combat roles to women?

[The Dark King]

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.

Until this announcement it was illegal for women to be on the front lines? Or it wasn't common practice? That's weird since I know girls I went to school with who were on the front lines after 9/11 or maybe they lied who knows.
I do find it interesting that you'll say focus on ability in this instance but feminist don't seem to have a problem with modifying entrance exams to get women into certain positions. I remember the fitness test for the women in the police entrance exam and they had longer to run the mile and a half as well as do half the push ups and sit ups. Crap like that makes it a lot harder on women who could that shit with ease because people will look at them as though they really didn't earn it.
Truthfully I'm all for the best person getting the job it only helps us as a whole.

 

[Bliss]

Until this announcement it was illegal for women to be on the front lines? Or it wasn't common practice? That's weird since I know girls I went to school with who were on the front lines after 9/11 or maybe they lied who knows.
I do find it interesting that you'll say focus on ability in this instance but feminist don't seem to have a problem with modifying entrance exams to get women into certain positions. I remember the fitness test for the women in the police entrance exam and they had to longer to run the mile and a half as well as do have the push ups and sit ups. Crap like that makes it a lot harder on women who could that shit with ease because people will look at them as though they really didn't earn it.
Truthfully I'm all for the best person getting the job it only helps us as a whole.

They were not permitted to fight on the frontline in combat to combat.

I know here along with the police department, the fire dept qualifications for women to pass...is also made easier because of what they deem her gender abilities, so you are right to a degree.

I once had a spirited debate with my BFF and her husband regarding a female firefighter's ability. I said she can be as strong if she is BUILT, but my bff and her husband - who is a firefighter - disagreed. She said women are generally smaller (etc, as its been said in here), HE SAID not good too, that carrying what is often dead weight down a ladder is back-breaking and women often aren't called to do it. It's that simple.
We also hang out with a husband and wife firefighter couple. She is 5ft, probably 100 pds. I do sometimes wonder...she def couldn't carry me. But I don't bring it up, lol.

Also, check out the female fire-fighter's 2012 sexy calender, some are built like bodybuilders. That raises a possible flag that steroids might be a factor here...which makes me ask why??

http://americasfemalefirefighters.com/

Having said that, there has always been female firefighters since the last century. The first ever was in 1818 NY and she was a slave, Molly Williams. Volunteer #11 was her title. The guys loved her saying she was as good as any male fire laddie and she would always reply..I belongs to ole eleven, I run with that ole bull-egine.
-

 

[The Dark King]

They were not permitted to fight on the frontline in combat to combat.

I know here along with the police department, the fire dept qualifications for women to pass...is also made easier because of what they deem her gender abilities, so you are right to a degree.

I once had a spirited debate with my BFF and her husband regarding a female firefighter's ability. I said she can be as strong if she is BUILT, but my bff and her husband - who is a firefighter - disagreed. She said women are generally smaller (etc, as its been said in here), HE SAID not good too, that carrying what is often dead weight down a ladder is back-breaking and women often aren't called to do it. It's that simple.
We also hang out with a husband and wife firefighter couple. She is 5ft, probably 100 pds. I do sometimes wonder...she def couldn't carry me. But I don't bring it up, lol.

Also, check out the female fire-fighter's 2012 sexy calender, most are built like bodybuilders. That is possibly a flag that steroids might be a factor here...which makes me ask why??

http://americasfemalefirefighters.com/

Having said that, there has always been female firefighters since the last century. The first ever was in 1818 NY and she was a slave, Molly Williams. Volunteer #11 was her title. The guys loved her saying she was as good as any male fire laddie and she would always reply..I belongs to ole eleven, I run with that ole bull-egine.

To be fair those women look like typical crossfit women. I'm sure Huntress can give you more info on the topic than I can.
If I saw your friend coming into a burning building with all that equipment and then expecting her to dead man carry me to safety would be a bit of a stretch. I'm sure there are some women out there 6'3 and jacked but when I hear 5ft 100 lbs you gotta shake your head. How is that safe for anyone? She filled a position that could have a gone to someone far more qualified.

 

[Bliss]

To be fair those women look like typical crossfit women. I'm sure Huntress can give you more info on the topic than I can.
If I saw your friend coming into a burning building with all that equipment and then expecting her to dead man carry me to safety would be a bit of a stretch. I'm sure there are some women out there 6'3 and jacked but when I hear 5ft 100 lbs you gotta shake your head. How is that safe for anyone? She filled a position that could have a gone to someone far more qualified.

February March? September November? I have seen crossfit women....and I have been to women's body building shows. Those 3 are off-season BB body types. Heck one is in front of a serious weight stack. However make no mistake, crossfitters also use steroids. In fact abuse of it was so wide-spread, in 2009 every crossfit competition began mandatory steroid testing going forth.

Apparently too....

"many CrossFitters came from the bodybuilding community. Still more have come from the athletic community. Both arenas provide adequate temptation for steroid use...There is also a percentage that is using now."

As for my friend...her and husband make a pretty penny being fire-fighters so I can see why women would want to be in on it too, even at the expense of fair tests. I remember reading the testing argument something along the lines of..how on earth are women expected to lift 200 pounds in testing exams since the tests were created for men, so they adjusted it. But how many people are 100pds, you know? It's kind of like playing in the NFL....a few hits by 300pd linemen...IDK, women might leave with a few broken bones.
I guess I would have to have more information on how female firefighters have fared in saving people compared to men to make an informed decision, because I don't just buy into the 'anything you can do, we can do better' catch-cry in all occupations...

 

[Beasty]

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.

I did not say anything about rape. just fyi, not mad at ya:smt006

 

[Bliss]

I did not say anything about rape. just fyi, not mad at ya:smt006

LOL, I looked for that reference too...:smt017

********

On a related thread-topic note...I do like this pic...

They look happy in their roles. :smt001

 

[The Dark King]

February March? September November? I have seen crossfit women....and I have been to women's body building shows. Those 3 are off-season BB body types. Heck one is in front of a serious weight stack. However make no mistake, crossfitters also use steroids. In fact abuse of it was so wide-spread, in 2009 every crossfit competition began mandatory steroid testing going forth.

Apparently too....

As for my friend...her and husband make a pretty penny being fire-fighters so I can see why women would want to be in on it too, even at the expense of fair tests. I remember reading the testing argument something along the lines of..how on earth are women expected to lift 200 pounds in testing exams since the tests were created for men, so they adjusted it. But how many people are 100pds, you know? It's kind of like playing in the NFL....a few hits by 300pd linemen...IDK, women might leave with a few broken bones.
I guess I would have to have more information on how female firefighters have fared in saving people compared to men to make an informed decision, because I don't just buy into the 'anything you can do, we can do better' catch-cry in all occupations...

In the world of debate on topics like this feminist will make the exceptions the rules. If you have Hilda who can lift 200lbs then surely any woman can and therefore women can do the job just as well as men. I'm truly all for equality but it should be based on merit.

 

[TheHuntress]

In the world of debate on topics like this feminist will make the exceptions the rules. If you have Hilda who can lift 200lbs then surely any woman can and therefore women can do the job just as well as men. I'm truly all for equality but it should be based on merit.

Do you guys even read the articles, or do you just talk out of your ass?

The article says that there will be rigorous physical tests for women to qualify. Goddess, give me strength.

 

[The Dark King]

Do you guys even read the articles, or do you just talk out of your ass?

The article says that there will be rigorous physical tests for women to qualify. Goddess, give me strength.

So then we're in agreement. No one said that women shouldn't be able to do it, just as long as they do the same training and have the same requirements.
For as long as I can remember those kinds of test were modified for women. Take it easy Artemis lol

 

[TreePixie]

Until this announcement it was illegal for women to be on the front lines? Or it wasn't common practice? That's weird since I know girls I went to school with who were on the front lines after 9/11 or maybe they lied who knows.
I do find it interesting that you'll say focus on ability in this instance but feminist don't seem to have a problem with modifying entrance exams to get women into certain positions. I remember the fitness test for the women in the police entrance exam and they had longer to run the mile and a half as well as do half the push ups and sit ups. Crap like that makes it a lot harder on women who could that shit with ease because people will look at them as though they really didn't earn it.
Truthfully I'm all for the best person getting the job it only helps us as a whole.

Like I said, it was technically illegal. In this war, there really aren't front lines, so many women have ended up in combat positions, just without the armor or pay. I have a number of women friends who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ended up in firefights. Their buddies really didnt care that they were women - they were fellow soldiers who were able and willing to defend their comrades. Frankly, anyone who pulls you to safety in a firefight is going to be a welcome addition.

 

[TreePixie]

I did not say anything about rape. just fyi, not mad at ya:smt006

I know you didn't. I wasn't very clear, it was an earlier post I was responding to. I have an infusion for MS once a month which wipes me out for two days, and yesterday was the day. So I got lazy in my responses last night. My apologies.

 

[TreePixie]

In the world of debate on topics like this feminist will make the exceptions the rules. If you have Hilda who can lift 200lbs then surely any woman can and therefore women can do the job just as well as men. I'm truly all for equality but it should be based on merit.

This feminist agrees. I'm a tiny thing. When I was rock climbing, I can, and did, belay 200 pound guys who were perfectly happy to put their lives in my hands, because I was well trained and capable. While I would have been perfectly capable of getting a guy that size off a cliff if he was unconscious, that's because of the gear and the training I had. Dead lifting him from the ground? Not so much. I was heavier then because of the amount of muscle I had, but I'm five foot two and at my best shape, weighed in at 118. I wouldn't have wanted to even try to dead lift a guy that size. Know your limitations. But, a 118 pound guy couldn't have dead lifted a 200 pound guy either.

 

[Thump]

I know you didn't. I wasn't very clear, it was an earlier post I was responding to. I have an infusion for MS once a month which wipes me out for two days, and yesterday was the day. So I got lazy in my responses last night. My apologies.

You might have been responding to my post.

I personally think the added danger to females in the theater of war, is a serious consideration in the determination of their role on the battlefield. The stats say 33% of females serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have reported been sexually assaulted, and some estimates say that 80% of the actual rapes aren't even reported! Look, I don't mean to offend anyone here, but we need to stop having this old-timey romantic view of war. War is a nasty horrible place, and nasty horrible things will happen. For some people, When their mind turns that dial that allows them to kill, it brings with it a whole host of base behavior. For some people, morality can be narrowed to such a point that nothing seems wrong.

On top of that you have young people who are thousands of miles away from civilized society, they have no idea if they will ever see home again, they are expected to take the lives of people they don't even know, and lastly you have the very real connection between male aggressive behavior and sexual arousal. What you are left with is a perfect situation, for the creation of warped reasoning and potential for dangerous behavior. Maybe I'm a male chauvinist, but my protective nature gives me pause when it comes to putting women in such dangerous situations.

(I'm not referring to all soldiers with the above description, I know most soldiers are law abiding decent people. I'm only referencing the ones with potential for danger)

To reiterate it isn't sexism or discrimination to acknowledge the very real differences between men and women, and it is potentially dangerous to let runaway political correctness blind us to the genuine concerns.

 

[TreePixie]

You might have been responding to my post.

I personally think the added danger to females in the theater of war, is a serious consideration in the determination of their role on the battlefield. The stats say 33% of females serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have reported been sexually assaulted, and some estimates say that 80% of the actual rapes aren't even reported! Look, I don't mean to offend anyone here, but we need to stop having this old-timey romantic view of war. War is a nasty horrible place, and nasty horrible things will happen. For some people, When their mind turns that dial that allows them to kill, it brings with it a whole host of base behavior. For some people, morality can be narrowed to such a point that nothing seems wrong.

On top of that you have young people who are thousands of miles away from civilized society, they have no idea if they will ever see home again, they are expected to take the lives of people they don't even know, and lastly you have the very real connection between male aggressive behavior and sexual arousal. What you are left with is a perfect situation, for the creation of warped reasoning and potential for dangerous behavior. Maybe I'm a male chauvinist, but my protective nature gives me pause when it comes to putting women in such dangerous situations.

(I'm not referring to all soldiers with the above description, I know most soldiers are law abiding decent people. I'm only referencing the ones with potential for danger)

To reiterate it isn't sexism or discrimination to acknowledge the very real differences between men and women, and it is potentially dangerous to let runaway political correctness blind us to the genuine concerns.

That almost comes across as, look, guys are gonna tape, so women can't be there. Which is sort of ass backwards, but truly overlooks the point that women get raped in a war even if there are no female soldiers around. Rape has been used as a weapon for centuries, both on a personal level and on a war level. That is NOT a good reason to forbid women who are capable of serving to do so. They know the risks. This attitude that the delicate womenfolk have to be protected is highly patriarchal, and is used as an excuse to prevent women from doing everything from mail carrier when I was a kid to ski jumping in the Olympics. The minute you assume one gender is lesser, there is a problem.

I saw an excellent piece on this topic today. Women ARE serving in combat positions and have been for a decade, just without the weapons, combat pay and opportunities for advancement men have. The military is just catching up with the reality of the situation.

 

[The Dark King]

That almost comes across as, look, guys are gonna tape, so women can't be there. Which is sort of ass backwards, but truly overlooks the point that women get raped in a war even if there are no female soldiers around. Rape has been used as a weapon for centuries, both on a personal level and on a war level. That is NOT a good reason to forbid women who are capable of serving to do so. They know the risks. This attitude that the delicate womenfolk have to be protected is highly patriarchal, and is used as an excuse to prevent women from doing everything from mail carrier when I was a kid to ski jumping in the Olympics. The minute you assume one gender is lesser, there is a problem.

