combat roles to women?

The Dark King said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that's just wrong. Young men are valuable too. My understanding is that most female soldiers are put on long term hormonal contraceptives to avoid menstruation in those situations.

As for who takes care of the families in case of a draft - single parents serve all the time, as do married couples with children. They must make arrangements for their kids. It is a logistical issue, not one which would require one gender or another to be held back from serving. This goes on all the time now.
 
Bookworm616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Talk to serving soldiers - it doesn't seem to be a problem for them, and doesn't effect unit cohesion at all. A woman armed with combat gear is just as capable of taking care of business as a man, and there is a level of protection between male soldiers too. That's one of the things medals end up being given for - neglecting your own safety to save your buddies.

The ancient Greeks felt that putting male lovers in the same unit, in fact, made things better, because they would fight harder to protect their partner than to protect anyone else. I don't know if it worked, but there's some logic to the theory
 
There are just some roles that women aren't physically able to perform, much less when they're IN the field. For those women who think they can do everything a man can do, I feel bad for you.
 
Combat roles for women are special cases. From what I understand female soldiers are upset about being excluded when they are more than qualified in many cases for combat roles. This isn't about ALL enlisted women wanting to be deployed into live combat situations.

Hell most men don't want that for themselves either.

About female soldiers being potentially raped by the enemy, I think for most women in the military if they're captured they're more concerned about being executed, not raped.

I don't know what kind of psych counseling/training female soldiers are given regarding combat, but I would think the possibility of being sexually assaulted by the enemy is way up there in the discussion.

Female soldiers are tough chicks, the ones I've met. They can be feminine on one hand, and be bulldog tough minded the next. I don't think their ability to be broken mentally is any higher because they're women.

I wouldn't worry to much about the women who actually want to be engaged in combat. They are probably as much of an asset to the military effort as their male counterparts.

Also I've read where the presence of women in combat military units has a 'civilizing' effect on some soldiers and keeps them emotionally grounded.

If the Israelis can do it, so can we.
 
andreboba said:
Combat roles for women are special cases. From what I understand female soldiers are upset about being excluded when they are more than qualified in many cases for combat roles. This isn't about ALL enlisted women wanting to be deployed into live combat situations.

Hell most men don't want that for themselves either.

About female soldiers being potentially raped by the enemy, I think for most women in the military if they're captured they're more concerned about being executed, not raped.

I don't know what kind of psych counseling/training female soldiers are given regarding combat, but I would think the possibility of being sexually assaulted by the enemy is way up there in the discussion.

Female soldiers are tough chicks, the ones I've met. They can be feminine on one hand, and be bulldog tough minded the next. I don't think their ability to be broken mentally is any higher because they're women.

I wouldn't worry to much about the women who actually want to be engaged in combat. They are probably as much of an asset to the military effort as their male counterparts.

Also I've read where the presence of women in combat military units has a 'civilizing' effect on some soldiers and keeps them emotionally grounded.

If the Israelis can do it, so can we.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Women are already fighting with men, which is why the roles were opened

As long as the combat mos training isn't watered down like basic for women, let them have at it
 
Bookworm616 said:
I read an article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune about this.

They interviewed some new women vets and some women vets from WWII. I wasn't initially sure why they went back to WWII vets, but I think it's because they had to go back that far to find women who were opposed to the new ruling?

Anyway, it's an interesting read: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-local-women-in-combat-20130124,0,309326.story
Click to expand...

it's a PRIDE thing

the military is based upon hard men doing hard jobs to protect everyone

having women outshine men in infantry tasks, special forces, whatever..would be devastating to closed-minded men who feel entitled just because they have cocks

they'll get over it just like whites had to get over blacks becoming fighter pilots
 
pettyofficerj said:
it's a PRIDE thing

the military is based upon hard men doing hard jobs to protect everyone

having women outshine men in infantry tasks, special forces, whatever..would be devastating to closed-minded men who feel entitled just because they have cocks

they'll get over it just like whites had to get over blacks becoming fighter pilots
Click to expand...

To be fair I doubt many dudes would be threatened by those chicks because they wouldnt really see them as women. Just like female bodybuilders they take on a very manish demeanlr. War examplifies all the traits associated with being a male like aggression and violence. When women take on those traits they lose their femininity.
 
The Dark King said:
To be fair I doubt many dudes would be threatened by those chicks because they wouldnt really see them as women. Just like female bodybuilders they take on a very manish demeanlr. War examplifies all the traits associated with being a male like aggression and violence. When women take on those traits they lose their femininity.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, except in context. Physically it isn't comparable I know, but in working in all male departments, I had to be ' one of the guys' in all other ways. That didnt change who I was when the 'battle' was over. Soldiering is a job.
 
TreePixie said:
Not necessarily, except in context. Physically it isn't comparable I know, but in working in all male departments, I had to be ' one of the guys' in all other ways. That didnt change who I was when the 'battle' was over. Soldiering is a job.
Click to expand...

pretty much

you always hear about troops flipping a mental switch from stop to go

i'd expect the same to go for women

the infantry MOS is hands-down one of the most physically demanding and dangerous jobs out there. like I said before, if women were making the cut, let them have at it. I just wouldn't give them a different set of standards, as that would be complete disrespect to the occupation.
 
pettyofficerj said:
pretty much

you always hear about troops flipping a mental switch from stop to go
i'd expect the same to go for women

the infantry MOS is hands-down one of the most physically demanding and dangerous jobs out there. like I said before, if women were making the cut, let them have at it. I just wouldn't give them a different set of standards, as that would be complete disrespect to the occupation.
Click to expand...

not really...they merc themselves now at high rates
 
pettyofficerj said:
pretty much

you always hear about troops flipping a mental switch from stop to go

i'd expect the same to go for women

the infantry MOS is hands-down one of the most physically demanding and dangerous jobs out there. like I said before, if women were making the cut, let them have at it. I just wouldn't give them a different set of standards, as that would be complete disrespect to the occupation.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. No more of this 17 push-up shit to pass the PT test if you're going infantry.
 
andreboba said:
Combat roles for women are special cases. From what I understand female soldiers are upset about being excluded when they are more than qualified in many cases for combat roles. This isn't about ALL enlisted women wanting to be deployed into live combat situations.

Hell most men don't want that for themselves either.

About female soldiers being potentially raped by the enemy, I think for most women in the military if they're captured they're more concerned about being executed, not raped.

I don't know what kind of psych counseling/training female soldiers are given regarding combat, but I would think the possibility of being sexually assaulted by the enemy is way up there in the discussion.

Female soldiers are tough chicks, the ones I've met. They can be feminine on one hand, and be bulldog tough minded the next. I don't think their ability to be broken mentally is any higher because they're women.

I wouldn't worry to much about the women who actually want to be engaged in combat. They are probably as much of an asset to the military effort as their male counterparts.

Also I've read where the presence of women in combat military units has a 'civilizing' effect on some soldiers and keeps them emotionally grounded.

If the Israelis can do it, so can we.
Click to expand...
From what I hear, the Israeli females are some bad muthafuckas not to be fucked with.
 
pettyofficerj said:
pretty much

you always hear about troops flipping a mental switch from stop to go

i'd expect the same to go for women

the infantry MOS is hands-down one of the most physically demanding and dangerous jobs out there. like I said before, if women were making the cut, let them have at it. I just wouldn't give them a different set of standards, as that would be complete disrespect to the occupation.
Click to expand...

And would be dangerous for all concerned. I agree. I read somewhere this week that only something like 25% of the guys coming in are physically fit enough for combat positions. There has been too much morphing of the issue into 'guys are tougher than women,' when in fact not all men are capable either.
 
TreePixie said:
And would be dangerous for all concerned. I agree. I read somewhere this week that only something like 25% of the guys coming in are physically fit enough for combat positions. There has been too much morphing of the issue into 'guys are tougher than women,' when in fact not all men are capable either.
Click to expand...

Of course not all men are capable. If I tried to pass a fitness test, I would get a slightly better score then a 75 year old stroke victim. (I got a bad knee and a iffy back) But that's not the point. All things being equal is the operative phrase. A man in his best shape vs. a women in her best shape in a physical contest. The probability is that the man would come out on top the majority of the time.

I don't understand why the fact that men are stronger (NOT BETTER) but stronger then women. Is so upsetting to some people. There is no sexism here, it is just biology.
 
Thump said:
Of course not all men are capable. If I tried to pass a fitness test, I would get a slightly better score then a 75 year old stroke victim. (I got a bad knee and a iffy back) But that's not the point. All things being equal is the operative phrase. A man in his best shape vs. a women in her best shape in a physical contest. The probability is that the man would come out on top the majority of the time.

I don't understand why the fact that men are stronger (NOT BETTER) but stronger then women. Is so upsetting to some people. There is no sexism here, it is just biology.
Click to expand...

It's not upsetting, unless you use it as an excuse to prevent ALL women from doing something. My point has been, and remains, that if a woman wants to go in to combat and can do the job, her gender shouldn't be a barrier. It's pretty clear that women HAVE been doing the job in this war, and doing it well. Panetta's announcement is just making into policy that which has already been practice, anyway. Except that now women can get combat pay, be armed & armored for the job, and have the opportunities for advancement which have been previously closed to them.
 
TreePixie said:
It's not upsetting, unless you use it as an excuse to prevent ALL women from doing something. My point has been, and remains, that if a woman wants to go in to combat and can do the job, her gender shouldn't be a barrier. It's pretty clear that women HAVE been doing the job in this war, and doing it well. Panetta's announcement is just making into policy that which has already been practice, anyway. Except that now women can get combat pay, be armed & armored for the job, and have the opportunities for advancement which have been previously closed to them.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just wonder what will happen if more qualified start applying and get it iver their female counterparts. Just hope we can keep in mind we are all Amwricans despite gender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom