women in combat

[vidcc]

There is a bill going through congress at the moment that has a part that would ban women from serving in direct ground combat. This would mean that there are certain units that women could not serve in.

In this age where equality is being fought for is this fair or the right thing to do?

I do believe that some women can do such jobs better than some men and my view is that we have a totally voluntary military so if women wish to engage in combat they shouldn't be prevented from doing so providing they meet the same standards the men have to.


I will add that although I believe that many women are physically and mentally able to do such jobs I sometimes feels that they should not be doing them. For example we shouldn't have female guards at male prisons and on the flip side we shouldn't have male guards in women's prisons.

[sArA]

If she can do the job and wants to, I have no problem.

Banning women from combat purely on the grounds of gender smacks of being patted on the head by the big strong men who know better than you do....dear. :dry:

Patronising and unworthy of an equal society.

Anyone, should be able to fight for their country, regardless of gender.

[NikkiD]

I do believe that some women can do such jobs better than some men and my view is that we have a totally voluntary military so if women wish to engage in combat they shouldn't be prevented from doing so providing they meet the same standards the men have to.


My thoughts exactly. If they meet the requirements and pass the training at the same standard as a man, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to engage in combat, the same as a man.

[JPaul]

Yup,

Provided a person is consistently capable of doing the job and does not require any allowances made for them then I have no problem with that.

[Samurai]

If she can do the job and wants to, I have no problem.

Banning women from combat purely on the grounds of gender smacks of being patted on the head by the big strong men who know better than you do....dear. :dry:

Patronising and unworthy of an equal society.

Anyone, should be able to fight for their country, regardless of gender.

Totally agree.

Wasn't there a story a month ago of a female reservist defending her platoon or something? Apparently their convoy got ambushed and she took out 2-3 insurgents before jumping on the humvee's .50 cal - I can't find the story right now :(

[vidcc]

@ Samurai:
It wasn't just a story, it was true.

@all

There are some who have been arguing that women, especially mothers, should not be forced to fight. I'm afraid that I could only take this on board if the same people said that fathers shouldn't have to fight..... but then where would our military be?

this is an example of the ones I am talking about (http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/jan05/psrjan05.html)

I'm afraid to say that if you join up voluntarily you have to be prepared to do what the military does....fight....... If you can't meet the physical requirements then you should not be accepted into service.

I do appreciate that some in the USA find themselves in the situation where the military is the only option to gain healthcare and education for themselves and families, but if they do choose this route then again as adults they have to accept the downside.

I admit that I find the death of female service personnel harder to swallow than that of male. I don't like any losing their life...just when it's a woman it seems worse. But if we want equality there should be no walls put up to those that wish to fight.

[JPaul]

I admit that I find the death of female service personnel harder to swallow than that of male. I don't like any losing their life...just when it's a woman it seems worse.
So you are a patronizing sexist then, or do I miss your point.

[vidcc]

So you are a patronizing sexist then, or do I miss your point.
you miss my point.

I find women's deaths sadder somehow. I don't know why, perhaps because of the nature of the society I live in. Perhaps because it's such an unusual thing in the military it carries a greater shock value.

It doesn't mean that I feel women should be protected any better than the men.....If we let emotions rule over common sense we would be in trouble. I wish for all to be out of harms way but that's not the nature of the military.

[Busyman]

I wouldn't want women in combat.

I rather have them go in the kitchen bucket naked, fix me a sandwich, and come back so we can practice making babies.

Actually I think only women that...

Volunteer for combat (not just military)

and are physically able should fight.

Women should never be forced to fight.

They bare children ffs.

Some things about gender should have some separation besides bathrooms.

I would prefer no women fight.

[vidcc]

@busy

Pregnant women in combat is a big no no.... the fact that they may one day become pregnant is irrelavant as far as I am concerned.

Do you also think then that men should be allowed to join the military for purely non combat duties.... E.g. only men that volunteer for combat duties should be forced to fight?

[Busyman]

@busy

Pregnant women in combat is a big no no.... the fact that they may one day become pregnant is irrelavant as far as I am concerned.

Do you also think then that men should be allowed to join the military for purely non combat duties.... E.g. only men that volunteer for combat duties should be forced to fight?
No.

I'm for the double-standard doohjicky.

[vidcc]

No.

I'm for the double-standard doohjicky.

Apart from the baby thing is there any reason?

Is it just the way you were raised (in a "male is dominant" world) ?

[Snee]

In my country, basic military training is mandatory for all males old enough (unless they can find an imaginative way of weaseling themselves out of it :naughty: or they have some kind of disability).

I always thought it was strange, in this day and age, that women didn't have to do it, I mean, we are supposed to be equal and all. Now, was our society a fair one, and this goes for the legislation and the society mentioned above as well, there would be no distinction between men and women in this.

I mean, ever since I was a kid I've heard (feminist) teachers and others speak of how women are just as good as men in every way. In fact, the way some of them have put it, women are superior in every damn way. I've heard a lot reasons as to why men aren't as good as women as well. Our brains aren't as effective, we aren't as tolerant to pain, and we don't have the same stamina, to mention a few things.

Oh yeah, and we are all complete and utter arseholes who make more money for the same work (which is why, when I took a course as a kid, one we got paid to take, some girls who took the same course got paid more, so they'd know what it was like to get paid more than us evil men. (Not that we'd ever had a job where we had gotten more money than the women, but anyway.))

Yet I've never heard one of these women (note that I'm not talking about all of womankind here) complain about the fact that they didn't have to join the army. Me, I figure that, since they are clearly the superior beings, they should be running the show, hell, us blokes shouldn't be allowed to even hold their guns for them.

[Busyman]

Apart from the baby thing is there any reason?

Is it just the way you were raised (in a "male is dominant" world) ?
No

[vidcc]

No

there is no reason at all as to how you came to your opinion ? ......other than women give birth.

[Busyman]

there is no reason at all as to how you came to your opinion ? ......other than women give birth.
Fuck shit piss.

Yes.

[vidcc]

Fuck shit piss.

Yes.


o....k


use logic or stfu

[BigBank_Hank]

Even though the bill is going around I doubt that something like this would ever pass. The ACLU would be going nuts over something like this and they’d be marching in the streets.

Women should be allowed to join the military, go to the moon, or anything else they want to do.

Edit: BTW vid how is the new little one?

[Busyman]

o....k


use logic or stfu
You've got nerve asking the same fucking question twice.

Speaka english?

lysdexia. :1eye: or better yet :eye1:

[Busyman]

Minimum physical "standards" for the armed services have been lowered to accomodate women; to enable them to conform to a "standard", and to deal with the female attrition rate (deemed "unacceptable") seen initially.

This, in order that women might claim physical "equality".

There have been resultant instances of the same lowered standards being applied now to the male contingent.

Now, I am all for females being allowed to do absolutely anything they are truly able to do, mentally OR physically, BUT:

If I were wounded and immobile on the front line, I would hope to be forgiven for cursing whatever authority was responsible for my "rescuer" being 5'4", and 120 lbs.

We recently had 5 people die in and around an Atlanta courthouse owing to a particularly defective brand of enlightened far-sightedness which dictated an unshackled 6' 1", 200-odd-pound ex-college linebacker be guarded by a 50-year-old grandmother (the bailiff) who was about 5' tall, and weighed about 110 pounds.

He disabled her, took her weapon, and started killing people; oddly enough, the grandmother/bailiff was the only one who survived direct contact with this madman.

I hope no one thinks ill of me for thinking something is wrong with this; how is it that the impetus for equality comes to preclude any semblance whatsoever of simple logic?
But nooooooo women can do whatever a man can do.....

Bull :shit:

[NikkiD]

Minimum physical "standards" for the armed services have been lowered to accomodate women; to enable them to conform to a "standard", and to deal with the female attrition rate (deemed "unacceptable") seen initially.

This, in order that women might claim physical "equality".

There have been resultant instances of the same lowered standards being applied now to the male contingent.

Now, I am all for females being allowed to do absolutely anything they are truly able to do, mentally OR physically, BUT:

If I were wounded and immobile on the front line, I would hope to be forgiven for cursing whatever authority was responsible for my "rescuer" being 5'4", and 120 lbs.

We recently had 5 people die in and around an Atlanta courthouse owing to a particularly defective brand of enlightened far-sightedness which dictated an unshackled 6' 1", 200-odd-pound ex-college linebacker be guarded by a 50-year-old grandmother (the bailiff) who was about 5' tall, and weighed about 110 pounds.

He disabled her, took her weapon, and started killing people; oddly enough, the grandmother/bailiff was the only one who survived direct contact with this madman.

I hope no one thinks ill of me for thinking something is wrong with this; how is it that the impetus for equality comes to preclude any semblance whatsoever of simple logic?

If the standards have to be lowered for women to join, then the military becomes weakened.

If a man must complete an obstacle course in 5 minutes, climb a 10 foot high wall, be able to easily lift 200 pounds or be cut from training, any woman who cannot meet these standards should also be cut from training. The standards were set for a reason - so that those who passed the training would be able to deal with whatever was thrown at them in combat situations. By lowering standards for women, they've allowed sub-standard soldiers to hold positions they have no right to be in. Same set of rules for all I say.

As far as an elderly female bailiff - to me what I said above applies to any job, regardless of gender, race, religious belief. If you're not fit to do the job, you should be let go, or never hired for it in the first place. Unfortunately in our society, the discrimination card gets played far too often. The excuse "I wasn't hired because I'm (fill in the blank)" is a term civil rights lawyers relish. Can you imagine the uproar if this bailiff had been dismissed from her job on the grounds that she wasn't strong enough, or was too old? Some lawyer somewhere would have been rubbing their hands in greed thinking about the lawsuit they could file on her behalf. She should never have held a job like that in the first place, and is now indirectly responsible for the deaths of five people.

BTW - What's wrong with 5'4"??? I dream of being 5'4" :( j/k ;)

[JPaul]

Minimum physical "standards" for the armed services have been lowered to accomodate women; to enable them to conform to a "standard", and to deal with the female attrition rate (deemed "unacceptable") seen initially.

This, in order that women might claim physical "equality".

There have been resultant instances of the same lowered standards being applied now to the male contingent.

Now, I am all for females being allowed to do absolutely anything they are truly able to do, mentally OR physically, BUT:

If I were wounded and immobile on the front line, I would hope to be forgiven for cursing whatever authority was responsible for my "rescuer" being 5'4", and 120 lbs.

We recently had 5 people die in and around an Atlanta courthouse owing to a particularly defective brand of enlightened far-sightedness which dictated an unshackled 6' 1", 200-odd-pound ex-college linebacker be guarded by a 50-year-old grandmother (the bailiff) who was about 5' tall, and weighed about 110 pounds.

He disabled her, took her weapon, and started killing people; oddly enough, the grandmother/bailiff was the only one who survived direct contact with this madman.

I hope no one thinks ill of me for thinking something is wrong with this; how is it that the impetus for equality comes to preclude any semblance whatsoever of simple logic?


Someone once said

"Yup,

Provided a person is consistently capable of doing the job and does not require any allowances made for them then I have no problem with that."

I cannot better that sentiment.
__________________

[vidcc]

J2

As we have basically said no allowances should be made. If they meet the standards men have to then there is no problem.

To the court case I don't think that woman should have been alone with the suspect, but then I don't think that a solitary male guard should have been used..even one of comparable size...the situation required at least two guards..... but what if this case involved a female guard that was 6'6" and 250lbs (all lean meat) and the suspect was 5' ? is that a situation where a woman's size is a disadvantage?

[Busyman]

J2

As we have basically said no allowances should be made. If they meet the standards men have to then there is no problem.

To the court case I don't think that woman should have been alone with the suspect, but then I don't think that a solitary male guard should have been used..even one of comparable size...the situation required at least two guards..... but what if this case involved a female guard that was 6'6" and 250lbs (all lean meat) and the suspect was 5' ? is that a situation where a woman's size is a disadvantage?
Men are typically stronger then woman.

Size has very little to do with it.

A man at 5'9" is most likely stronger than a woman at 6'1".

The very few alpha females would be able to make it in the military I presume.

[vidcc]

Men are typically stronger then woman.

Size has very little to do with it.

A man at 5'9" is most likely stronger than a woman at 6'1".

The very few alpha females would be able to make it in the military I presume.
I guarantee you that there are many many women smaller than you that could kick your ass, pull your head off and spit down your neck.

[Busyman]

I guarantee you that there are many many women smaller than you that could kick your ass, pull your head off and spit down your neck.

Men are typically stronger by nature.

Your statement is irrelevant.

[JPaul]

Built different, for explosive bursts of strength.

It's not an opinion, it's anna natomy thing.

[GepperRankins]

my oppinion. women can't carry the kit as efficiantly as men because of their natural build and strength, this would be a hinderance in battle, or out of it even.

i reckon this may be influenced by the fact that a dead women = more propaganda points for the anti-war nuts than dead man.

and meh to any women offended by chivalry. it's just how humans work :ermm:

[vidcc]

I agree, however, given that particular stipulation, I would be surprised if women could achieve 20% qualification, and as I noted earlier, this, as a common rate of attrition, is not likely to attract female candidates in numbers sufficient to satisfy the intellectual elite/feminists/sympathizers; they would demand a higher "success" rate.

If no physical allowances are made, the female contribution would be relatively insignificant, statistically, and of little consequence in the field.

OK so you say the recruitment rate will be low... is a low rate justification for stopping it altogether? We are desperately down on recruitment targets at a time when we need people.

I believe the feminist agenda is equality, not "special treatment"... i do realise that the agenda has been twisted by opponents.

I don't understand a mentality that would reject qualified people of ability based on gender or even sexual preference

[JPaul]

Obviously any of this would only count for those who are likely to go into combat.

I see no reason why the armed forces should not recruit people for other positions, who do not need to be able to go into combat. For some jobs a fit mind is more useful than a fit body.

[peat moss]

This thread reminds me of the Fire Dept. hiring practices . Pick any city in North America you see it every day. On a lighter note only let them fight when their
P. M. 's . They would kick ass.



Edit : This is not the thoughts of filesharing.com. only one mans feeble atempt at humour. :)

[vidcc]

It all boils down to not being male or female but individuals

who would you rather fight alongside..
this woman?

http://english.chosun.com/english/photo/gallery/army/11.jpg

or this man

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/large/10042000/10042164.jpg


;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

this man ?

http://www.mod.uk/img/images/%5B(1445)-16-02-2001%5Dsoldier.jpg


or this woman

http://i.ivillage.com/womn/fashion/blunder/paris_hilton.jpg


remember it is for a combat situation

[Busyman]

So you've not witnessed "equal rights" taken to the same absurd lengths that I have, I take it?

Again-I agree women should have the opportunity to serve their country, and yes, it is absurd to have lesser physical standards for field-training.

Nonetheless, the demand for female access to all areas of employment (regardless of the physical inequality we all seem to agree about) carries the day.

The situation you seem to be favoring does not exist, vid.
I would just leave it at this...

The very few alpha females would be able to make it in the military I presume.

[vidcc]

Nonetheless, the demand for female access to all areas of employment (regardless of the physical inequality we all seem to agree about) carries the day.

The situation you seem to be favoring does not exist, vid.

but that's what we are debating. We debate lots of situations that don't exist. Take the equal rights for gay marriage debate....equal rights don't exist.

I'm sure there are some feminist extremists that feel that women should benefit from preferential treatment, but they like the extremist that have taken over the republican party are not the norm.

[Busyman]

but that's what we are debating. We debate lots of situations that don't exist. Take the equal rights for gay marriage debate....equal rights don't exist.

I'm sure there are some feminist extemists that feel that women should benifit from preferential treatment, but they like the extremist that have taken over the republican party are not the norm.
This one's pretty easy.

Equal rights means equal testing and training.

The fact is there will be very few women that join the military and can pass the training necessary for combat. It wouldn't even be a blip.

