combat roles to women?

G

goodlove

New Member
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-panetta-opens-combat-roles-women-203034238--politics.html

Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

=======================================================
should women serve on the combat lines?

Ok, Im big on equal rights but here is where i draw the line. I dont think so because its justy seem ...I dont know. I know a lot of women served in combat before in other countries ...especially due to the small size of the country but...I just dont like it.
 
goodlove said:
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-panetta-opens-combat-roles-women-203034238--politics.html

Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

=======================================================
should women serve on the combat lines?

Ok, Im big on equal rights but here is where i draw the line. I dont think so because its justy seem ...I dont know. I know a lot of women served in combat before in other countries ...especially due to the small size of the country but...I just dont like it.
Click to expand...
I think it stupid as well, already know going in to combat most will come back hurt physically and emotionally, you want these 19-25 young women coming home having babies and dealing with PTSD addiction loss of limb and every other foul element that comes with war?
Hope the dod plans on setting aside a bunch of funding for adoptions and social workers, this isn't a slam on women, we now know coming back from combat one is never the same, not a good idea at all
 
I'm all for true equality of the genders, but only when things are able to be equal, I've never served in the military, but I wonder if a female soldier is physically able to serve as a front line soldier. I don't want to sound sexist, but If I'm wounded in a firefight, I want someone who can throw me over their shoulder and carry me to safety, I just don't know if the average female soldier can be depended on to do that. If I'm wrong, then more power to them.

Also, it's not something we like to think about, but sexual assault has been a weapon of war for as long as there have been wars. And warfare seems to trigger a sexual aggression in some soldiers (enemy and friendly) and I think it is naive to think any feminist spirited agendas or equal rights legislator is going to stop that behavior.

War is danger and cruelty wrapped in sadness and fear, it is the worst of humanity, and when people feel at their worst, they can do terrible things to each other.
 
When I see females in combat roles in other countries (Israel, Australia, Russia, Ukraine as examples) who can effectively carry out missions on par and even on better terms than men, and yet see men here in the US ponder about the role of women in combat roles out of stigmatized emotional impulses, all I see are a bunch of wayward, small-grounded individuals who look through a minuscule lens and it's pretty damaging to the reputation for a country who calls themselves "the land of the free" when they are incapable of seeing their female counterparts participating in the same roles as men in the battlefield.
 
Majestic Saint said:
When I see females in combat roles in other countries (Israel, Australia, Russia, Ukraine as examples) who can effectively carry out missions on par and even on better terms than men, and yet see men here in the US ponder about the role of women in combat roles out of stigmatized emotional impulses, all I see are a bunch of wayward, small-grounded individuals who look through a minuscule lens and it's pretty damaging to the reputation for a country who calls themselves "the land of the free" when they are incapable of seeing their female counterparts participating in the same roles as men in the battlefield.
Click to expand...

Ah geez! Look, women are not as strong or durable as men, that is not sexist, it's a fact. If A women can do something as well as a man, then good for her. But it is more then reasonable to question if female soldiers will be able to make it on the front line. If it is proven that they can do it, then let 'em.

Personally, I don't think that everything that one gender does needs to be copied by the other gender.
 
There ya go underestimating the opposite sex and ignoring a good chunk of my post. What will ya say next? Women can't poop better than men? :smt033

Thump said:
Ah geez! Look, women are not as strong or durable as men, that is not sexist, it's a fact. If A women can do something as well as a man, then good for her. But it is more then reasonable to question if female soldiers will be able to make it on the front line. If it is proven that they can do it, then let 'em.

Personally, I don't think that everything that one gender does needs to be copied by the other gender.
Click to expand...
 
Why is it more acceptable to envision a man dying for his country at 18 and not a woman? Why is she less worthy to serve than a man? Why does her death cause you to pause, but his death seems par for the course?

If you notice, there are going to be rigorous physical requirements that will disqualify many women from being able to serve at the front lines, but there will be many who will make it through. I can think of at least six military and non military women who train at my crossfit box who would more than qualify for any physical requirement the military could impose- I'm sure that if there are that many at my small gym, there are many, many more around the country. Why make a fuss over who can fight and who can't?

This ridiculousness over whether a woman should fight on the front lines or not is stupid. If she wants to serve on the front lines, she should be able to...if you can't handle the fact that she comes back in a wooden box, that's YOUR problem. She signed up for it because she wants to do it. Simple.
 
Well naturally they do this as the war is winding down. Nothing worse than having images of half-naked-hostaged, or dead female corpses splashed across the screen...mommy stories would abound...oh look, women enlist numbers suddenly drastically drop.

As it stood (until now) the military was a pretty safe bet for women to get a top class free education and learn an incredible skill/s.

So either they are running low on men for the front line or it's to appease the feminist base, because in terms of numbers (not sure how many women would be available to actually be on the frontline) the amount is more than likely minuscule.
 
On second thoughts, they may be onto something..what's better than having a PMSing/raging chick on the battle-field! Look out Alqueda! :p
 
It's not a question of female soldiers' heart or willingness to serve. It's a question of their ability to be a combat effective soldier. Political correctness has no place when it comes to lives. However, if female soldiers can persevere and are willing to face the horrors of war, then I hope them the best.
 
Thump said:
It's not a question of female soldiers' heart or willingness to serve. It's a question of their ability to be a combat effective soldier. Political correctness has no place when it comes to lives. However, if female soldiers can persevere and are willing to face the horrors of war, then I hope them the best.
Click to expand...

We base what we consider an effective soldier on masculine attributes that were arbitrarily determined based on the idea that men are somehow...better...more fit...for war. It goes back to that old patriarchy thing. I'm not trying to make this a men against women thing, because it's not, it's just the fact that we seem, as a culture, to be clinging to this antiquated idea that women are, and should be, the weaker sex and not capable of fighting a battle because it's unfeminine.

Trust me...if you've ever seen the way women fight and get vicious, you'd be drafting us by the busload. ;)
 
Never underestimate the tenacious role of women, the Israeli military has it right,...... 90% of their special forces instructors are women.....It is a proven fact that when women are present in a fighting scene, men fight with more valor and courage......They bring out the beast in us and we bring out the bitch in them.......And in combat, I think that is what you want......
 
TheHuntress said:
Why is it more acceptable to envision a man dying for his country at 18 and not a woman? Why is she less worthy to serve than a man? Why does her death cause you to pause, but his death seems par for the course?

If you notice, there are going to be rigorous physical requirements that will disqualify many women from being able to serve at the front lines, but there will be many who will make it through. I can think of at least six military and non military women who train at my crossfit box who would more than qualify for any physical requirement the military could impose- I'm sure that if there are that many at my small gym, there are many, many more around the country. Why make a fuss over who can fight and who can't?

This ridiculousness over whether a woman should fight on the front lines or not is stupid. If she wants to serve on the front lines, she should be able to...if you can't handle the fact that she comes back in a wooden box, that's YOUR problem. She signed up for it because she wants to do it. Simple.
Click to expand...

How far do we go with equality? Should we modify the selective service act to allow women to be drafted by the military?
 
Beasty said:
How far do we go with equality? Should we modify the selective service act to allow women to be drafted by the military?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think so. Not that I want to fight, but all citizens are capable to fight and serve if the need arises.

But then again, I don't agree with the draft, either. That's another issue entirely.
 
TheHuntress said:
We base what we consider an effective soldier on masculine attributes that were arbitrarily determined based on the idea that men are somehow...better...more fit...for war. It goes back to that old patriarchy thing. I'm not trying to make this a men against women thing, because it's not, it's just the fact that we seem, as a culture, to be clinging to this antiquated idea that women are, and should be, the weaker sex and not capable of fighting a battle because it's unfeminine.

Trust me...if you've ever seen the way women fight and get vicious, you'd be drafting us by the busload. ;)
Click to expand...

I think women can be just as fit as men. You take crossfit so you know that women are very capable of being fit but there is something to what Thump said about being wounded and having a much smaller woman carry you since the upper body strength is simply not there in most cases. At the elite level I'm sure there's more than enough women that can do the task but out of basic training and straight to the battlefield... I'm a little skeptical.
When you say it goes back to the old patriarchy are you talking about our culture as a whole or the military's view point because I would assume they'd want to win above everything else.
 
TheHuntress said:
Why is it more acceptable to envision a man dying for his country at 18 and not a woman? Why is she less worthy to serve than a man? Why does her death cause you to pause, but his death seems par for the course?

If you notice, there are going to be rigorous physical requirements that will disqualify many women from being able to serve at the front lines, but there will be many who will make it through. I can think of at least six military and non military women who train at my crossfit box who would more than qualify for any physical requirement the military could impose- I'm sure that if there are that many at my small gym, there are many, many more around the country. Why make a fuss over who can fight and who can't?

This ridiculousness over whether a woman should fight on the front lines or not is stupid. If she wants to serve on the front lines, she should be able to...if you can't handle the fact that she comes back in a wooden box, that's YOUR problem. She signed up for it because she wants to do it. Simple.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A lot of 'front line positions' are already held by women, they just don't get combat pay, or the kind of equipment the guys get. Not every man is capable of front line combat either. If a woman can do the job and wants to, what the hell difference does it make what shape her genitals are?

A generation ago we heard women were too delicate for a lot of jobs we routinely do now. Welders, construction workers, firefighters, iron workers. Heck, when I was a kid, women couldn't be mail carriers, for heavens sake, because all that walking would upset our ladybits.
 
Beasty said:
How far do we go with equality? Should we modify the selective service act to allow women to be drafted by the military?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's a simple question. Why the hell not? As I said before, not every man can hump 80 pounds of gear either, yet that never stopped us drafting them and finding roles for them. It should have been changed decades ago. It isn't the military that isn't ready, it's the culture.

As for the rape question, men get raped too. Civilian women have always been raped in war. The problem isn't the presence of women, it's some men's willingness to use sexual violence as a tool of war. Women are there anyway, as civilians, being raped. Ask the women in Berlin in 1945.
 
TreePixie said:
Indeed. A lot of 'front line positions' are already held by women, they just don't get combat pay, or the kind of equipment the guys get. Not every man is capable of front line combat either. If a woman can do the job and wants to, what the hell difference does it make what shape her genitals are?

A generation ago we heard women were too delicate for a lot of jobs we routinely do now. Welders, construction workers, firefighters, iron workers. Heck, when I was a kid, women couldn't be mail carriers, for heavens sake, because all that walking would upset our ladybits.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think you guys focus too much on the gender issue as if everything is meant to keep you from doing something. It very well might be a stature thing and not a gender thing. Women generally have smaller frames and weaker upper bodies. Not saying this is the case in every single situation but its the general rule. It probably has a lot to do with why you don't see a lot of women in combat positions.
 
The Dark King said:
Sometimes I think you guys focus too much on the gender issue as if everything is meant to keep you from doing something. It very well might be a stature thing and not a gender thing. Women generally have smaller frames and weaker upper bodies. Not saying this is the case in every single situation but its the general rule. It probably has a lot to do with why you don't see a lot of women in combat positions.
Click to expand...

No, it's because until this announcement, it was technically illegal. Again, if the woman can do the job, she should have it if she wants it. If a man is not up to the job, he shouldn't. If its about ability, base it on that, not on gender or color or sexual orientation. Pretty simple. People are people. Some of them are qualified to be astronauts, some soldiers, etc. What we are saying is DON'T focus on gender. Focus on ability.

When Hillary Clinton was a kid she wrote to NASA saying that she wanted to be an astronaut. NASA told her girls couldn't be astronauts. She had to 'settle' for Senator and Secretary of State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom