to me on another thread.

Carol

Carol Troestler wrote:

Dick,

I was thinking about this regarding my son-in-law who is a Navy doctor. The Navy paid for his medical school and he intends to stay in to reach a total of twenty years. He had been in the army in his late teens and twenties and then became a nurse and went to undergraduate and medical school. The years in the army count, but he will be over fifty if he continues to retirement. What I wonder is those who are doctors on the front lines, sometimes in the line of fire, who are probably older, doing the impossible without sleep, carrying people and equipment.

There are a lot of issues on this thread, good ones.

Also, thanks for your compliments to me on another thread.

Carol

Carol

I don't think the doctors carry the wounded and equipment-they have other personnel for that.

Yeah, your right, Dick. The guys in the 50s and 60s would be fine for pogue jobs, or for a short time thing, but not for the long haul.

You are probably right as usual, Alice.

Carol

It's different today because there is no actual front line. It used to be that the doctor closest to the fighting was the battalion surgeon at the Battalion Aid Station. Litter bearers and the walking wounded would follow the Line of Attrition back to Battalion Aid. From there the seriously wounded would go by ambulance to a Collecting Company. The worst would then be transported to a Clearing Station. From there they would go either to a General Hospital or Combat Exhaustion Center for five days and then back to the front. At each place they were worked on by doctors.

That was under ideal conditions and was usually the case. At times, though, a Battalion Aid Station would be overrun. During the Battle of the Bulge, even Collecting Companies and Clearing Stations were overrun. Then doctors and nurses (there were no nurses at Battalion Aid) would be captured.

At times at Battalion Aid there were fifty or more wounded waiting to be treated by the lone battalion surgeon. He had one helluva job. Ours was a red-haired man of about 40 or 45. He was gruff by necessity and impatient. In quiet times during cold weather he'd have us line up and stomp on our feet to see if we had trench foot.

Richard Stanbery wrote:

Yeah, your right, Dick. The guys in the 50s and 60s would be fine for pogue jobs, or for a short time thing, but not for the long haul.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29189177/

Army Doc, 74, ready to deploy to Afghanistan

It's the 3rd tour overseas since 2005 for retired lieutenant colonel

He was talking about men who do the fighting, LC. A man of 74 would be lucky to make it to lunch time if compelled to do that. It's commendable, though, that he's able to do what he does over there.

I know, I know ...just thought it looked relevant to the twist the thread has taken. Think he should be out there, commendable or not?

Dick,

How could he tell that way?


In quiet times during cold weather he'd have us line up and stomp on our feet to see if we had trench foot.

Was this the best way, the only way?

I don't know a thing about the diagnosis of Trench foot--I hope the treatment was more humane.

Did any of the other doctors check you for Trench foot?

Just curious as usual.

I think it's fine that he's there as a doctor, LC. Great, really.

Alice, if you showed it hurt some way, you were OK. If you didn't react, that was a bad sign. I'm sure if you were sent back for trench foot there were more scientific ways of checking, but probably none more reliable.
There were no other doctors. You could go for weeks or months and never see the battalion surgeon unless you got hit. There were no check ups and it was rare for anyone to get sick. One man did get appendicitis and another pneumonia. I can't imagine how the latter happened because we grew immune to almost everything. A close friend who was 38 had seven kids and arthritis so bad he hadn't been able to work for three years. They put him in the mortar section so he wouldn't have to run fast like the riflemen. We had guys sent back to the front with one arm in a sling after being hit. Not much chance for a rifleman to survive that way. The problem was they had trained only 700,000 riflemen, not nearly enough so they were always in short supply.
I was hit in the mouth in a hand-to-hand fight and had to go to a dentist because a tooth was broken off. He drilled another one with a drill operated by pumping it with a foot. He put a temporary filling in that tooth and I was supposed to go back for a permanent filling in a week if I was still alive. Nothing could have gotten me near that drill again. The temporary filling lasted six years.

When we took the physical when my National Guard outfit was called up for the Korean War a man put a tongue depressor in my mouth and without looking told a guy with a clipboard, "Eyes, ears, nose and throat OK." There wasn't as much attention paid to medical stuff back then.

I think I sympathize with Dick's doctor. Trench foot could lead to gangrene and amputations, and the doctors had more to do than time to do it. It sounds harsh, but under the circumstances, it was probably expedient. Talk about being happy to feel pain!

Ann

You guessed it.

I believe that there are as many differences among men as among women. Therefore, there may be strength differences across the board. I explained that men of the past gravitated to brawn type occupations and maintained their strength, women to desk jobs for spreading hips. Times are changing when jobs for both depend on the brain not the physical stature. In the meantime, training makes the difference in overcoming weaknesses, whether in men or women. Personally, I like the differences between men and women; I just don't see them interfering with professional choices and the best use of their intelligence and talent.

I will fourth it!

Why are we women so eager to do a man's work anyway?

We end up doing theirs and ours.

I don't see the guys clammering to be girls.

We gotta be half daft.

Viva la difference

It's because men's work pays more, has more upward mobility opportunities, has more job satisfaction, has more prestige, provides more perks, provides more security and retirement benefits, and need I say more? There is lots more.

Men do choose the health professions, teaching, social services, cosmotology, and others formerly womens' domains. However, they went into health professions when the money came in; and most of the men I know in the serving professions couldn't have made it in the corporate heat or competition.

I don't care who works where; I just want the opportunity to make non-gender based choices.

dkchristi wrote:

Men do choose the health professions, teaching, social services, cosmotology, and others formerly womens' domains. However, they went into health professions when the money came in; and most of the men I know in the serving professions couldn't have made it in the corporate heat or competition.

I don't care who works where; I just want the opportunity to make non-gender based choices.

The first paragraph above looks awfully gender-based, though. Should I infer that women who are in the serving professions today are there because they can't handle corporate heat and competition? (my own answer to that is "yes.")