Women in Combat Units

[+Dave 2,322]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16681072-valor-knows-no-gender-pentagon-lifts-ban-on-women-in-combat?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

 

Doesn't bother me one bit.

[+JonathanRL 974]

Anybody bothered by this ought to have their head examined.

Everybody who has the proper age to make a mature and wise decision about it should be allowed to fight for their freedoms.

[macelena 1,070]

We had them since 1988, when it was all cleared up at the same time, and never gave any trouble. In fact, i now of some tiny girl by the name of Fatima, wich was a muslim para, and got decorated for bravery when she pulled his Sgt out of a 4x4 hit by an IED and shot the hell out of talis with her MG42 in Afghanistan on an ambush after being wounded herself. They can sure be some scary mommas.

Edited January 24, 2013 by macelena

[+DoctorQuest 125]

Agreed. Time to drop the prejudice and get on with it. And if you want to blather on about the "weaker sex" I'll gladly introduce you to my daughter's friend the police officer with a black belt. You can tell her about the weaker sex while she hands you your teeth.

[MAKO69 186]

As long as they (guy or gal) can do the job and do it well.

[warthog64 92]

I'm glad to hear this news, it's definitely a good decision!

 

Women are definitely capable of doing these jobs, it is just the political "side-effect" of women in direct combat that causes issues.

Edited January 24, 2013 by warthog64

[+whiteknight06604 934]

As long as they meet or exceed the same standards for men I have no problem, only issue I would have is if they were not made to sign up for selective service now and if the physical requirments were different.

[+streakeagle 871]

As long as they meet or exceed the same standards for men I have no problem, only issue I would have is if they were not made to sign up for selective service now and if the physical requirments were different.

 

+1

 

Same job, same pay, same standards. Why are two bathrooms needed? Used to be called segregation when you had one facility for one group and a separate facility that was reserved for another group. If they have to add anything to submarines to permit women to serve, then they aren't really "equal" are they?

[+pcpilot 181]

Ok, I'll play the devils advocate here...

 

Well, Im curious...how well do they handle a 90 pound ruck? Can they keep up with the men on a 20 mile hike? From what I saw in the Guard, they could not. For those that say we use vehicles now, we did in WW2 and Korea and both times men were walking when the enemy set them on their heals, ie; chosin res. and bastogne just to name a few. Aphganistan has a hell of a lot of hiking with rucks; how do they do there? Ever had to slow and wait for them to catch up? I have no doubt women are smart enough. And yes, most jobs arent an issue, so dont give me that predjudice crap. I am asking valid questions. And yes, if they have a black belt they MIGHT be able to beat a man in one on one combat if he isnt similarily trained. But there is a reason women havent been in combat as a rule till now. And most women in combat units probably wont be blackbelts, hand to hand training aside. I have seen video after video of female cops in fights and their contribution hasnt seemed to be much more than getting in the way and screaming. I did see the females in my Natl Guard unit run at far slower times, saw several cheating, and heard a LOT of whining about how they couldnt hanfle being yelled at, etc. I saw our female battalion commander fall out of a stupid 2 mile run cause she couldnt hack it. I watched men breaking out of company run formations to run circles around the plattoons as we ran because it was not a challenge to run at the speed that enabled woment to keep up. I am not impressed. If we lower our standards as I have seen in the past we are NOT doing ourselves a service.

 

PS. Oh, and one more thing I'll point out. Since the so-called integration of women in the service, rape and harrassment has soared from what it was in 1980. There was another valid reason men and women were kept seperate in the military. Teenagers and 20 somethings are going to behave as they do no matter the rules. And I got news for ya, their behaviour hasnt gotten any better these last 20 years. But hey, as long as the feminists are happy...

Edited January 24, 2013 by pcpilot

[+JonathanRL 974]

Well, Im curious...how well do they handle a 90 pound ruck? Can they keep up with the men on a 20 mile hike? From what I saw in the Guard, they could not.

 

It makes it pretty clear that they - like men - may only apply if they can handle the duty they are to preform. You could just as well ask if men could handle it. You would find many men who could not. Myself among them. Gender does not per automatic logic make somebody competent. Training does.

 

PS. Oh, and one more thing I'll point out. Since the so-called integration of women in the service, rape and harassment has soared from what it was in 1980. There was another valid reason men and women were kept separate in the military. But hey, as long as the feminists are happy...

 

And this is the Womens fault exactly how?

 

If some f***ing vermin are unable to keep their tabs off their co-workers, then they are the ones who should be punished. I do not see this as a valid reason at all. A soldier is expected to handle him or herself with dignity, valour, honour and integrity; especially to their fellow troops. If they cannot handle that just because the soldier is from another Gender, then they do not deserve to wear the uniform.

[+pcpilot 181]

The point Im making is they havent acted all that well if the numbers of assault have risen, as they have. Just for the record, I am NOT saying its ok for men to behave that way. Im saying that young people, and yes, sometimes older people, will do stupid things if put in the position to do so. The older generations understood that kids will be kids and acted accordingly. And the arguement about only those fit need apply, wonder how many that will finally be? Probably not very many. It only takes one female to slow down and entire company.

[Derk 265]

Wonder what will happen in case of kidnapping or being taken prisoner....

[+pcpilot 181]

Here's an interesting article...

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/women-in-combat--will-us-military-ruling-change-the-role-uf-uk-female-soldiers--142200614.html#PRfPTBS

[+JonathanRL 974]

The point Im making is they havent acted all that well if the numbers of assault have risen, as they have.

 

Are you quite seriously blaming women in the service for crimes committed against them? The numbers of assaults may not at all have risen, it may just be the number of reports that have risen. This is a clear sign of a working justice system in case nobody told you.

 

Just for the record, I am NOT saying its ok for men to behave that way. Im saying that young people, and yes, sometimes older people, will do stupid things if put in the position to do so. The older generations understood that kids will be kids and acted accordingly.

 

No, but you make excuses; whereupon you make it into a reason to why women cannot serve. As such, you are making the entire thing the Womens fault for merely being there when they want to do what is their right - to serve their country on the frontlines. Again, if sexual harassment or - god forbid - any more severe case is found, the offender is to be punished and booted out of the service. This is done today with the same kind of offences done towards the same sex, so it can easily be done when two genders are involved. In short, a person who cannot prevent him or herself from acting on simple, sexual or power urges should not be allowed to have a weapon.

 

Wonder what will happen in case of kidnapping or being taken prisoner....

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Jessica_Lynch

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/women-in-combat--will-us-military-ruling-change-the-role-uf-uk-female-soldiers--142200614.html#xiGdJkR

 

Clearly states this is about a system where the standards have been lowered for females - a practice that the US does not intend to implement and one Sweden does not implement.

We have women in front line roles in the Big Sandbox. Let me tell you they pull their weight and they do their duty with integrity and valour.

 

It only takes one female to slow down and entire company.

 

That might just as well be a man and often is; as things stand today. Once again, as long as they and men have the same performance standards - and they will - any complaints based on "women not able to cope/handle" or similar is just simply wrong.

 

I sincerely hope that you are merely playing Devils Advocate here and do not possess these opinions because they are frankly disturbing.

Edited January 24, 2013 by JonathanRL

[Nesher 628]

I think it will take a few years to see the effect in the US armed forced..

we had women in combat units in the IDF and on some aspects they are the same as the guys but on some they are not

anyways, good luck to them..

[MigBuster 2,884]

Why are two bathrooms needed?

 

Ha ha - wonder if women would agree to that equality measure

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Wonder what will happen in case of kidnapping or being taken prisoner....

 

Jessica Lynch, its already happened. Being captured and taken prisoner without firing a shot got her a Bronze star, dont quite know why.

 

If a female recruit can meet the EXACT same standards required of a male recruit then fine, no problem, the vast majority of the famale populaion however will not be able to meet this standard.

 

Craig

Edited January 24, 2013 by fallenphoenix1986

[+NeverEnough 78]

This is a link to an article published in the Marine Gazette by a female Marine Captain about her personal experience in Afghanistan.

 

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

 

Very interesting perspective!

[Snailman 517]

I envy all those countries where this works.... In my county it does not. Apart from very few exceptions of course...

 

Officially I spent 7 years in service, but what I have seen .... Women in military service combat or non combat alike are - to say the least - disappointing. It is EUs (or similar idiotic organiation's) order to keep them in military (and police) ranks, because "poor women are so much disadvantaged" and discriminated.

In fact, they get ranks of sergeant in less than a year... or even officers in no time. We in the crew had dozens of guys who served more than 6-8 years as corporals or lances without any hope of promotion, doing the lowly work till growing old.

In fact most of them always complain, while working in climatized offices in positions doing paperwork or just making coffee and being kind to senior officers. if-yaknow-what-I-mean. skyrocketing careers.

In combat units, at least where I have met them they were primary whiners about everything. Ohmygod, no water, too heavy, do I have to do this, ... even disobeyed orders - without any punishment given by commaning officers. Being on sick call and leave for months. Happen to be scolded they whine even more, that they are discriminated being women...

We had to do physical work 6-8 hours, on open sun. We did not receive our water because "someone" who was sitting in cool office called sick of heat.

and so on.... the list is long.

 

As I said, I do envy those places, units, armed forces where there are "girls with balls" who aren't like that. Here they can do anything, no regulations, even if there were, noone would enforce them. So ranks are filled with "relatives-to-generals", lames, debiles, weaklings... and the compulsory number of women. Damn I'm happy I left that circus.

[+whiteknight06604 934]

plain and simple the service comes first. when it comes to national defence it doesn't matter whats right for a woman but what is best for the service. Now If a woman meets ALL the requierments and can handle everything thats expected of the men,and that includes communal living in the field(it is detrimental to any mission to have to provide seperate priveys and such) if they meet all the same physical tests and get the same scores and then fine but there can be no sliding scale like in some police or fire deptments. As I said before I had a female teamate on my football team. she was there because she earned her spot. she changed with the guys she bleed with the guys and she peerformed at her position(corrnerback) as well as the other guys. Most women just cant but in the rare cases where they can let them as long as no extra cost is involved. things like having to retrofit tanks with new seats in case a femal want to drive a tank would be unacceptable but if she was tall enough and passed every other requirment than thats ok.It's like when they had bans on gays. no one thought that gay soldiers couldn't do the job but if having them in the unit caused disrtactions then you did what was best for the service and the nations safety. fair? no but you do what is best sometimes. when the time is right it will come about but it has to be what is best for the service. Women,gays, martian imigrents...ok with me as long as they can all do the job as well as everyone else and it causes no disruption to fighting ability of the unit.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

Any female who wants the right to get her ass blown away just like the men should not be denied the privilege

[+pcpilot 181]

Are you quite seriously blaming women in the service for crimes committed against them? The numbers of assaults may not at all have risen, it may just be the number of reports that have risen. This is a clear sign of a working justice system in case nobody told you.

 

 

 

No, but you make excuses; whereupon you make it into a reason to why women cannot serve. As such, you are making the entire thing the Womens fault for merely being there when they want to do what is their right - to serve their country on the frontlines. Again, if sexual harassment or - god forbid - any more severe case is found, the offender is to be punished and booted out of the service. This is done today with the same kind of offences done towards the same sex, so it can easily be done when two genders are involved. In short, a person who cannot prevent him or herself from acting on simple, sexual or power urges should not be allowed to have a weapon.

 

 

First off, your digressing from the main issue; whether women can perform at the standard the military expects physically. I do not think they can with but few exceptions in the combat arena. I also am NOT making excuses for men behaving badly against women. I would report, if not beat the living daylights out of, any man attempting a crime against a woman. You know, just like the old days. The point about whether men and women should serve together because of sex issues has been rendered somewhat moot as its already done. However, I am of the opinion that there ARE risks due to immaturity, etc. when you put young men and women together like this as we are now presently experiancing. It is not an excuse, it is a statement of fact and an opinion.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Good for them! Just like the gay marriage issue, if they want to endure the same hell that I have let them do it! On a serious note as one who has been a champion and a victom of the "women in combat experiment," there are several roles that women can do in the Army. The same physical standards should apply for both sexes for jobs that put you in direct ground combat role. There are just as many wimpy guys in combat units as studly women in non combat units so the numbers will sort of even out. The Army is not all about brawn. It is more about heart and soul. I have seen a 195 lb 6 ft tall 300 pt test male soldier give up. I have seen a 5 ft 8 145lb male soldier display the strength of Hercules and exibit the fighting prowess of a tiger. So either way you cut it as long as both sexes have the same physical standards that are developed to not give either sex an advantage due to body shape or composition then it is long overdue. The only real objection I would have to this is the pshycological one. No matter who the woman happens to be or even how she looks, men in combat have a natural capacity for being over protective of females who for whatever reason happen to be in their AO. I witnessed this and subconciously did it in Iraq. This could have the potential of undermining or jeopardizing a mission. The Army should seriously study this phenomenon and try to implement some training procedures to prevent it. Female soldiers wield alot of power already in the Army. The spectre of sexual harrassment charges or an equal opportunity complaint loom heavily in some units and is unfortunatly used as a political weapon within units.

[Derk 265]

Jessica Lynch, its already happened. Being captured and taken prisoner without firing a shot got her a Bronze star, dont quite know why.

 

.

 

Craig

 

Well, good fer her but I think she was very lucky. She sounds like a very good and honest person anyway, but I don't think her case was representative.

[+Gepard 11,315]

On the first view a woman can do the same like a man. (Okay, perhaps not making pipi while standing.)

But should they do it?

I think no, woman should not serve in combat units. But not caused by the reasons i have read above.

 

My Point: The woman is biologically inefficient. That makes them biologically highly valuable.

What does it mean? It is quite clear, that only women can birth children. If a people lose a lot of young women it will lose its future, because without children then people cant survive.

A people can easily lose 90% of its young men without harming the survival of the entire people, because men are biologically highly efficient.

Example:

Take 100 young men and one young woman. How many children you will have after one year? 1, 2 maybe 3. Not more.

Take 100 young women and one young man. How many children you will have after one year? More than 100. (if you use the proper methodes)

 

Thatswhy it must be the major point, that the young women must be protected, to make sure that the people survive.

 

Women can be perfect soldiers. They have served as pilots and snipers, mine sweepers and communication specialists. and and and. And in small scale conflicts with no or less losses it is no problem to use them in combat units. But in major conflicts with high loss rates it is not smart, bacuase you harm the future of your land.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Gepard