I saw an excellent piece on this topic today. Women ARE serving in combat positions and have been for a decade, just without the weapons, combat pay and opportunities for advancement men have. The military is just catching up with the reality of the situation.

I don't know much about ski jumping but as far as most Olympic sports women can't compete with the men.
But I will say this as far as combat is concerned you don't need much strength to pull a trigger so in certain situations I agree that women can be just as affective as men even more so depending on what the mission is. As long as they have weapons they have a fighting chance, but you might want to be careful when you say things like not every woman can do every task but neither can men. There are far more capable men who can carry a 200lb person than females who can. My point isn't to down women but to play to our natural strengths.

 

[Bookworm616]

I don't know.

Women can get pregnant, then it becomes a bigger issue when she's put into harm's way.

Plus, if the draft is ever needed again (which I hope it isn't), can we really draft both young men AND women? What about the families they leave behind? Who would watch out for their children?

All things to think about when you add women to the front lines.

 

[The Dark King]

I don't know.

Women can get pregnant, then it becomes a bigger issue when she's put into harm's way.

Plus, if the draft is ever needed again (which I hope it isn't), can we really draft both young men AND women? What about the families they leave behind? Who would watch out for their children?

All things to think about when you add women to the front lines.

i think in the case of drafting they wouldn't use women who have kids and I think you get combat leave if you get pregnant while out there. Just like a wounded soldier since being pregnant physically keeps you from performing your duties.
Personally I just think we as a people are far more comfortable with young men dying than young women.

 

[Bookworm616]

i think in the case of drafting they wouldn't use women who have kids and I think you get combat leave if you get pregnant while out there. Just like a wounded soldier since being pregnant physically keeps you from performing your duties.
Personally I just think we as a people are far more comfortable with young men dying than young women.

I'm sure they would have something like that in place for pregnancies. These are just things that come with women that don't come with men.

I don't think we, as a society, are desensitized to young men dying more than young women. I don't think anyone wants to see our troops come home in pine boxes, be them male or female.

 

[Thump]

That almost comes across as, look, guys are gonna tape, so women can't be there. Which is sort of ass backwards, but truly overlooks the point that women get raped in a war even if there are no female soldiers around. Rape has been used as a weapon for centuries, both on a personal level and on a war level. That is NOT a good reason to forbid women who are capable of serving to do so. They know the risks. This attitude that the delicate womenfolk have to be protected is highly patriarchal, and is used as an excuse to prevent women from doing everything from mail carrier when I was a kid to ski jumping in the Olympics. The minute you assume one gender is lesser, there is a problem.

I saw an excellent piece on this topic today. Women ARE serving in combat positions and have been for a decade, just without the weapons, combat pay and opportunities for advancement men have. The military is just catching up with the reality of the situation.

I now how bad it sounds, but like you yourself said, rape as a weapon of war goes back throughout history. So I'm unconcerned with how "ass backwards" my attitude is, because as long as there is going to be war, it will never change.

Also, I freely admit that I have a masculine instinct to protect, and I'm not ashamed of it. I refuse to let our modern, gender-neutral society make me ashamed of my natural male instincts.

Like Ive stated before, I am all for equality, but only when things can truly be equal. Unfortunately, no matter how much we might want to go against nature, men and women are, and always will be different. So treating them the same is just a recipe for problems.

I just want to make it clear, I DON'T OPPOSE WOMEN IN THE MILITARY. I just have questions and concerns, that I don't think should be swept under a rug of political correctness.

 

[Bookworm616]

I now how bad it sounds, but like you yourself said, rape as a weapon of war goes back throughout history. So I'm unconcerned with how "ass backwards" my attitude is, because as long as there is going to be war, it will never change.

Also, I freely admit that I have a masculine instinct to protect, and I'm not ashamed of it. I refuse to let our modern, gender-neutral society make me ashamed of my natural male instincts.

Like Ive stated before, I am all for equality, but only when things can truly be equal. Unfortunately, no matter how much we might want to go against nature, men and women are, and always will be different. So treating them the same is just a recipe for problems.

I just want to make it clear, I DON'T OPPOSE WOMEN IN THE MILITARY. I just have questions and concerns, that I don't think should be swept under a rug of political correctness.

You bring up an interesting point about a man's need to protect. Something to also consider as it could change the dynamic of the front lines.