Women Invited To Apply To U.S. Army's Elite, All-Male Ranger School

[Prin.Ciples]

Don't you believe this was meant to be a degrading action? That a General of the Army of King Jabin was killed by a women?

Of course it would be dishonorable in that culture. Are you suggesting Ancient Near Eastern cultural attitudes recorded in the Bible are normative for today?

I'm not the one trying to change Ancient Near Eastern culture to make it fit my ideology.

I have simply said there is no biblical example of such. I stand by what I said. I never said a person needed a biblical example to serve in the Elite Rangers. I do believe its a bad idea to include women. I've given examples of why. Its just my educated opinion. Its not less valuable than your own.

 

[Prin.Ciples]

Actually Military personnel lives are not an open book.  We who served are no different than those who did not serve in that respect.  I don't walk down the road of my community and ask people their sexual preference...my mind simply does not go there.  While serving in the military, my mind did not go there either.  Once again if someone shoves it in my face, and makes a big deal about their sexual preference and demands me to condone and celebrate it, that's another thing.  But when I was serving my primary concern with the person on a call with me or in the MP sedan with me was their qualification to be there.  I rode with some, both male and female, that were clearly unqualified...and they were dangerous.  I also rode with some, both male and female, that were completely qualified...and they were a joy to work with and I knew they had my back.  Don't know if I ever rode with a homosexual...nor did it ever cross my mind to ask.

I think you're wrong about it but you obviously have experience suriving with various people. I do believe that a limp wrist "Larry" would have been rather easy to spot in a fox hole.

 

[T-Bone]

Actually Military personnel lives are not an open book.  We who served are no different than those who did not serve in that respect.  I don't walk down the road of my community and ask people their sexual preference...my mind simply does not go there.  While serving in the military, my mind did not go there either.  Once again if someone shoves it in my face, and makes a big deal about their sexual preference and demands me to condone and celebrate it, that's another thing.  But when I was serving my primary concern with the person on a call with me or in the MP sedan with me was their qualification to be there.  I rode with some, both male and female, that were clearly unqualified...and they were dangerous.  I also rode with some, both male and female, that were completely qualified...and they were a joy to work with and I knew they had my back.  Don't know if I ever rode with a homosexual...nor did it ever cross my mind to ask.

I think you're wrong about it but you obviously have experience suriving with various people. I do believe that a limp wrist "Larry" would have been rather easy to spot in a fox hole.

We will have to let it go at that...but there are all kinds of different personifications when it comes to homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals...doubt it crossed any bodies mind in the early and middle years of Rock Hudson that he was a sodomite.  Have a great day!

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Prin.Ciples]I'm not the one trying to change Ancient Near Eastern culture to make it fit my ideology. [/quote]

"They didn't have a male dominated society." - PC

 

[Green Beret]

What more can I say?

Obviously, nothing.

Please give me a word that describes one pounding a stake through the commander's head. Perhaps you have a technical term. Everything I read calls it combat.

No technical term needed. I already called it what it was...an assassination - though some of the more "progressive" types call it murder.

If someone is calling that act "combat" then I would say, from a professional point of view, they surely don't know what they are talking about.

English... Hebrew... I think I have read it enough.

Then my advice would be to become teachable and gain understanding from the reading. It would also help to stop ignoring or adding to scripture to meet your preconceived notion (held by a group you hold in esteem or not).

 

[Prin.Ciples]

[quote author=Prin.Ciples]I'm not the one trying to change Ancient Near Eastern culture to make it fit my ideology.

"They didn't have a male dominated society." - PC
[/quote]

If you really believe this, then why are framing this question to me? I'm not the one that brought this belief into the discussion. You're being dishonest. You should ask ddgently.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Silly people, don't ya know on the freebird fundamental forum the only normative rituals and cultural elements still carried over to the NT with any merit is the pursuit of oinos.





Been a busy couple of days, and I probably won't get back to the forum for a couple more, but when I do I'll try to straighten some of y'all out. 


On a more serious note, two thoughts:

1) I don't think that such contrasting views should merit such acrimony of each other's position. 

