Women allowed in combat rolls

**deathgodusmc** · 01-24-13, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

My sister was selected to participate in a pilot program about a year ago, where she trained with the Special Forces selection trainees. She passed everything they did (she's badass). Now that this is coming out, I'm sure that Panetta green lit this because of her success along with the other candidates that passed. Very "G.I. Jane". Having said that, she recognized there were severe drawbacks to women in front line combat. She is now a DI, and expecting her second child.

In all honesty, its not the women who are not strong enough, its the men. I have a good friend who was in the Israeli military, and they tried women in combat in the 70's. Bad, bad move. Even they admitted it. Men have deep, deep routed issues when they see a woman all blow to hell and back. The Israeli's did studies on it. Bad stuff.

It wasn't that a woman couldn't pull a trigger, or even carry the combat weight like any scrawny soldier could, but rather that the soldier became emotionally and unrealistically attached to the female soldiers. Women can withstand more pain, and even higher G-forces. It was so bad that the males soldiers would often mourn the fallen females to the detriment of the mission. It's already incredibly difficult as a soldier to bury your fallen male brothers, but when its a women, apparently it was even worse.

It disrupts unit cohesion he said, and forces men to deal with the added emotions of perhaps falling in love with one of their female soldiers (and vice versa). And when you're hunkered down in he field, in a foxhole, you can see how the camaraderie that would exist between two men could potentially disintegrate into emotions less easily controlled. That's one reason why the military didn't want gays in the military; it was for the same reason. While I don't care that gays serve, I don't really like the idea of women in the front lines of combat. If that is indeed what this new policy is all about.

Aside from the pain part i agree.

**DJ Ms. White** · 01-24-13, 06:37 PM

Yeah, but women are capable of carry an additional 10 lbs in a secret, secure location on missions. Only gay men like you can match that.

**Xavsnipe** · 01-24-13, 06:41 PM

lol

That´s pretty interesting, Ranger. I´d never thought about that until I read your post.

P.S. All women want to taste my penis.

**Pint** · 01-24-13, 07:01 PM

Women are already in combat roles. I don't know the exact numbers but I would guess that about 1/5th to 1/4th of Army military police are female which by a WW2 troop placement would not be a combat role. That is not the case in Iraq or Afghanistan where an MP unit could realistically have more out of the wire time then some infantry units. Not to mention transport units of all varieties which again have a higher then military wide female 'manning' (couldn't think of another word that fit)

There are female combat vets walking around today with thousands of out of the wire hours logged. There are very good reasons to be opposed to coed infantry and armor units, but when saying "whats next 6 months in pregnant girls on the front lines" you do insult to your betters.

**DJ Ms. White** · 01-24-13, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

lol

That´s pretty interesting, Ranger. I´d never thought about that until I read your post.

P.S. All women want to taste my penis.

No, you're confusing donkeys with bulls.

**iLLusioN** · 01-24-13, 08:40 PM

Pint pretty much nailed it. Anything other than infantry, armor and spec-ops really doesn't have a leg to stand on for keeping women out. I've seen a couple of the studies that Ranger mentioned, and they are all pretty much unanimous that the emotions of men are a hell of alot stronger with women than they are with other men. While it could still cause issues, most of those will be of the social kind...not the life and death kind.

**moving-target** · 01-24-13, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

So, now Bill notices Dave in the fox hole. More Bill's will notice Christy in the fox hole. Makes the fox hole sound a little bit better

So what's next, women 6 months pregnant on the front lines? 6 week maternity leave? PTO for PMS?

If a 5'2 130lb woman is in hand to hand combat with a 6'3 230lb man, who wins?

who ever has the better training and the sharper mind

**~BigTymer~** · 01-24-13, 08:50 PM

So women wanted to be treated fair? I can go with that. But if she starts fucking around like "the guys" and she gets prego. You think it's fair she gets additional time off? Sorry but no woman can do everything a man can do. They are not equal in physical strength. I am fine with women MP's. I don't like it but could deal with that. If I was in the military I would rather have a capable male covering my flank. In the right way and not the gay way.

**moving-target** · 01-24-13, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

My sister was selected to participate in a pilot program about a year ago, where she trained with the Special Forces selection trainees. She passed everything they did (she's badass). Now that this is coming out, I'm sure that Panetta green lit this because of her success along with the other candidates that passed. Very "G.I. Jane". Having said that, she recognized there were severe drawbacks to women in front line combat. She is now a DI, and expecting her second child.

In all honesty, its not the women who are not strong enough, its the men. I have a good friend who was in the Israeli military, and they tried women in combat in the 70's. Bad, bad move. Even they admitted it. Men have deep, deep routed issues when they see a woman all blow to hell and back. The Israeli's did studies on it. Bad stuff.

It wasn't that a woman couldn't pull a trigger, or even carry the combat weight like any scrawny soldier could, but rather that the soldier became emotionally and unrealistically attached to the female soldiers. Women can withstand more pain, and even higher G-forces. It was so bad that the males soldiers would often mourn the fallen females to the detriment of the mission. It's already incredibly difficult as a soldier to bury your fallen male brothers, but when its a women, apparently it was even worse.

It disrupts unit cohesion he said, and forces men to deal with the added emotions of perhaps falling in love with one of their female soldiers (and vice versa). And when you're hunkered down in he field, in a foxhole, you can see how the camaraderie that would exist between two men could potentially disintegrate into emotions less easily controlled. That's one reason why the military didn't want gays in the military; it was for the same reason. While I don't care that gays serve, I don't really like the idea of women in the front lines of combat. If that is indeed what this new policy is all about.

sounds like the male soldeirs need to toughen the fuck up and become mentally stronger

**deathgodusmc** · 01-24-13, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

So women wanted to be treated fair? I can go with that. But if she starts fucking around like "the guys" and she gets prego. You think it's fair she gets additional time off? Sorry but no woman can do everything a man can do. They are not equal in physical strength. I am fine with women MP's. I don't like it but could deal with that. If I was in the military I would rather have a capable male covering my flank. In the right way and not the gay way.

I remember the looks on a few females faces when i told them to grab their end of a hernia bar moving 500 lbs bombs. They even tried to complain to the captain about it afterwards. He told them the same thing i did "You signed up for the job saying you could and would do it".