Women in combat?

What do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/women.combat.ap/index.html

I don't think it would go over well. Just the type of "men" in combat arms would make it very difficult for a female to fight along side, let alone live along side outside of a war zone.

[Nieninque]

If there is a problem with the men in the combat arms, then sort out the men in the combat arms.

If a woman is good enough to complete the tasks necessary to fight, let her

[Fallen]

As so long as they set up MOS specific PT standards, I have no problems with it.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Nieninque
If a woman is good enough to complete the tasks necessary to fight, let her

I agree. If a woman can do the same things a man can do (lift the same, run as fast, etc) then she should have no reason not to be on the front lines.

I'm sure there's quite a few women that are tougher then some of the men soliders.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Hell, they already let women into combat. Isn't Dave scheduled to go to a combat zone soon?

SHM, is there a reason that you only reason to post a response is to attack me?

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Nieninque
If a woman is good enough to complete the tasks necessary to fight, let her

I agree. If a woman can do the same things a man can do (lift the same, run as fast, etc) then she should have no reason not to be on the front lines.

I'm sure there's quite a few women that are tougher then some of the men soliders.

I couldn't have said it better.

-Melissa

[Artha]

If they can have the rest of the rights men have, they can fight for their country if it needs them.

[Atlanteax]

I'm on the fence.

I think women should have the privilege to fight in combat on the front lines.

However, the problems are:
Men being overprotective of the women in their units (and thus getting themselves killed, or creating a reaction drag where too much caution is taken and not enough action)
Men trying to impress/outdo the women in their units (and thus making potentionally costly mistakes)
and then there's "relations" on the front as well.

.

Because of that, the risk of underperformance (and failure) becomes too significant to offset the benefit of allowing women to join in combat on the front.

This is why women combat roles are concentrated in secondary support roles.

.

That's my take on the situation.

[4a6c1]

My whole perspective on this starts with a question. How do you know they cant fight unless you let them try?

I'd say let them do it. There are alot of tough women out there. Just as there are alot of wussy men. I feel like they balance each other out.

I guess my only reservations would be women fighting while in they're third pregnancy term. Thats it.

I went through basic training and AIT with females. Out of the 100 or so females in my basic training only one was able to keep up physically the majority of the males (yes there were quite a few men who didn't belong in the army and lagged far behind the everyone else including women). In my limited experience, I have yet to cross paths with a woman in the military that is able to preform all the physical tasks required of the Line unit that I am in. the physical requirements needed of the combat soldier is far greater than that of a support soldier. I think you are right though fallen, if it was the same PT requirements and a female was able to pass the test (specifically the run and push up portions) they should be given a chance.

But I am a bit on the fence about that as well.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<How do you know they cant fight unless you let them try?>>

How do I know the nuclear warhead will work properly unless I launch it at China?

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
I'm on the fence.

I think women should have the privilege to fight in combat on the front lines.

However, the problems are:
Men being overprotective of the women in their units (and thus getting themselves killed, or creating a reaction drag where too much caution is taken and not enough action)
Men trying to impress/outdo the women in their units (and thus making potentionally costly mistakes)
and then there's "relations" on the front as well.

.

Because of that, the risk of underperformance (and failure) becomes too significant to offset the benefit of allowing women to join in combat on the front.

This is why women combat roles are concentrated in secondary support roles.

.

That's my take on the situation.

That doesn't sound like a problem with women in combat. That sounds more like a problem with men in combat. ;)

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<How do you know they cant fight unless you let them try?>>

How do I know the nuclear warhead will work properly unless I launch it at China?

:rofl:

Bad way to argue with me. I'm all for launching nukes on China.

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
My whole perspective on this starts with a question. How do you know they cant fight unless you let them try?
I dont think it is as much a matter of fighting. A good example, for a female to pass her PT test in the 18-21 age group she needs something like 13 push ups in two min and 2 mile run in 1830 (not exact but close)
For a male to do the same its 42 pushups and 2 mile run in 1550.
If my platoon sergeant was to be shot and there was need for me to carry his 200+ pound body off to safety, I am capable of picking him up and moving him. How hard will that be for somebody of the opposite sex.

Note: Women currently are put into danger in jobs like 88M (truck driver) and various other support positions.

[Sylph]

Heh... Im sure i'd give one of the my 'bayonet'

Originally posted by HarmNone

Originally posted by Atlanteax
I'm on the fence.

I think women should have the privilege to fight in combat on the front lines.

However, the problems are:
Men being overprotective of the women in their units (and thus getting themselves killed, or creating a reaction drag where too much caution is taken and not enough action)
Men trying to impress/outdo the women in their units (and thus making potentionally costly mistakes)
and then there's "relations" on the front as well.

.

Because of that, the risk of underperformance (and failure) becomes too significant to offset the benefit of allowing women to join in combat on the front.

This is why women combat roles are concentrated in secondary support roles.

.

That's my take on the situation.

That doesn't sound like a problem with women in combat. That sounds more like a problem with men in combat. ;)

I think there would be a problem with that as well. I would venture to say there would be an increase in sexual assaults as well as other crimes.

[Jolena]

:clap: Harmnone!

[Bobmuhthol]

<<That doesn't sound like a problem with women in combat. That sounds more like a problem with men in combat.>>

Men who are fully capable of surviving and shooting people in the head. You may be bringing in a few women who are competent, but by hindering even more men, you're just doing harm to the combatants.

[Vixen]

I've always been a little on the fence on the women issue, especially after hearing my mother rant the day they let women on my dad's ship..

Though I do think, IF they meet the same requirements, can perform the same tasks, and operate with the same proficiency as the men, then they should be given a chance. I also think as to the issue of taking too much caution to protect the women, and men being overprotective... that thats their problem frankly.

I understand that some men cant help feeling protective and cautious towards women especially in a danger situation. But should the women who CAN perform the same duties be penalized or denied the oportunity because of that feeling?

I think its always going to be a bone of contention with people.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Dave
SHM, is there a reason that you only reason to post a response is to attack me?

Mostly because you are an arrogant, ignorant fuck. Given your mental capacity, you shouldn't be.

That's all :)

[Jolena]

Yeah, I can see it already. This is going to turn into a flame thread instead of a thread about women in combat. :rah:

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by HarmNone

Originally posted by Atlanteax
I'm on the fence.

I think women should have the privilege to fight in combat on the front lines.

However, the problems are:
Men being overprotective of the women in their units (and thus getting themselves killed, or creating a reaction drag where too much caution is taken and not enough action)
Men trying to impress/outdo the women in their units (and thus making potentionally costly mistakes)
and then there's "relations" on the front as well.

.

Because of that, the risk of underperformance (and failure) becomes too significant to offset the benefit of allowing women to join in combat on the front.

This is why women combat roles are concentrated in secondary support roles.

.

That's my take on the situation.

That doesn't sound like a problem with women in combat. That sounds more like a problem with men in combat. ;)

You'd be right. It is a problem with the men.

However, it is a situation where you have to go with the solution that works best... which is men and women are seperated in the military, the former on the front lines, and the later in the secondary support role.

Nevermind that ever since classical times, when it comes to warfare, society has been about sparing the women/children, and expending the men.

Not to say that us men are expendable. :P

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
My whole perspective on this starts with a question. How do you know they cant fight unless you let them try?
I dont think it is as much a matter of fighting. A good example, for a female to pass her PT test in the 18-21 age group she needs something like 13 push ups in two min and 2 mile run in 1830 (not exact but close)
For a male to do the same its 42 pushups and 2 mile run in 1550.
If my platoon sergeant was to be shot and there was need for me to carry his 200+ pound body off to safety, I am capable of picking him up and moving him. How hard will that be for somebody of the opposite sex.

Note: Women currently are put into danger in jobs like 88M (truck driver) and various other support positions.

Oh lordy. My views are this are pretty liberal but I suppose I'll share them anyhow.

Basically I think that if the women were given the chance to fulfill the same physical requirements as men, day after day-same training, they could do it.

So in the case of your argument I suppose I will alter my question. How do you know they cant do situps if they've never been aloud to try?

;)

[HarmNone]

Not for long it isn't, Jolena. Stay on topic, folks.

Its not as much the feeling, as in it costing lives. If everyone is not 100% vigilante on a raid people will die. If you are breaching you have specific tasks that need to be completed. In my situation we only breech with 3 man teams which puts us already at a disadvantage, if a woman turns the corner and comes into close quarters combat with a enemy you can not break the flow of clearing right away, its her task to finish it on her own until the room is clear, and by that time what could and how many people could be dead.

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
My whole perspective on this starts with a question. How do you know they cant fight unless you let them try?
I dont think it is as much a matter of fighting. A good example, for a female to pass her PT test in the 18-21 age group she needs something like 13 push ups in two min and 2 mile run in 1830 (not exact but close)
For a male to do the same its 42 pushups and 2 mile run in 1550.
If my platoon sergeant was to be shot and there was need for me to carry his 200+ pound body off to safety, I am capable of picking him up and moving him. How hard will that be for somebody of the opposite sex.

Note: Women currently are put into danger in jobs like 88M (truck driver) and various other support positions.

Oh lordy. My views are this are pretty liberal but I suppose I'll share them anyhow.

Basically I think that if the women were given the chance to fulfill the same physical requirements as men, day after day-same training, they could do it.

So in the case of your argument I suppose I will alter my question. How do you know they cant do situps if they've never been aloud to try?

;)

Women are required to do the same PT training as men in the military. (they do fine with situps, the run and pushups is where women tend to lag behind.)

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Dave]

[Warriorbird]

If the Israeli commandos can get the fucking insane combat ratings they do with women in their forces and even female units, so can we. This is a ridiculous effort.

Besides, I think I know quite a few cold blooded lethal women.

That is a misconception Israeli women have not been allowed in combat units since 1950.

[Warriorbird]

Not standard units, no.

No units as far as I know.

[Warriorbird]

Since 1995 they've been allowed to enter combat outside of Israel. Pre then, they have entered combat, but only as part of the IDF inside Israel. They serve a year and nine months as part of their military requirements.

[Jolena]

Dave, if a woman is able to meet the run and pushup requirements however, would you then have an issue with her being in your 3-person team you described earlier?

[Warriorbird]

Of course, because highly disciplined military men couldn't "handle themselves."

:rolls eyes:

If they can fulfill the requirements, I think denying them a place is ridiculous. Sure, an insanely small number of women will make the requirements as they stand, but I don't think that is a problem.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Nieninque
If there is a problem with the men in the combat arms, then sort out the men in the combat arms.

If a woman is good enough to complete the tasks necessary to fight, let her

The answer is no.. the reason is simple. No man wants to see a womens guts in a pile next to him or her head exploded like a melon. The effect on morale is the major reason women should not be allowed in actually combat. Women are the most endearing figures to men. Our mothers.. daughters..wifes.. etc have more of an emotional effect on us then any other single factor. It would be truly devasting to have to deal with it.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Dave, if a woman is able to meet the run and pushup requirements however, would you then have an issue with her being in your 3-person team you described earlier?>>

There's a huge difference between being able to do pushups and being able to lead a tactical team.

[Warriorbird]

Emo conservative bullshit, Xyelin. Do I think the requirements should be relaxed? No. Do I think that stuff is ridiculous? Yes.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

I don’t have the time to look right now... but can anyone find examples of women soldiers in history?

[Jolena]

I find it incredibly amusing that some men here assume that a woman cannot have the ability or drive to perform well under pressure in a tactical situation.

I find it even more amusing that women not being allowed into combat has been accredited to the emotional factor that would ensue should she be killed next to a man. Especially when women and children die often in combat yet it doesn't seem to be something that has affected the soldiers to the point that they can't fight yet.

[Warriorbird]

Not too many examples of women soldiers, historically. Then again, we haven't theoretically been this liberated for that long.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Emo conservative bullshit, Xyelin. Do I think the requirements should be relaxed? No. Do I think that stuff is ridiculous? Yes.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Warriorbird]

That is the reason. 100%. The psychological distress that would be put on a male soldier in battle dealing with the loss of a female soldier is much more catastrophic then a male soldier. These soldiers are not drones. The are human.. they are men.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I find it incredibly amusing that some men here assume that a woman cannot have the ability or drive to perform well under pressure in a tactical situation.>>

I find it incredibly amusing that that's how you read some of the posts in this thread. No one said it.

<<I find it even more amusing that women not being allowed into combat has been accredited to the emotional factor that would ensue should she be killed next to a man. Especially when women and children die often in combat yet it doesn't seem to be something that has affected the soldiers to the point that they can't fight yet.>>

Actually, it takes the battle rage out of a lot of people and fucks them up for the rest of their lives when they see it.

[Warriorbird]

Right. So, tell me if that ever stopped a soldier from shooting, bombing, or raping women and children? In history? Ever?

Emo conservative nonsense.

Mind you, again, I'm not in favor of relaxing any requirements. But if a woman can make those, I think there's no reason to deny her a spot.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Sylph]

If I was going into battle... I'd want a man going with me... not a woman.


What if ... it comes down to hand to hand? Their strength is questionable compared to a fully able male.


Granted a woman who can fight can hold her own against men.... who don't know how to fight.




I use to be involved with some amateurs who fought and women would fight but since it was only by weighclass they'd get paired against men and get fucking worked.

It wasn't fun to watch.


edit: Ive also seen some of those same women beat down guys who don't know what the fuck they are doing...

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Sylph]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<So, tell me if that ever stopped a soldier from shooting, bombing, or raping women and children? In history? Ever?>>

Has anyone ever not shot or raped a woman or child in history? YES.

[Warriorbird]

Sure. But you can't tell me that the fact that they're killing women and children has stopped the army from attacking Iraq. Or any military force. It's WAAH WAAH WAAH emo conservativeism.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Sean of the Thread]

Well I can see some people will have no clue how to understand this topic so I'll just step out of it. Warrior you were never a soldier so stfu on any topic regarding them.

It is NOT about meeting the min requirements. Maybe they should segregate woman unit from men units and see how they perform in battle. The men would come out on top. MEN AND WOMEN are different. We have different bodies and physical capabilities if you havn't noticed. It is meant this way. We are not talking about fucking FEMME FATALE we are talking about door to door urban fighting. Give it rest already and remember the reason I stated in my previous post will trump all.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Sure. But you can't tell me that the fact that they're killing women and children has stopped the army from attacking Iraq. Or any military force.>>

I didn't realize a person is the same as their army. I guess anyone in the American army has now committed friendly fire. If someone in the army did it, all the soldiers must have, too!

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Sure. But you can't tell me that the fact that they're killing women and children has stopped the army from attacking Iraq. Or any military force. It's WAAH WAAH WAAH emo conservativeism.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Warriorbird]

You can hadly use the war in Iraq as a constant for any argument. It is no where near the scale of previous conflicts. If you want to see some SICK numbers on atrocity and civilian death than goto the library and read about WWII.

[Jolena]

As so many love to say on these boards when this subject comes up of inexperience.. "Inexperience does not mean someone can't form an opinion". It's a message board, noone's going to STFU or "Give it a rest". The topic is to be discussed and people will disagree.

[AnticorRifling]

I voted yes but I have a few reason against it. I feel they should have the right but I would hope that very few exercise that right and here's why:

If a group is captured the woman will be tortured first everytime. Not because she will break first but because it's easier to get the men in the unit to break hearing her getting tortured/raped.

I only want women, hell that's not true. I only want people that are as physically fit as I am. I don't like the min. requirements for PT tests nor do I feel the the PT test is any kind of combat assessment. Don't kid yourself you can walk and pass a PFT / PT Test whatever you call it. You want to go to combat you go to SOI and you show me you're ready. You hump the big guns, you carry that rifle bag and that SAW. You stay out in the field as long as I do and come talk to me. I know several men that I wouldn't want anywhere near my fighting hole because I don't think they have the physical traits nor the mettle/spine I personally never saw nor plan on seeing fighting in combat as a sex issue. It's an issue of intestinal fortitude and that is something you don't define by gender.

Another issue, smaller in comparison to the wall of text I posted above but still an issue, hygiene. I've spent several weeks in the field taking a bath out of a canteen cup and doing nothing more than washing my feet, privates and armpits. That's it. I don't know, since I'm not a woman, if this would cause an issue be it oralfactory or otherwise. But I do know that the women that were in the field with us went back every few (3-5) days for showers and such.

Again I'm for woman having the right but I express reservations as to the exercising of that right just like I don't want every male going to combat either. It's a certain breed of person, person being the key word, that fits into the combat role and I want only those that fit it.

[Warriorbird]

So, that automatically renders whatever I say moot, Xyelin? Ridiculous. I grew up with plenty of people who were active duty or retired military.

I haven't ever sported a Confederate flag either, but that sure doesn't mean I didn't grow up in the South. It doesn't mean I can't accuse you of being a redneck either.

"It is NOT about meeting the min requirements. "

And what it it about then?

Ridiculous emo conservative nonsense.

"Maybe they should segregate woman unit from men units and see how they perform in battle."

Just like they used to segregate black units, Confederate flag boy?

"MEN AND WOMEN are different."

No shit. I think a tiny fraction of women will meet those requirements. If they do, however, I think they ought to be able to do what they want.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Jolena
As so many love to say on these boards when this subject comes up of inexperience.. "Inexperience does not mean someone can't form an opinion". It's a message board, noone's going to STFU or "Give it a rest". The topic is to be discussed and people will disagree.

I agree he is entitled to his opinion but he cannot have a valid argument in a case such as this where experience means everything.

[Jolena]

Well said, Anticor. It's probably the most logical explanation I've seen yet on this thread.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Not too many examples of women soldiers, historically. Then again, we haven't theoretically been this liberated for that long.

Only one comes to mind: Joan of Arc, and you can argue that was so long ago that it doesn't count.

I think if a woman wants to perform the same tasks as a man in the military, she has to prove she can perform those tasks. That means, no laxing on the situps, pushups, running, or lifting. If you can't do it, there's no shame in saying "I can't" and opting out of sheerly physical combat to the less combatitive positions.


-Melissa

[Warriorbird]

"I agree he is entitled to his opinion but he cannot have a valid argument in a case such as this where experience means everything. "

And you've gone into front line combat how many times with women?

Hmm...

[Sylph]

Hehe... Anticor! I know i'd be up for some killing if I hadn't showered for a week.



:mad:

[Warriorbird]

I also think the number that could do it would be very very small, Anticor.

[Jolena]

lol touche?

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"I agree he is entitled to his opinion but he cannot have a valid argument in a case such as this where experience means everything. "

And you've gone into front line combat how many times with women?

Hmm...

Zero. I do however have the experience of being a soldier.

Person A -" Bus drivers suck!"
Person B- "How do you know, were you ever a bus driver?"
Person A "No.. but I knew one once."
Person B "STFU"

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Not too many examples of women soldiers, historically. Then again, we haven't theoretically been this liberated for that long.

It needed to be repeated.

And back to my question of how do you know they cant fight unless you let them try. Kthnx.

[Divinity]

I can understand the moral debate with women in combat, however, don't women have some more perks than men.. physically and mentally speaking?

Women are able to withstand colder climates than men because our extra layer of skin.. so I saw on a health discovery experiment.

Women can multi-task, being able to concentrate on a wider range of enemies while doing other duties.

In a hitch, women are more creative and versatile when trying to get out of a situation or figure out problems.

I would think a woman could get a lot more done because (or I would think this to be so) we're smaller and lighter in physique. Meaning we can sneak around and do whatever stealth tactics are needed.

I could be talking out of my ass, but I think it makes sense.

Each sex has it's weakness and it's strengths. Now if only everyone could play along and incorporate the strengths from each sex, we could make a kickass military.

[Sean of the Thread]

Let me ammend my very LOGICAL post for my reason (and many other soldiers reason) to state that it is my opinion and that it would certainly effect me in that manor.

[Warriorbird]

Would you have hesitated to attack a military target if there were women nearby? I doubt it.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Xyelin
Maybe they should segregate woman

Segregation right. Because the first thing we all want on our minds when we are trying to FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY is what our differences are.

(dumb)

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Would you have hesitated to attack a military target if there were women nearby? I doubt it.

You have obviously missed the entire point.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit

Originally posted by Xyelin
Maybe they should segregate woman

Segregation right. Because the first thing we all want on our minds when we are trying to FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY is what our differences are.

(dumb)

It was intended to be a ridiculous statement.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling

Another issue, smaller in comparison to the wall of text I posted above but still an issue, hygiene. I've spent several weeks in the field taking a bath out of a canteen cup and doing nothing more than washing my feet, privates and armpits. That's it. I don't know, since I'm not a woman, if this would cause an issue be it oralfactory or otherwise. But I do know that the women that were in the field with us went back every few (3-5) days for showers and such.

Please don't use this as an issue. The only time a woman is "dirtier" than a man is if she's screwing someone. Most yeast infections etc are passed by men to women through sex. Women prefer to shower more than men, but there is nothing that requires that they do so other than menses, and that's controllable.

That said, :D give me a gun when I'm on my monthly as well, and you'd see a lot of splatted skulls. Nothing fuels hatred better than blemishes and cravings for chocolate.

-Melissa

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Women are able to withstand colder climates than men because our extra layer of skin.. so I saw on a health discovery experiment.>>

I can withstand colder climates than a lot of women simply from natural cold resistance.

<<Women can multi-task, being able to concentrate on a wider range of enemies while doing other duties.>>

This is just bullshit.

<<In a hitch, women are more creative and versatile when trying to get out of a situation or figure out problems.>>

This is just bullshit.

<<I would think a woman could get a lot more done because (or I would think this to be so) we're smaller and lighter in physique. Meaning we can sneak around and do whatever stealth tactics are needed.>>

This is just bullshit.

<<I could be talking out of my ass,>>

You are.

[Warriorbird]

I caught it pretty cleanly, Xyelin. It's emo conservative nonsense. You seem to have missed mine, however. If men were that deeply effected by things happening to women we would've up and left the Vietnam war, for an example. I've heard plenty of my cousins' stories about things that went on.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Warriorbird]

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
It's a certain breed of person, person being the key word, that fits into the combat role and I want only those that fit it.

His argument has been the most substantial one yet.

[Warriorbird]

I don't think women are innately superior at combat tasks in the slightest. I think they have it a lot harder. I think the tiny percentage that is capable of it should be allowed to fight, however.

[Divinity]

I can always count on you to rip my posts apart, Alex. Job well done.

Anyways, there was this show that actually did an experiment. They had men and women in freezing water to see who would withstand it longer, and all that stuff about hypothermia. It was related to something about the military.

I don't remember it all, of course. Point being, women have a higher tolerance for pain and colder climates.

That, and don't women become stronger than men cause of adrenaline surges?

Feel free to call bullshit on those too, Alex. However, I know those to be true.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Feel free to call bullshit on those too, Alex. However, I know those to be true.>>

So you're telling me that there is no man in the world that has a better resistance to cold than you? You might think you know what you're talking about, but you do not.

<<That, and don't women become stronger than men cause of adrenaline surges?>>

Men have adrenaline, too. And men become stronger than the Hulk when it's in their blood.

If women posed that much psychological damage on the good guy's side, hopefully it would do the same thing to someone trying to snipe.

[Back]

Take a look from the other side of this. What if you encountered women in an opposing army? Would you agree with them letting their women fight? Would it change the battle if you knew you were going to have to face women combatants?

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
If women posed that much psychological damage on the good guy's side, hopefully it would do the same thing to someone trying to snipe.

It is the goodguy side that cares. We hold our women with higher regard.

[4a6c1]

I would like to think you hold your women with an equal regard. No higher, no lower.

But you know, whatever gets you through the day. :shrug:

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I would like to think you hold your women with an equal regard. No higher, no lower.>>

He was referring to us vs. other countries.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
I would like to think you hold your women with an equal regard. No higher, no lower.

But you know, whatever gets you through the day. :shrug:
As opposed to teh bad guys....I'm amazed I had to clarify.

[4a6c1]

I was referring to the fact that not everyone (us) thinks that way. Which would imply its an issue of individual perception. Thus my response.

*It seems to me seperating women as a group from the rest of the populace in any way - idealistically for benifit or otherwise - could only cause harm in the long run.

After this group is isolated to someones mind there is the need to nurture and protect it. This is obviously a psychological need of the protectors as women as individuals are very capable of protecting themselves. My point is: Indeed, the women who make the life choice of being in the military will understand the risks. You should let them deal with it.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by JihnasSpirit]

[Some Rogue]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit

And back to my question of how do you know they cant fight unless you let them try. Kthnx.

Yeah, let's invade Canada in a practice war to see how women do.

We'll be taking male volunteers to put their lives on the line in this social experiment just to see if 1% of the female population is suited to combat.

[Sean of the Thread]

My point is: Indeed, the women who make the life choice of being in the military will understand the risks. You should let them deal with it.


They are not the only ones that have to deal with it.. in fact they are the extreme minority.

P.S. there are some GREAT female fighter/bomber pilots. As I've said my primary issue is not with a women being able to handle "it".

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Some Rogue

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit

And back to my question of how do you know they cant fight unless you let them try. Kthnx.

Yeah, let's invade Canada in a practice war to see how women do.

We'll be taking male volunteers to put their lives on the line in this social experiment just to see if 1% of the female population is suited to combat.

Oh I'm totally into history so I'm totally into your perspective since its a 6000 YEAR OLD PERSPECTIVE. :rolleyes:

Thankfully our society is evolving to exclude those that refuse to question the motives of tradition.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Xyelin
As I've said my primary issue is not with a women being able to handle "it".

Ok, I understand where your coming from but still stightly disagree.

I'm also understanding that some peoples concerns are how a soldier copes with women being on the battlefield (or whatever you call it).

I would hope that men on the battlefield could be able to handle a little 'distraction'. A bigger distraction I would think would be (oh I really dont freakin know so I'm going to pull on Hollywood) machine guns in my ear, people dying, people dead. Those kinds of things.

In the heat of battle (or something) I would think a reasonably intelligent US soldier with any common sense and survival instinct would have long ago been able to understand that the female soldier crouching for cover on the ground next to him had already 1)passed the same qualifying tests as him to be there 2) been in the field like him and done the same things as him 3) was surviving just like the rest of them.

La Dee Da.

~R, standing by her "You never know until you let them try"

[Nakiro]

Women could serve on the front line, but should be separated from men for safety reasons and other psychological reasons already addressed.

[Warriorbird]

I think American soldiers are more than mature enough to deal with it. Then again, maybe you have a lower estimation of them than I do.

[i]Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
In the heat of battle (or something) I would think a reasonably intelligent US soldier with any common sense and survival instinct would have long ago been able to understand that the female soldier crouching for cover on the ground next to him had already 1)passed the same qualifying tests as him to be there 2) been in the field like him and done the same things as him 3) was surviving just like the rest of them.

La Dee Da.

~R, standing by her "You never know until you let them try"
Sad thing about that Jihnas is the TRUE Jessica lynch story.
She passed all the same standards as the other men in the fight. But she was unable to return fire both due to fear and her inability to preform basic weapons malfunction tasks, which both got people killed, her captured, and put us at a disadvantage during a critical wartime maneuver.

Even if she was only breech loading her weapon she could have contributed to the fight, instead she just cowered under a truck.
SPORTS

Slap the magizine up
Pull the charging handle back
Observe the chamber
Release the charging handle
Tap the forward assist
Squeeze the trigger

(the military holds her in nowhere as high a regard as the U.S. media)

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Dave]

[Tsa`ah]

Even though women haven't seen combat since the 50's, they were highly effective as combatants for Israel during the war of liberation.

You can't hold women responsible for how men will react in combat. That's rather like holding a woman responsible for being raped.

Israel has barred women from combat since the 50's simply due to the reactions of male soldiers and more importantly, how society reacted to women casualties.

Personally, if we're going to have selective service requirements for men, women should have the same requirement. If men are sent off to war as combatants, so should women. It's either that or we roll back women's rights or abolish selective service all together.

[4a6c1]

<<Dave: Jessica Lynch>>

As far as the details to the story I dont know so I cant speak to them.

What does sound incredibly hokey to me is the sad example of one womans flaws representing those of every woman.

I'm sure there have been examples of male cowards in the military. But I'm not going to dig them up and be like OMG MEN ARE CRIEBABIES, NO ROOM FOR STRENGTH EVAR.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by JihnasSpirit]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
Sad thing about that Jihnas is the TRUE Jessica lynch story.
She passed all the same standards as the other men in the fight. But she was unable to return fire both due to fear and her inability to preform basic weapons malfunction tasks, which both got people killed, her captured, and put us at a disadvantage during a critical wartime maneuver.

And guess what, men do it to.

[4a6c1]

Haha. I said it first. :bouncy:

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
<<Dave: Jessica Lynch>>

As far as the details to the story I dont know so I cant speak to them.

What does sound incredibly hokey to me is the sad example of one womans flaws representing those of every woman.

I'm sure there have been examples of male cowards in the military. But I'm not going to dig them up and be like OMG MEN ARE CRIEBABIES, NO ROOM FOR STRENGTH EVAR.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by JihnasSpirit]
Your right. (in this instance) :)

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Divinity
Women are able to withstand colder climates than men because our extra layer of skin.. so I saw on a health discovery experiment.

Women can multi-task, being able to concentrate on a wider range of enemies while doing other duties.

In a hitch, women are more creative and versatile when trying to get out of a situation or figure out problems.

I would think a woman could get a lot more done because (or I would think this to be so) we're smaller and lighter in physique. Meaning we can sneak around and do whatever stealth tactics are needed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/dawkins/gtforetard.jpg

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Jolena
As so many love to say on these boards when this subject comes up of inexperience.. "Inexperience does not mean someone can't form an opinion". It's a message board, noone's going to STFU or "Give it a rest". The topic is to be discussed and people will disagree.

This is irony at it's best. :lol:


As for the topic, I'm on the fence.

Tsa'ah, I might have missed it if you posted it, but do you know where I could find accounts of women in combat during the Israeli War? It's a debate that I'm not quite sure on in my opinion and this just perked my curiousity.

- Arkans

If I'm staring down the scope of a Beretta .50, I'm going to have a lot more difficulty putting a bullet in a woman or younger person than some huge sweaty guy.

I dunno if there's actually a study to show casualties regarding sniper type ambushes, but I bet it would reflect this sentiment.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
If men were that deeply effected by things happening to women we would've up and left the Vietnam war, for an example.Yeah, nobody protested against or refused to go to that.

I voted yes. I don't know how I would react to someone getting their head blown apart next to me, but I don't believe the gender would be of primary concern.

[AnticorRifling]

Didn't I already end this topic?

[Back]

While I feel there are certainly many women out there more capable than some men in many situations, and believe a woman ought to have a chance to make decisions for themselves, I have reservations about having them in combat.

I haven’t really been able to put much more of a definition on it other than propagation. If only able men fight, women are left to nurture the society back to strength. If only able men AND able women fight, lets face it, should they all die the society is kind of fucked generation-ally.

I also fully believe in the differences physically and mentally between the two sexes. Without those differences we’d be androgynous and self replicating, like amoeba. Maybe I’m biased because I enjoy my role as a man, and my sex partner’s role as a women. Dang, if I were an amoeba, there’d be tons of mes floating around... there can only be one me.

[Shari]

Okay, I didn't read all the posts here, but I think there are many different facets to this whole thing.

There are obviously sexual issues. But I suppose thats already an issue given the whole "don't ask, don't tell" phrase. I mean damn, there were already sexual issues in the military before the matter of women and combat came up.

Physical issues as well. The fact that a woman is only needed to do 13 pushups in 2 minutes is...well, well its bullshit. If women want equal treatment, better fucking be able to do 42 if you wanna be part of the "big boys" team. I'm all for women being a part of combat so long as you are splitting the requirements for each sex down the middle.

There is an emotional issue of men protecting the women. Men are trained over and over and over to think with a clear head while going into combat. They simply would have to execute the same route of thinking. The woman has been just as extensively trained as you, she is capable, you don't have to be the big strong man and hold her hand.

And then there is the mental issue. Are women as capable of leading a unit into combat and keeping everyone alive? I don't see why not. Because she has a pair of tits and no balls doesn't mean she doesn't have "balls" to lead on or defend against an attack.

Hopefully this makes sense to someone else, cause it does to me. :D


I'm going to see how long it takes me to do 13 pushups now, heh.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
Tsa'ah, I might have missed it if you posted it, but do you know where I could find accounts of women in combat during the Israeli War? It's a debate that I'm not quite sure on in my opinion and this just perked my curiousity.

- Arkans

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG836.cfm

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200501110730.asp

[Back]

Now that I have the time to look it up here is a link (thought not sure how substantiated)...

Women Warriors (http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html) throughout history.

[HarmNone]

Interesting link, Backlash. Thanks for posting it. :)

[Ravenstorm]

Morgan Llywelyn has a very good book about Grace O'Malley, the Irish pirate during the time of Elizabeth I. It's called Grania. Excellent read. Those who like historical ficiton should enjoy it a lot.

Raven

Jewish Israeli citizens will almost indefinately be drafted into the Haganah at the age of eighteen.

If there is a call to arms you are basically summoned regardless of age, unless you are super decrepit.

[Parker]

Eww..I have to vote against this, there have been studies concerning this, I believe, and it was found that men reacted differently to wounded women than they did men. Too often Medics were found to try to save women who were obviously gone, when there were other patients who were dying due to lack of attention.

I don't know about the rest of the men posting, but I couldn't walk past a woman who was mortally wounded. I really, really don't think that could be trained out of me, either. A man? Yes, I could, I suppose...I wouldn't like it, but I could do it. Women affect men differently.

I don't want to seem sexist, either, but women just don't have the physical strength that most military men possess. Perhaps in terms of personal movement, (Pushups, pullups, running, etc.) but definitely not in terms of manipulating objects. Could a woman sling a 200 pound guy over her shoulder and run with him? (Seems hollywood, but I've heard stories where things like this become pretty common) :\ I have to doubt it. I don't doubt a woman's ability to serve, I just don't think that they're fit for front-line duties.

[Edited on 5-20-2005 by Parker]

[Jolena]

It's sexist, not racist. :)

[Parker]

you're right...shush!

its not uncommon, Hollywood or not the fireman's carry is used.

[Parker]

Such is my point...could you see a woman keeping up, if she had to carry a man?

No matter how strong she is, her body is just built differently than a man's.

I hate this sorta discussion, because I feel huge, raging flames coming on when I have it. But I just don't see women being able to take on several of the tasks necessary in combat.

[Apotheosis]

Pardon if someone has already written this, but ADD afflicts me in the most severe ways.

Shouldn't women be back at home having babies and cooking?

Originally posted by Yswithe
Pardon if someone has already written this, but ADD afflicts me in the most severe ways.

Shouldn't women be back at home having babies and cooking?
No it is naked (maybe a apron on but nothing else), barefoot (maybe wearing a set of comefuckme boots), in the kitchen, bent over the sink... get it right. <cough>

In all seriousness, I don't think anyone is saying that women should not be in the army. Its just a matter of doing a job which has a sole purpose of killing other human beings, whose sole response it to kill you.

[Edited on 5-20-2005 by Dave]

[StrayRogue]

I agree with the SAS's view on women:

Beyond the physical incapabilities of a woman (in regards to joining the SAS, not the army) being able to compare to a man there is a moral and ethical dilemma. Should a woman become injured incapacitated in combat a man would be more likely to do something stupid to rescue or aid her than a male comrade (which may compromise his and others health).

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Dave

I think there would be a problem with that as well. I would venture to say there would be an increase in sexual assaults as well as other crimes.


Speaking with alot longer time in service as both an infantry officer a support officer and from experience in Iraq I have to disagree with you here. Honestly most of the "line" unit folks don't have time to or opportunity to commit crimes on their own soldiers like this when you compare them to us support pogues who sit in the FOBs. Most of your line units are too busy trying not to get shot or blown up.

Now that the disagreeing is out of the way I will say that my opinion on women in combat can be summed up with these statements/beliefs:

- For combat units the PT requirements must be exactly the same. And honestly I think the APFT is a hunk of shit as well as the Armed Forces general view of exercise. Pushups don't really give an accurate view of "upper body strength". Doing pushups is not going to help you pick up a comrade and drag or carry them to safety. I think at a minimum, pullups should be added to the APFT or better yet revamp the whole system.

- I think the American public is not ready to see young women coming home in body bags, nor young men, but I think the cultural stigmata of seeing women die in combat is still stronger.

- With that being said, the battlefield today is not linear, but fluid. There are not as many defined "frontlines" and "rear areas" . IMO the most dangerous job in Iraq right now is as Dave said, 88M or truck driver, or really anyone who convoys. Honestly, infantry soldiers and armor are ALOT safer. You are going out there LOOKING for the badguy versus the badguy looking for the convoys.

- In the long run I think we have to let women into combat provided the same standards for service are met.



Stealth

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Parker
Such is my point...could you see a woman keeping up, if she had to carry a man?

No matter how strong she is, her body is just built differently than a man's.

I hate this sorta discussion, because I feel huge, raging flames coming on when I have it. But I just don't see women being able to take on several of the tasks necessary in combat.


In this case there are TONS of male soldiers out there in the combat arms that would fail to be able to meet your standards. We should make the "1 mile fireman carry" part of the standards to become a combat arms soldier.

Seriously I see plenty of male soldiers in the infantry who weigh a buck twenty soaking wet and damn sure could not carry some 200 pound guy (with 60 pounds of armor and gear of his own plus 60 pounds of the other guy's shit).

Do these guys make good Soldiers? Damn right they do. I don't send some big lumbering 250 pound bear out on a snoop and poop operation as my first choice, I send the light sneaky guy who can run like the wind itself if he has to. By the same token when I assign my primary aid and litter teams (or in reality when my NCOs assign them and I give the OK on it) they put decent sized fellows on the aid and litter teams.

People are not all alike and they should not be employed as if they were. Utilize each Soldier's abilities where they work best.


Stealth

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Stealth

- For combat units the PT requirements must be exactly the same. And honestly I think the APFT is a hunk of shit as well as the Armed Forces general view of exercise.

One Army, One standard.

Soldier First, MOS second

I feel the PT test and the Army view of units is outdated.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parker
I don't want to seem sexistThe differences in a woman's body don't really matter if she's able to perform equally with the male standard. It's harder for a general woman to do so, especially in the running part, but once a particular woman reaches that level of achievement, it's logically impossible for her to not be as strong as the man who scores the same. In unrelated areas, there will probably be differences (maybe his grip is better, or her thighs are stronger), but you can't reasonably suggest she isn't physically equivalent if she scores the same in each portion.

[Edaarin]

Of course women should be in the Armed Forces.

We can save $0.18 on the dollar for cooks and people to clean up.

[Some Rogue]

Originally posted by Edaarin
Of course women should be in the Armed Forces.

We can save $0.18 on the dollar for cooks and people to clean up.
:lol2:
So bad, yet so funny.

[Vestarr]

Ok the way i see it is if a woman can run and complete the same PFT as a man she should by all mean be able allowed to serve wherever she is most needed be it front line or another area .When I was in bootcamp i remember hearing of a girl who ran the obsticle corse faster then any man on the Island during a bet that she won ...so it can be done no questions there by me
As far a hygene as was pointed out yeast infections and such are normally atributed to sex and in combat im sure theres other things on there mind,and if it does happen guess what ..theres medication that comes in little packages about as big as our asperin packages that will clear it up in a day and cause no side effects to time or the mission. As for the monthy "friend" again theres pills that can curb the womens menstrual cycle for upto 4 months so thats not even an issue .
As for the whole strength issue granted women are a bit less gifted in this department but as was pointed out earlier so are some men but they still get to fight.
And lastly as for men being over protective of there women ...women are just as over protective of there men and will fight to save us as we would fight to save one of them

---Vest

[Parker]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Parker
I don't want to seem sexistThe differences in a woman's body don't really matter if she's able to perform equally with the male standard. It's harder for a general woman to do so, especially in the running part, but once a particular woman reaches that level of achievement, it's logically impossible for her to not be as strong as the man who scores the same. In unrelated areas, there will probably be differences (maybe his grip is better, or her thighs are stronger), but you can't reasonably suggest she isn't physically equivalent if she scores the same in each portion.

I disagree, from my limited experience, upper body strength is an absolute necessity in combat situations. Women don't have it compared to men, except in extreme circumstances.

I don't think women could perform a lot of the lifting and carrying that men can. It's a difference in physiology.

[AnticorRifling]

I disagree totally. I know(knew) alot of women that had plenty of upper body strength and did quite well. I also know(knew) several guys that could only do the minimum of 3 pullups and I bet the couldn't do a solid set of dips to save their lives.

I still say more important than the physical attributes are the mental ones. Flight or fight reaction, mettle, spine, nuts, whatever you want to call it. It doesn't take much upper body strength to apply five pounds of pressure to pull that trigger and send screaming death down range.

Standardize a combat test, not a PFT or other like test (same idea throughout all branches, change the name and modify a few exercises) that is about overall general fitness. Pass the test and you're going to war male or female. Fail the test get kicked out with your tail between your legs, that or join the Coast Guard. :cool:

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Vestarr
And lastly as for men being over protective of there women ...women are just as over protective of there men and will fight to save us as we would fight to save one of them

---Vest

:) :heart:

It needed to be repeated.

-Melissa

[Slider]

Ok, first I am all for allowing women in combat, if they can prove that they have the physical and mental capabilities to do so. And I will even cheerfully admit that there are areas of the military where women can flat out out perform men at. For instance, as a fighter pilot. Women can tolerate higher g-forces than a man can, their reflexes are faster (on average) than a mans, and they are able to multi-task better than a man. As far as pain tolerance goes...heh...I'll happily admit you got us beat hands down there. No way in hell could I go through giving birth to a child....

In this case there are TONS of male soldiers out there in the combat arms that would fail to be able to meet your standards. We should make the "1 mile fireman carry" part of the standards to become a combat arms soldier


^

You guys didn't have to do this in basic? I think alot of the degraded standards in the military have to do with the increase of obesity and overall laziness in todays society. What I did almost 4 years ago is alot different then what people are doing today and I can only imagine how things were 40-50-60 years ago.

I think we as a nation should start to re-emphasize physical fitness. The upkeep and development of the body is just as important as the mind an dyet there is this stigma in this country that says to be smart you have to *not* do anything athletic. It's pathetic really.

[AnticorRifling]

I agree with RangerD1 I say go back to the old school ways of pain retains. You aren't there to get in touch with your feelings your there to learn to be a dog of war.

its to easy to get out, yo uwoul dhave to many "nonadapts"

[Gan]

On the fence for this one.

I agree with Anticor's logistical issues.

I also know that women have outstanding marksmanship capabilities, same as if not better than many men.

Would it be feasable to design units where the comparitive advantage of women combatants would be neutral or positive (ie. all female units)? Would be an interesting test but I dont know if its practical. That would mean redesigned armor, weaponry, machinery, etc. The cost of military is already an issue without throwing this into the mix.

Where are droids when you need them. I would say why not just stop having wars but that would sound too liberal for this Texan [/sarcasm]. I dont think civilization is capable (mature enough) of interacting with each other enough to abolish wars alltogether.

[CrystalTears]

Dave, you need to lay off with the "I know everything" attitude. Just because the women who are in YOUR troop haven't been deemed experts doesn't mean that it's not possible anywhere. Your ego has really gotten engulfed since you enlisted to the point of nausea. You've been there.. what.. a year? Maybe less? And now you're a fucking expert on tactics and such? Do YOU have an expert marksmanship badge? You better if you're going to be this fucking arrogant.

Usually women have been known to be better shooters because their center of gravity is lower thus can shoot more steadily and with better aim. I shot better than my ex and he has been shooting guns since he was a child and it was my first time. So you have sucky women. BFD. You probably have really sucky men too.

Edited because I see you deleted your post. Too bad. My opinion still stands.

[Edited on 5/21/2005 by CrystalTears]

I don't comment on tactics just what I observe. Yes I shoot expert.

Note: Post removed "prior" to your posting.

[Edited on 5-21-2005 by Dave]

[Showal]

<<I can always count on you to rip my posts apart, Alex. Job well done.

Anyways, there was this show that actually did an experiment. They had men and women in freezing water to see who would withstand it longer, and all that stuff about hypothermia. It was related to something about the military.

I don't remember it all, of course. Point being, women have a higher tolerance for pain and colder climates.

That, and don't women become stronger than men cause of adrenaline surges?

Feel free to call bullshit on those too, Alex. However, I know those to be true.>>

There's also the physiological factor of women's blood in cold climates being focused on two parts of her body, her breasts and her uterus to protect any potential babies. Men's blood freely circulates causing them to have a higher cold tolerance. I don't care if this small study you saw on TV says otherwise, it's just not in the physiology of the female body. That is a fact.

Women have the same nerves that run through their bodies as men. They perceive pain the same way. I would doubt women to have a higher pain tolerance then men. I would say it's most likely the same.

I am fine with allowing women to be in the military. I have the same idea as with gays in the military ... their bodies can catch bullets just as good as the next guys, so if they want to be in there, let them be.

However, I have a few problems with it. Men, in order to vote among other things in the US, have to register for the draft. Women do not. I say if women want to be on the front line in the same way men are, then all women should be required to be part of the draft. I imagine that quite a few of the female posters here would have a different perspective of women in the military if they had to. I'm not saying they wouldn't agree with women being in the military still, I'm just saying they'd probably have a different perspective.

I just can't take on the idea that women are as fully competant physically as men. Yeah, everyone has their examples of women being stronger than men ... there are always exceptions. Look at it this way, in the olympics, men and women have the same drive to perform and train ... many have the same trainers. Men always have better times and performances if compared to a woman's. I'm not saying women are incapable of performing to the standards to enter the military, I'm just saying that a woman's body is not meant to be as strong as a man's and it is not capable of reaching the potential a man can. I do know that women can make the standards set forth for the military though.

I don't think women are phsycologically weaker than men. I think they could perform under fire just as well as a man. The problem is that there is now and most likely always will be more men in the military then women. If things happen, like in Israel where men would put themselves at risk to save an injured female when it was foolish, you have to wonder if it's good for the overall morale and capabilities of the military.

All in all, it's a sensitive issue. Men, in general, do feel as if they have to protect women. It's hard for men to see a woman hurt. I can't really call whether it's the best one way or another, but I feel like women should be allowed like men in the military ... I just think they should be made to register for the draft like men too. With liberation comes responsibilities. If women are so eager to protect our country like a man, and I don't doubt they are, all women should have to do the same things as a man.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. I think the draft thing is kind've a lame call. I think women being in the military would be fine, I just think very few could make the grade. I think those that can should be allowed in.

[Showal]

I dont see why the draft thing is a lame call.

[Warriorbird]

I think a small percentage of women would do well in the military, combat wise. I think a much larger percentage of men would do adequately.

[Some Rogue]

So take all those men you have in non combat roles and and draft women to fill them.

Originally posted by Dave
its to easy to get out, yo uwoul dhave to many "nonadapts"


That's just a bullshit excuse that we use to hamstring ourselves. Oh well, its not possible so fuck it. It was obviously possible up until the last 10 years and yet somehow we find ourselves unable to find recruits who can run more than 2 miles?

Yea right.

That said, I'm also in favor of mandatory military service as it would do a great deal to eliminate many of the new problems we as a country are facing, like say Obesity and overall laziness.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by RangerD1
That said, I'm also in favor of mandatory military service as it would do a great deal to eliminate many of the new problems we as a country are facing, like say Obesity and overall laziness. Don't forget overpopulation.

And yes, I can't forget over population.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by RangerD1

Originally posted by Dave
its to easy to get out, yo uwoul dhave to many "nonadapts"


That's just a bullshit excuse that we use to hamstring ourselves. Oh well, its not possible so fuck it. It was obviously possible up until the last 10 years and yet somehow we find ourselves unable to find recruits who can run more than 2 miles?

Yea right.

That said, I'm also in favor of mandatory military service as it would do a great deal to eliminate many of the new problems we as a country are facing, like say Obesity and overall laziness.

I agree, Ranger. I think mandatory military service would serve a lot of good purposes for our country, and its citizenry. It's a good place to learn a lot of important things.

[AnticorRifling]

Originally posted by Dave
Yes I shoot expert.
[Edited on 5-21-2005 by Dave]

So do alot of Privates. :cool:

Originally posted by AnticorRifling

Originally posted by Dave
Yes I shoot expert.
[Edited on 5-21-2005 by Dave]

So do alot of Privates. :cool:

well she said I better, just making sure she knows I do.

[Divinity]

I have to go with CT on the shooting thing. It's not hard. I have better aim than most of my male friends.

<3 Archery on that scale. As for guns, I do pretty damn well, if I do say so myself.

Like shooting expert is that fucking hard, give me a break. You can go to the range all you want and try it all you want until you get your nice little badge. It's nothing I'd really brag about.

Anyway, D hit the nail on the head. Mandatory military service as well as higher PT standards in the service is an excellent idea. Things need to toughen up, expecially in training. It's why I strongly support the 12 week basic training in the Army and the fact that the PT standards will be upped (not sure when this will happen, but think pull-ups).

We really need to get rid of this self defeating attitude when it comes to the service, it does nobody any good.

- Arkans

[Jolena]

I'm pretty sure the reason that women are not in the draft is also due to them raising families. To be honest, there are many many more females that are raising families alone then there are males. That should be taken into consideration when drafting someone I would think.

It's not exclusively for females though. There are a ton of stay at home dads and single fathers out there. Everyone should be elligible for the draft, as far as I'm concerned. Make no exceptions. Women want the same freedoms, rights, and priveledges as males do then they really need to step up to bat and do all the work that we have to. Freedom ain't free, motha fuckas.

- Arkans

[Jolena]

Oh I completely agree Arkans but no matter how you look at it the ratio of single fathers raising families compared to single mothers raising families is extremely low. Men have the luxury in most cases to just walk away. Women do not. Now, if women are to be drafted even if they are raising kids on their own, that's fine. Provide some way for their children to be taken care of while they attend bootcamp and go to war. :shrug: It's not fair and I've seen single fathers that raise their children alone, but not many. I wish there were more men that were made to be responsible for their children not just financially but physically. We wouldn't even be considering this as a reason for women not being drafted right now, if that were the case.

I mean, it is obvious that single parents without any other family shouldn't be drafted. It should just apply to both sexes, no matter how rare it is.

- Arkans

[Jolena]

I'm not sure if they are or not to be honest. My father was in the military as a young man and went to Vietnam however he doesn't speak of it at all (I assume it's too much for him) and as such I haven't really received a lot of information on draft, etc. I would hope they don't but it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

Fact remains though, that women are generally viewed as the best option to raise children due to the maternal bond. I am not saying I support that nor am I saying I don't. But I"m sure it was a factor when women were excluded.

Originally posted by Arkans
Like shooting expert is that fucking hard, give me a break. You can go to the range all you want and try it all you want until you get your nice little badge. It's nothing I'd really brag about.
- Arkans
Eh, I only hit the range once since I have been out of basic and that was to qualify, one practice one record. And I was damn proud of it since i had not shot since basic training 8 months or so earlier.

BTW the thread is not about me :)

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Dave]

Here's my theory:

Besides the obvious glutes and mammaries, women are great for waging psychological warfare because they're less likely to get plugged straight up when they're within clear visibility.

unless they are wearing very tight BDU's and walking around without a helmet... it wont matter in the least

[4a6c1]

Several times it has been brought up that men who are in combat with women would be distracted by the rules of 'chivalry'. This is a rather silly and a deeply rooted problem with our society that I know for a fact can only improve with time. Yes, valuing human life is very important. Distinguishing the value of that human life by its sex is very weird. I'm sure its not what God, Darwin, the dinosaurs or the amoebas ever intented.

The draft issue. Its an IF thing for me. I think IF you are a citizen in a country and IF you are of legal age and IF your country is at war and IF your countries government deems necessary to open the draft it is your responsibility to serve. Women and men. Exceptions apply in any case. I'm not familiar with the draft policy but I think women who have recently given birth should be excepted and women who are not married and with a child under a certain age. I think the same rule should apply to men.

I think the whole physical aspect of basic training should be completely redone to emphasize the rigors of active duty. Basic training should be what kicks you in the face and wakes you up to real life so that when you get out your like,"Oh, well this is easy, I've survived worse". And yes, it should be the same for both men and women.

~R

think the whole physical aspect of basic training should be completely redone to emphasize the rigors of active duty. Basic training should be what kicks you in the face and wakes you up to real life so that when you get out your like,"Oh, well this is easy, I've survived worse". And yes, it should be the same for both men and women.

^

That is what basic is supposed to be and what rigors of active duty?

It's common knowledge that Basic Training isn't anything has hard as what it used to be. One problem that I believe really hurts this is the type of Drill Sergeants there are. Right now, Drill Sergeants rarely volunteer for their position and the ones that do get picked really don't want to be there. While they will do their job, I am quite sure that they do get sick of doing that job cycle after cycle after cycle.

This doesn't apply to them all though. I had some really great Drill Sergeants and also piss poor ones, but the fact that so many are there not by choice isn't really good for any recruit.

- Arkans

[Jolena]

<<and what rigors of active duty?>>

Pretty sure she was speaking of active duty in say Iraq, where the physical limits are tested

[Back]

I dunno, after studiously reviewing very compelling evidence at Action Girls.com (NSFW) I may change my stance.

http://www.moviebadgirls.com/actionthumb/s_actiongirlssylviasaintgberet004.jpg

Backlash you have altered my view on this. How do I change my vote?

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Jolena
<<and what rigors of active duty?>>

Pretty sure she was speaking of active duty in say Iraq, where the physical limits are tested

:yeahthat:

The survival stuff. Training the body to react to extreme physiological stress by getting stronger. Which takes time and puts the body through alot of punishment. I realize thats what basic training does already - to a lesser degree - I just think it should be more of a 'weeding out the weaklings' and less of the 'getting you used to the military'.


Originally posted by Dave
Backlash you have altered my view on this. How do I change my vote?

Haha.

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by JihnasSpirit]

Warclaidhm did Basic Training!!

- Arkans

[Showal]

<<I'm pretty sure the reason that women are not in the draft is also due to them raising families. To be honest, there are many many more females that are raising families alone then there are males. That should be taken into consideration when drafting someone I would think. >>

There are exceptions to the draft. I believe the only son in a family can't be drafted, I might be wrong. A number of health issues will prevent you from being drafted. I'm sure being the only parent of a family will prevent you from being drafted. The government most likely doesn't want to send kids into foster homes. There are single parent families raised by both men and women. That's not a reason to be out of the draft.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Showal

There are exceptions to the draft. I believe the only son in a family can't be drafted,

I think that's mistaken. My father had a draft card for Vietnam. I'm not saying if he were drafted (they stopped the draft his senior year of highschool) that I know if he would have gone or not -- more that if that was a valid exception, it seems a waste of time and paper to have given him a card.

-Melissa

[Showal]

I think that's been changed since Vietnam, however, I could be wrong.

Selective service does not take into account if you are the only child.

Originally posted by Arkans
Warclaidhm did Basic Training!!

- Arkans

We both know, having gone though it, that he would not make it past red phase.

[Showal]

<<Selective service does not take into account if you are the only child. >>

Maybe I'm thinking of how if two brothers are at war and one dies, they'll send the other one home. I know there's something along those lines and it has something to do with carrying on the family name.

Red phase? Shit, you're generous. His ass would never make it past reception.

- Arkans

[Jolena]

Originally posted by Showal
<<I'm pretty sure the reason that women are not in the draft is also due to them raising families. To be honest, there are many many more females that are raising families alone then there are males. That should be taken into consideration when drafting someone I would think. >>

There are exceptions to the draft. I believe the only son in a family can't be drafted, I might be wrong. A number of health issues will prevent you from being drafted. I'm sure being the only parent of a family will prevent you from being drafted. The government most likely doesn't want to send kids into foster homes. There are single parent families raised by both men and women. That's not a reason to be out of the draft.

I posted as well regarding the fact that both men and women raise families alone and I have said in those posts that I'm not stating I am for or against women being excluded from the draft due to children. I also said that I feel that no matter what the sex is, if men are raising a family on their own then they should be excluded from a draft so that they may raise their children.

Originally posted by Arkans
Red phase? Shit, you're generous. His ass would never make it past reception.

- Arkans

yeah, you're right... I will say the worst smoking i recieved was at reception when a idiot put on the drill sergeants hat.

[Showal]

I know Jolena, I was just pointing out that exceptions are made in certain circumstances. It wasnt an attack and I apologize if it came across as such.

Someone put on a hat during Blue Phase, we got him with a disposable camera someone snuck in. He never got caught. The worst smoking I got was when my battle buddy, at the time, put on his dog tags wrong. Thirty minutes of sheer and utter agony.

- Arkans

[Showal]

That probably learned you good.

[4a6c1]

military boys plz translate 'smoking' and 'red/blue phase' for da piddy civilians, kthnx

I was the exact opposite of the Army Values in Basic Training. The Drill Sergeants knew me by name and did everything in their power to slam me to the wall.

BUT.. I still managed to:

1. Sneak on the internet during Red Phase
2. Have an infinate supply of M&Ms, coffee, tea, and other goodies
3. Have an infinate supply of muscle relaxers and Motrin
4. Not do fire guard or anything of that sort for 3 weeks.
5. Have a gameboy advances
6. Never due details on Sunday
7. We woke up early in the mornings to due details before barracks inspections, I did this a total of 3 times.


It's because I was able to get away with that shit above that I believe Basic Training was so fucking easy.

- Arkans

PS: Oh yeah, I had the largest dip supply of all the soldiers too!

Smoking = "DO SOME FUCKING PUSH UPS, PRIVATE!!!"

Red Phase = Scum with no priveledges

White Phase = Scum and you can talk while polishing your boots

Blue Phase = Scum and you can talk while doing boots, and walk yourself to chow

Red, White, and Blue Phase = Scum, but you don't care because it's over in 3 days.

- Arkans

Smoking is corrective training, basically they break your body and put you in pain that you did not know you could feel.

Basic has phases red, white, and blue,
Red is the induction phase, lots of smoking, getting your body ready and breaking you mentally
White is a bit easier and you get a bit of freedom, like marching to and from chow without a drill sergeant
Blue is the I am almost ready to graduate phase, more freedom (able to go to church on Sunday without a drill marching you) less smoking and it is more directed at the individual instead of the whole platoon or company getting it for one person's screw up.

Originally posted by Jolena
<<and what rigors of active duty?>>

Pretty sure she was speaking of active duty in say Iraq, where the physical limits are tested

Okay.

Originally posted by Arkans
Someone put on a hat during Blue Phase, we got him with a disposable camera someone snuck in. He never got caught. The worst smoking I got was when my battle buddy, at the time, put on his dog tags wrong. Thirty minutes of sheer and utter agony.

- Arkans

At AIT we aquired a drill sergeant hat off of his desk during our terrorism block of instruction. Our Cell named BlaLinkOlCif (dont ask) demanded a few things, held it hostage for a few days with the help of our instructors at the school house (they hid it for us) all we got for it was 1000 push ups on a payment plan which was at 100% interest... (had to drop and give 25-50 every time we saw him, we lucked out though because he had a good sense of humor and a extra hat.)

[4a6c1]

Thats interesting they actually have stages like that. Thanks Dave.

Yes, perhaps it should all be red. :)

[AnticorRifling]

He should be fired for losing his cover. Then he should take you to the tree line.

Originally posted by Arkans
Smoking = "DO SOME FUCKING PUSH UPS, PRIVATE!!!"
- Arkans
Eh more like FRONT, BACK, GO
FRONT, BACK, FRONT, GO, FRONT, GO, FRONT, BACK, FRONT, GO, BACK, GO, BACK, FRONT, GO, BACK, FRONT, BACK, FRONT, BACK, FRONT, GO... ETC.

The smoking wasn't that bad. I figured it was just exercise that people pay to do in gyms. It was the article 15's that scared the shit out of me. More so since I almost got one! :P

- Arkans

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
He should be fired for losing his cover. Then he should take you to the tree line.

We actually went in through the window at night. We were tasked out by higher to acquire it. Our demand letter that we left was to rid the world of gerbils, add more white stuff to Oreo cookies (but not make them double stuffed) and end daylight savings time.

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Dave]

There are different phases with increased level of perks starting at red where you don't get shit going through blue in normal basic and gold in Combat arms training. We never left red in ours.

Smoking is when you have to do forced calisthentics for insane amounts of time. (30 minutes isn't SHIT)

Ohh.. That reminds me. I remember at AIT the Senior Drill Sergeant says to me, "We'll make a soldier out of you yet!" and I was like, "Yeah okay, we'll see about that."

She knew I was joking. She still smoked the piss out of me though.

- Arkans

A good smoking in the battle bay at basic (small room with 60 people in it) would end up with watter dripping from the ceiling and down the walls, and the floor soaked from all the sweat. We had to mop up the water on more than one occasion.

Either way though, I'd be fucking lying if basic training was physically tough. Mentally it was a bit harder because I don't function super awesome under high amounts of stress.

- Arkans

You had female drill sergeants. Lol. I didn't see a woman under 60 my entire time in training. (9 months cuz I broke my hand)

[Overlord]

For some reason female officers seem to get a bigger kick out of it than the rest of us. It must be a smug sense of self satisfaction...*shrugs*

[4a6c1]

Yeah that must have been extra hard like 1 week out of every month. :D

The female Drill Sergeants came off bitchy like they had something to prove. Pissed me off.

- Arkans

[4a6c1]

The conversation we are having in this thread: obviously they do.

We had female drills, one of which wanted to be the first female command sergeant major. She had something to prove, wanted to be the hardest drill. It was kind of interesting when we got to AIT and heard some dirt about her from another drill sergeant.. Got busted down to private twice for "climbing on top of" the chain of command.

Dude, they have female command sergeant majors wtf are you smoking

I dont know, that was her big thing, and she said it more than once... Might have been MOS related.

[4a6c1]

:lol:

I dont blame her. Surrounded by men in uniform all the damn time. Poor woman it was only twice. She probably restrained herself.

Prolly just talking shit

From what I hear, females are even allowed to be officers!

- Arkans

[DeV]

Does the fact that women are currently not allowed in direct ground combat keep them out of harm's way? I think we all know the answer to that.

I'm back and forth on this subject for now. In one sense I think a woman should be allowed in direct ground combat only if she can meet the physical and emotional demands the job requires.

Then again, women have often faced great danger on the battlefield, and just because they aren't in front-line combat doesn't make their duty any less physically or emotionally demanding in their roles as nurses in the front-line trenches, or as powder-carriers on board sub ships and in artillery units. I see one of the major differences being the level of aggression which is almost required and demanded because of stresses and rigors of the job. However, I wouldn't consider lower levels of aggressiveness to be an obstacle.

The Gulf War had the largest deployment of women in the armed forces in history. These women encountered the same risks as the men they served with. Twenty-one females lost their lives. Women die all the time in wars, but it doesn't get noticed when they're not in uniform.

It has nothing at all to do with "Risk"

[DeV]

Originally posted by RangerD1
It has nothing at all to do with "Risk" Yeah, I agree.