2) The fact that the Bible regularly depicts the Israelite armies practically exclusively drawn from amongst the male population is not an argument to be dismissed by arguments from silence.

See ya in a couple of days.

 

[FSSL]

No technical term needed. I already called it what it was...an assassination - though some of the more "progressive" types call it murder.

Aren't special forces used to assasinate? The context in which Deborah and Jael were involved was a battle. It was war. A woman was promised to finishe off the battle.

Then my advice would be to become teachable and gain understanding from the reading. It would also help to stop ignoring or adding to scripture to meet your preconceived notion (held by a group you hold in esteem or not).

Have you consulted a commentary or anything that people with your viewpoint of "no women in the military" have written? I have. They fail to drive home a genuine biblical worldview(tm).

I used to believe they were right. What changed is the fact that I had to reconsider the basis of their arguments. They have drawn out expanded applications on tenuous theological principles and drop in passages that hardly speak to the issue.

I am not the one "wingin'" it. I have provided source material to back up my interpretation of Scripture.

The same Hebrew language used in 4.9 of Deborah "with" Barak is the same language used of Adam "with" Eve in the garden. They were together.

 

[FSSL]

See ya in a couple of days.

Take your time! Your first example was real fun!

 

[Holy Mole]

The Bible gives only one example, Deborah. She was held in high esteem.

So for a Christian worldview... it appears there is nothing really against it.

Perhaps your study of the topic is either Biblically misinformed, biased, or incomplete?  For starters...

Deu 22:5  The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

H3627
כּלי
kelı̂y
kel-ee'
From H3615; something prepared, that is, any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon): - armour ([-bearer]), artillery, bag, carriage, + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of, X one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, + psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon, + whatsoever.


And I thought you leaned towards Biblical complementarianism.

Is that female Ranger carrying a man's desk on her back....pretty sure she ate lunch with a man's fork as well and is packing man bullets.......shame. Perhaps your Bible word study needs to be a little more complete than a Strongs definition. I do have to agree that Ranger women should not be wearing man jewels.

 

[Green Beret]

Aren't special forces used to assasinate?

Actually, no, the Special Forces do not carry out assassinations under normal operational circumstances. That falls to intelligence agencies and Black Ops types (unless you believe Hollywood and techno-fiction).

Jael was not a part of the army. Did not fight in the battle. She lured Sisera into her abode and nailed him to the floor in his sleep. I guess there are even some worldviews, built on certain commentaries no doubt, that would make her out to be like the Black Widow in the Avengers(tm) or something.

The context in which Deborah and Jael were involved was a battle. It was war. A woman was promised to finishe off the battle.

Wrong. They were not in the battle. A woman was not promised to finish the battle but that Sisera, a single man, would be "sold" into a woman's hand. Important distinction even though you may wave it off. Why?

Have you consulted a commentary or anything that people with your viewpoint of "no women in the military" have written? I have. They fail to drive home a genuine biblical worldview(tm).

I used to believe they were right. What changed is the fact that I had to reconsider the basis of their arguments. They have drawn out expanded applications on tenuous theological principles and drop in passages that hardly speak to the issue.

Again, yes I have many commentaries of all types. This issue and passage is clear enough for anyone to understand without them. After all, one can always run to a "source" that will back their opinion.

I am not the one "wingin'" it. I have provided source material to back up my interpretation of Scripture. The same Hebrew language used in 4.9 of Deborah "with" Barak is the same language used of Adam "with" Eve in the garden. They were together.

Yes, but WHEN was she WITH him? And you call sound hermeneutics "wingin'" it?

You have not at all engaged the following as I stated earlier:

Deborah (Judges 4) - No where do you read that Deborah went into combat. She went with Barak as the army deployed all the way to Mt. Tabor. It appears Sisera was positioning himself for what he thought would be an enveloping flank attack based on information he received from the Kenites (V.11). Then, in V14, we read that Deborah told Barak it was time to attack and that the Lord had delivered him into his hand. He attacked. Three times we read Barak, without Deborah, engaged in combat:

  “So Barak went down...” (V.14B)

  “...with the edge of the sword before Barak;” (V.15)

  “But Barak pursued after the chariots...” (V.16)

Since the scriptures are so detailed explaining when Deborah was with Barak and when she wasn’t, it should be understood that she was not with him during direct combat. What was her role? A prophetess that went along with Barak because he did not show the confidence or character he, as a man called of God to war, should have had.

Deborah was a prophetess used of God with honor. She fulfilled her role but did not participate in direct combat. Had she done so, don't you think the Holy Spirit of God would have moved the author of Judges to write something like:

"And the LORD discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Deborah and Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet."?

I believe the Bible makes it clear that in this fallen world in which we live that there are still designs and principles of God that we would do well to follow and keep.

War is a horrible thing. Combat in its midst is hellish. Everywhere the Bible mentions gender in regard to fighting in war, it is directed to the men or undertaken by men. There are gender roles set by God's word and reasons for them. Remove them at your peril. Being in combat is something that men should do, not women. 

I fully realize how unpopular this position is and how even more unpopular the reasoning I give for it has become. I used to believe as you do now. If you are interested in hearing how and why I changed, I'll share the details. It involves my serving in the Special Forces and a discussion I had with an Army chaplain.

If you just wish to dismiss it as an inferior, unlearned perspective then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[T-Bone]

Aren't special forces used to assasinate?

Actually, no, the Special Forces do not carry out assassinations under normal operational circumstances. That falls to intelligence agencies and Black Ops types (unless you believe Hollywood and techno-fiction).

Jael was not a part of the army. Did not fight in the battle. She lured Sisera into her abode and nailed him to the floor in his sleep. I guess there are even some worldviews, built on certain commentaries no doubt, that would make her out to be like the Black Widow in the Avengers(tm) or something.

The context in which Deborah and Jael were involved was a battle. It was war. A woman was promised to finishe off the battle.

Wrong. They were not in the battle. A woman was not promised to finish the battle but that Sisera, a single man, would be "sold" into a woman's hand. Important distinction even though you may wave it off. Why?

Have you consulted a commentary or anything that people with your viewpoint of "no women in the military" have written? I have. They fail to drive home a genuine biblical worldview(tm).

I used to believe they were right. What changed is the fact that I had to reconsider the basis of their arguments. They have drawn out expanded applications on tenuous theological principles and drop in passages that hardly speak to the issue.

Again, yes I have many commentaries of all types. This issue and passage is clear enough for anyone to understand without them. After all, one can always run to a "source" that will back their opinion.

I am not the one "wingin'" it. I have provided source material to back up my interpretation of Scripture. The same Hebrew language used in 4.9 of Deborah "with" Barak is the same language used of Adam "with" Eve in the garden. They were together.

Yes, but WHEN was she WITH him? And you call sound hermeneutics "wingin'" it?

You have not at all engaged the following as I stated earlier:

Deborah (Judges 4) - No where do you read that Deborah went into combat. She went with Barak as the army deployed all the way to Mt. Tabor. It appears Sisera was positioning himself for what he thought would be an enveloping flank attack based on information he received from the Kenites (V.11). Then, in V14, we read that Deborah told Barak it was time to attack and that the Lord had delivered him into his hand. He attacked. Three times we read Barak, without Deborah, engaged in combat:

  “So Barak went down...” (V.14B)

  “...with the edge of the sword before Barak;” (V.15)

  “But Barak pursued after the chariots...” (V.16)

Since the scriptures are so detailed explaining when Deborah was with Barak and when she wasn’t, it should be understood that she was not with him during direct combat. What was her role? A prophetess that went along with Barak because he did not show the confidence or character he, as a man called of God to war, should have had.

Deborah was a prophetess used of God with honor. She fulfilled her role but did not participate in direct combat. Had she done so, don't you think the Holy Spirit of God would have moved the author of Judges to write something like:

"And the LORD discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Deborah and Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet."?

I believe the Bible makes it clear that in this fallen world in which we live that there are still designs and principles of God that we would do well to follow and keep.

War is a horrible thing. Combat in its midst is hellish. Everywhere the Bible mentions gender in regard to fighting in war, it is directed to the men or undertaken by men. There are gender roles set by God's word and reasons for them. Remove them at your peril. Being in combat is something that men should do, not women. 

I fully realize how unpopular this position is and how even more unpopular the reasoning I give for it has become. I used to believe as you do now. If you are interested in hearing how and why I changed, I'll share the details. It involves my serving in the Special Forces and a discussion I had with an Army chaplain.

If you just wish to dismiss it as an inferior, unlearned perspective then we will have to agree to disagree.

I for one want to hear ...as I want to know what you know about this, I'm not to concerned with what others think about this and I am not above changing my mind with the right & biblical information.

 

[subllibrm]

Who thinks of men getting excited over women menstruating in a fox hole and men making out when they are going to die?

I shouldn't be too surprised! This IS the FFF!

I never impled the men would get excited. That came from your imagination. Not mine.

I did imply that gay men in a fox hole might be thinking about making out. I happen to believe if you'll go as far as actually choosing to be gay..... there really isn't anything off limits.

Of course gays only ever think of sex and get nothing else done even if mortars are falling from the sky.  :

I'm not gay but I assume that they react to mortal threats like anyone else. If the entire Swedish bikini team were in the foxhole while the fire rained down, I doubt that my thoughts would have much to do with the buxom blonds next to me.

 

[prophet]

Let the broads fight.
It'll thin the herd.
Send the ugly ones first.

Honestly, we aren't worth defending anymore.

So, if we want to sacrifice our women, so be it.
They will always step up when men won't,  usurpation is in their nature.

Just don't limit it to 18+.
12 or older.
And , let the impaired serve.
Why shouldn't they get a shot at nobility?

If there was a ground war, on U.S. soil, we'd all be involved, organically.

I'd serve right along side any gal that can do 30 pull-ups in 1 minute.  And 88 sit-ups.  And 30 std. push-ups.  And that can run the 2-mile in 9 min.

 

[FSSL]

Wrong. They were not in the battle. A woman was not promised to finish the battle but that Sisera, a single man, would be "sold" into a woman's hand. Important distinction even though you may wave it off. Why?

"Delivering Sisera into the hands of a woman" is the same thing as saying she "finished the battle." The hero is always credited with the fall of the commander.

You are drawing so tight of distinctions that you fail to understand that these women were directly involved in the battle. I suppose your training has conditioned your thinking to isolate the terms "combat" "special ops" into categories that don't exactly align with the biblical text.

Those scholars who propose the view that "women are not to serve in the military" understand the problem with Deborah and Jael. They NEVER argue from the standpoint that these women were not actually involved in the battle. They tell us they are unique examples of women usurping authority of their men, yet blessed even in their disobedience.

Again, yes I have many commentaries of all types. This issue and passage is clear enough for anyone to understand without them. After all, one can always run to a "source" that will back their opinion.

That wasn't my question. The question was DID YOU CONSULT them? I believe you lack a general understanding of the arguments proposed by the biblical scholars who have your same position.

Since the scriptures are so detailed explaining when Deborah was with Barak and when she wasn’t, it should be understood that she was not with him during direct combat. What was her role? A prophetess that went along with Barak because he did not show the confidence or character he, as a man called of God to war, should have had.

Now you are starting to shift your point. Blaming Barak because he was somehow lacking as a man is going beyond the text. Deborah was acting as commander. She gave the directives and defined the "operation."

War is a horrible thing. Combat in its midst is hellish. Everywhere the Bible mentions gender in regard to fighting in war, it is directed to the men or undertaken by men.

Except here.

There are gender roles set by God's word and reasons for them. Remove them at your peril. Being in combat is something that men should do, not women.

... and I would like to see those God-defined gender roles that prevent a woman from being engaged in combat.

If you are interested in hearing how and why I changed, I'll share the details. It involves my serving in the Special Forces and a discussion I had with an Army chaplain.

Sure. I am interested.

If you just wish to dismiss it as an inferior, unlearned perspective then we will have to agree to disagree.

Nope. Eventhough you dismissed me as being "unteachable" I will sit at your feet.

Then, if it is "thin," "human construct," "biblically lacking," I will make you sit after you give me a hundred pushups.

 

[prophet]

Let the broads fight.
It'll thin the herd.
Send the ugly ones first.

Honestly, we aren't worth defending anymore.

So, if we want to sacrifice our women, so be it.
They will always step up when men won't,  usurpation is in their nature.

Just don't limit it to 18+.
12 or older.
And , let the impaired serve.
Why shouldn't they get a shot at nobility?

If there was a ground war, on U.S. soil, we'd all be involved, organically.

i;m surprised to hear of all people here say that...... have you never heard of lozen?...... sister of the apache chief victorio?...... she not only took part in combat but also tracked enemy movements and commanded bands of warriors at times....... victorio described her as his right hand in his battles with the u.s. army........ she is not the biblical example the op asked for..... but she proved in her own time and culture that women could step up when needed and serve in combat as well as any man.........

I'd serve right along side any gal that can do 30 pull-ups in 1 minute.  And 88 sit-ups.  And 30 std. push-ups.  And that can run the 2-mile in 9 min.

then i guess you would serve along side my sister...... because she can do all that and more......... can;t say with any certainty she would want to serve along side you though.... ???..... she would however protect you if need be ...... usurpation is not in her nature but protection and defense of the vulnerable is..... it;s what she does for a living........ and she does it very well....... also trains and supports others who do it......... she hasn;t been on any version of the fff in a long time.... but i kinda wish she would come back and post again once in a while...... i;m sure she would have a lot to add to this conversation......... but unfortunately she is too busy actually doing the things some men claim she shouldn;t to have any time to waste in meaningless arguments with them........

Which part of my post surprised you?


Anishinaabe

 

[prophet]

Let the broads fight.
It'll thin the herd.
Send the ugly ones first.

Honestly, we aren't worth defending anymore.

So, if we want to sacrifice our women, so be it.
They will always step up when men won't,  usurpation is in their nature.

Just don't limit it to 18+.
12 or older.
And , let the impaired serve.
Why shouldn't they get a shot at nobility?

If there was a ground war, on U.S. soil, we'd all be involved, organically.

i;m surprised to hear of all people here say that...... have you never heard of lozen?...... sister of the apache chief victorio?...... she not only took part in combat but also tracked enemy movements and commanded bands of warriors at times....... victorio described her as his right hand in his battles with the u.s. army........ she is not the biblical example the op asked for..... but she proved in her own time and culture that women could step up when needed and serve in combat as well as any man.........

I'd serve right along side any gal that can do 30 pull-ups in 1 minute.  And 88 sit-ups.  And 30 std. push-ups.  And that can run the 2-mile in 9 min.

then i guess you would serve along side my sister...... because she can do all that and more......... can;t say with any certainty she would want to serve along side you though.... ???..... she would however protect you if need be ...... usurpation is not in her nature but protection and defense of the vulnerable is..... it;s what she does for a living........ and she does it very well....... also trains and supports others who do it......... she hasn;t been on any version of the fff in a long time.... but i kinda wish she would come back and post again once in a while...... i;m sure she would have a lot to add to this conversation......... but unfortunately she is too busy actually doing the things some men claim she shouldn;t to have any time to waste in meaningless arguments with them........

Which part of my post surprised you?


Anishinaabe

everything between.... "let the broads fight"..... and "if there was a ground war on u.s. soil.........."..... i know you are part native american... but then maybe i don;t know you as well as i thought........  :-

Ok.
So, you don't think women should fight?
Among the 5 Civilized Nations, the women are usually warriors as well, and sit down with their husbands in the War Council.
My tribe in particular, is well known for extremely athletic women (Chickasaw-my Father's Tribe).

Several of my daughters are capable of sustained guerilla missions.

You don't agree with this?

Anishinaabe

 

[prophet]

Let the broads fight.
It'll thin the herd.
Send the ugly ones first.

Honestly, we aren't worth defending anymore.

So, if we want to sacrifice our women, so be it.
They will always step up when men won't,  usurpation is in their nature.

Just don't limit it to 18+.
12 or older.
And , let the impaired serve.
Why shouldn't they get a shot at nobility?

If there was a ground war, on U.S. soil, we'd all be involved, organically.

i;m surprised to hear of all people here say that...... have you never heard of lozen?...... sister of the apache chief victorio?...... she not only took part in combat but also tracked enemy movements and commanded bands of warriors at times....... victorio described her as his right hand in his battles with the u.s. army........ she is not the biblical example the op asked for..... but she proved in her own time and culture that women could step up when needed and serve in combat as well as any man.........

I'd serve right along side any gal that can do 30 pull-ups in 1 minute.  And 88 sit-ups.  And 30 std. push-ups.  And that can run the 2-mile in 9 min.

then i guess you would serve along side my sister...... because she can do all that and more......... can;t say with any certainty she would want to serve along side you though.... ???..... she would however protect you if need be ...... usurpation is not in her nature but protection and defense of the vulnerable is..... it;s what she does for a living........ and she does it very well....... also trains and supports others who do it......... she hasn;t been on any version of the fff in a long time.... but i kinda wish she would come back and post again once in a while...... i;m sure she would have a lot to add to this conversation......... but unfortunately she is too busy actually doing the things some men claim she shouldn;t to have any time to waste in meaningless arguments with them........

Which part of my post surprised you?


Anishinaabe

everything between.... "let the broads fight"..... and "if there was a ground war on u.s. soil.........."..... i know you are part native american... but then maybe i don;t know you as well as i thought........  :-

Ok.
So, you don't think women should fight?
Among the 5 Civilized Nations, the women are usually warriors as well, and sit down with their husbands in the War Council.
My tribe in particular, is well known for extremely athletic women (Chickasaw-my Father's Tribe).

Several of my daughters are capable of sustained guerilla missions.

You don't agree with this?

Anishinaabe

on the contrary...... i think women should fight.... and should be encouraged to train for combat if they feel it;s their calling......... but the way you worded your post was degrading and made it sound like you didn;t really think women should fight at all and were only being sarcastic.......... .. "send the ugly ones first?".... .. "thin the herd?"......  reminded me of how fundamentalist preachers are famous for calling women hefers.... ... but i apologize if i misunderstood your meaning......  ??? ...... still........ 12 or older?...... and let the impaired serve?....... technically i would be considered one of the impaired.......i would serve if the need arose.... but nobody in their right mind would put a gun in my hand...... and in fact... it would be illegal to..... :-..

If the war was in our backyard, I would put whatever weapon in your hand that we needed you to have.

The part about offing the ugly ones was sarcastic, of course.

But there are many who wouldn't be allowed to join foreign combat missions, who would be most valuable in a domestic theatre.
Jael was, and no one would complain, if boots were marching down Penn. Ave, about US gals fighting.

Anishinaabe

 

[Prin.Ciples]

and by the way..... don;t forget jael.... she not only picked up weapons.. (or implements) ...pertaining to a man but she also nailed an enemy generals head to the floor with them......... was she wrong for doing that?....... the army she came to the aid of at the time didn;t seem to think so..........

Exactly... thank you... I don't know why she didn't come to mind.

Killing a man while he sleep isn't the same thing as standing face to face and toe to toe with someone in hand to hand combat.

I'd give a rifle to any women that was a good shot.... but don't pretend they can "fill in" equally in every combat role.

nobody said all women were more physically capable than most men..... just that a few of them are.... and those few should be allowed to pursue careers that would use their abilities accordingly........  don;t pretend that you...just because you are a man ... could stand face to face...and toe to toe in hand to hand combat with females that posses that kind of ability.....

Sure I can. You don't know me at all. You don't know Deborah. All you have are names. It doesn't take much to kill someone in their sleep. You should have chosen a better example..... Oops... There isn't one for you to choose!!!!

Women have no place on the front lines. None what so ever. They have no more place on the front lines than a gay man. You can't give a biblical example because there isn't one. Granted, they are better than nothing... maybe.... even better than some men. Yet, they are not the standard. They are not the preferred choice.

you are right....... i don;t know you....... but i have known dozens of men that talk like you..... always bragging about what they think they can do..... all the while enjoying the luxury of knowing they will never have to prove it......... and on this forum it;s a double luxury because you can also be anonymous........ 

So true in many ways. Just because some are this way, doesn't mean I am. I think you've misunderstood my motive. I ask that you don't "lump" me in with other "knuckle dragging" cavemen. I simple see the best case scenerio being men should serve in such combat roles. However, I'd put a knife and gun my wifes had, as well as my 4 year old's hand if I had to.

well... i;m not anonymous...... people here know my name .... they know my family and they also know where i live......... my skills and abilities as a both a primitive bowhunter and for making my own weapons to hunt with are also well known..... and were well documented on previous versions of the fff both in pictures and accounts.... .... and ...in fact.....there are many in the hyperfundy camp who took offense at that documentation and believe that as a female i have no business doing those things.......  but truth is i have probably spent just as many years ...if not more.. learning to use all my senses to track, spot and stalk dangerous wild game... while remaining invisible to them... as well as being taught how to live and survive in the wild as most army rangers have spent learning to track an enemy and apply their skills.... ...

I applaud you efforts. You're a unique person and you probabily do not know just how unique you really are. I ask that you not project such on the average women. My wife is a loving caring person. I enjoy her personality and uniqueness. She is nothing like you. Not even close. If I had to guess, I'd guess there are really fewer and fewer women like you.

so does that mean i want to sign up for ranger school and go to combat?........ absolutely not.......though i support any other female who thinks she has what it takes.. knows the risks... and wants to try ........ but it is behind the reason alaymans post upset me so much ... because as a friend of a my dad and someone i counted as a friend here myself he knows full well i do those things i just mentioned and yet included them all in the definitions in his list of things women were not supposed to touch or be involved with lest they be "an abomination to God"...... ... ..

I did not read that part. Sorry I missed it. I'm not trying to be like anyone else. I think I'm rather unique myself.

I just don't see it as an ideal solution. Will it work when it needs to? Yes. Every person is different. No matter what examples we give, there will always be an exception. I believe this one of the reason that Paul wrote.

1Co 7:17  But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

you say you would give a rifle to any woman who could shoot.... but draw the line at putting them in combat...... but there have been other men here thinking along the same lines as you do saying they wouldnt even put the rifle in a woman;s hands and would call you an abomination for doing so.......still other men seem to think women can;t even discuss guns amongst themselves... much less handle them..... without their expert male supervision...  :

so where should the line be drawn?..... maybe that;s another topic for a fff poll.........

I just believe the ideal situation would call for men filling combat roles. Finding an exception in the middle of hundreds of examples to the contrary does not a "Standard" make. On the other hand. You're a fine exception. If a fight every breaks out close to home, come help me defend my family.  ;D

 

[Prin.Ciples]

Who thinks of men getting excited over women menstruating in a fox hole and men making out when they are going to die?

I shouldn't be too surprised! This IS the FFF!

I never impled the men would get excited. That came from your imagination. Not mine.

I did imply that gay men in a fox hole might be thinking about making out. I happen to believe if you'll go as far as actually choosing to be gay..... there really isn't anything off limits.

Of course gays only ever think of sex and get nothing else done even if mortars are falling from the sky.  :

You must not have been around in the 80s and early 90s to witness all those gay pride marches. I didn't see a one that I would want to stand next to, much less, sit in a fox hole with. They were all over one another. Tonguing everyone in sight.

I realize that attitudes have somewhat changed, but praticing homosexuality is an act of utter depravity. I don't want an "utter depraved" man with 100 yards of me. You're more than welcome to invite all of them to stay with you for as long as they like. Have a tea party if you like. Hand out hand grenades and bayonets. Run some drills in the back yard. (no pun intended).

I'm not gay but I assume that they react to mortal threats like anyone else. If the entire Swedish bikini team were in the foxhole while the fire rained down, I doubt that my thoughts would have much to do with the buxom blonds next to me.

Let him that "thinketh he stands. Take heed, lest he fall".