[vidcc]

This one's pretty easy.

Equal rights means equal testing and training.

Just what do you think we have been saying from post number 1 ? :frusty:


The fact is there will be very few women that join the military and can pass the training necessary for combat. It wouldn't even be a blip.

So because the amount is small that means they shouldn't bother permitting it and go to the lengths our government is going to to actually stop it?

[vidcc]

Vid-

My point is that the "alpha females" Busyman refers to exist, and, I suppose, should be allowed to qualify for combat duty; however-

the same as "alpha males". Women are raised to be "feminine" and don't tend to have the macho attitude men have. If raised in a different environment I doubt we would be having this debate. If all girls were raised as boys are the level of "girlieness" would be significantly lower


Those who choose to qualify should not have the option (as some who support "equality" propose) to then opt out of combat, such option being bandied about constantly by those who deign to opine on the matter, but which crowd would also be appalled at the relative lack of "alpha females", and thus demand the lowered standards.

We both know I agree on this. I am for EQUAL rights, not special treatment.


Having said all that, yes, time in here is often spent dealing in "what if", "pie-in-the-sky" scenarios, which I personally find to be an affliction of the reality-averse among us.

Better to debate realistically, and burn a fatty when you are done. :)

Oh you are just as guilty as anyone else..... I trust that you will no longer place your views on abortion....because your view is not the reality. don't try to distance yourself from the habit. :rolleyes: I even remember you posting about this being an opinion board......
What is unrealistic about debating equality?... is the subject pie in the sky because you choose to use examples of extremist views to counter?

When I post it's my view, not the view of the most extreme person you can quote.

[Rat Faced]

There is a bill going through congress at the moment that has a part that would ban women from serving in direct ground combat. This would mean that there are certain units that women could not serve in.

In this age where equality is being fought for is this fair or the right thing to do?

I do believe that some women can do such jobs better than some men and my view is that we have a totally voluntary military so if women wish to engage in combat they shouldn't be prevented from doing so providing they meet the same standards the men have to.


I will add that although I believe that many women are physically and mentally able to do such jobs I sometimes feels that they should not be doing them. For example we shouldn't have female guards at male prisons and on the flip side we shouldn't have male guards in women's prisons.

I have no problem in the theory.

However, its been shown that where a unit is mixed its moral is high but its effective use is lowered. This IS NOT due to the women in the unit, its due to the men. They will delay and break formation to "save" a women, more than they will to "save" a man; whereby they shouldnt do it at all until after the battle/firefight.

On saying this, it's only the case of Infantry where this is a major problem.

You must remember too that ALL troops are infantry 1st and formost. They are trained as Gunners, Sappers, Tankies etc etc AFTER Basic Training, and they can ALL be called upon to fullfill the role of Infantry if needed.

I would have no trouble with women having their own units in a combat role. They are, it must be said, emotionally stronger than men and have a higher pain tollerence in general. They make excellent Troops, and most combat roles can be done by women.

I have no problems at all in mixed units during peacetime, which cuts down the training costs somewhat, and makes squaddies remember what they're willing to fight for...

[Snee]

You know, Viet Kong did some damage back in the day, and I bet most of them wouldn't have qualified for the US army when it comes to fitness. Too small and undernourished.

Maybe women would be excellent in units employing unorthodox methods of warfare. A small stature makes for better sneaking around and such. They might not be as big or as strong, but that doesn't mean that there's no way they couldn't excel if the army explored all options.

[vidcc]

I would have no trouble with women having their own units in a combat role. .


Now there is an interesting idea. I wonder what the reaction would be to their battle successes and how many successes would be undone by just one "loss" or "inappropriate action"
I feel they would be subjected to unfair scrutiny.

[Rat Faced]

Infantry is not the only Combat Role, however its the Infantry and Special Forces that have the majority of "inappropriate actions"...

[Busyman]

I would have no trouble with women having their own units in a combat role....
I feel the same way about gay units.....

It's about morale.

[GepperRankins]

I feel the same way about gay units.....

It's about moral.
morals or morale? :smilie4: