Thread: Women allowed in combat rolls

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

That being said its a disingenuous argument on your part to try and compare what the AF does to what the army and the corps does. Its actually quite insulting when you get down to the truth of it.

It's because you're saying that your 6 years of service was more valuable than my 6 years of service...or anyone else for that matter.

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.

Its obvious you weren't in the military.

On a side note

But if she starts fucking around like "the guys" and she gets prego.

So in your experience, what men do when women aren't around leads to pregnancy when a woman is around? I'm sure you don't see these experiences in a "gay way", but I'm never going camping with you, that's for sure.

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.

It's just the way God made us men. At least the honorable ones. Totally agree.

Look, the bottom line is that those if us in the military know men, and we know how the military works. Women should not be in a combat MOS. Period. If they are, they can't be held to a different standard for PT than the men, but by and large they also can't keep up with the men, so PT standards will inevitable be lowered across the board. This is the government folks. They will tend to operate on the lowest common denominator in situations like that. Lowering standards means more people die. Period. Not to mention the fact that sexual harassment claims will skyrocket, military divorce rates will worsen (military wives will be up in arms about their men being deployed in the field for months with another woman there- fact), and men being men, relationships or chivalry will inevitably begin to affect the mission.

This is a stupid assed idea. News flash - men and women are different. Let's just recognize that and not cut off our nose to spite our face...

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Look, the bottom line is that those if us in the military know men, and we know how the military works. Women should not be in a combat MOS. Period. If they are, they can't be held to a different standard for PT than the men, but by and large they also can't keep up with the men, so PT standards will inevitable be lowered across the board. This is the government folks. They will tend to operate on the lowest common denominator in situations like that. Lowering standards means more people die. Period. Not to mention the fact that sexual harassment claims will skyrocket, military divorce rates will worsen (military wives will be up in arms about their men being deployed in the field for months with another woman there- fact), and men being men, relationships or chivalry will inevitably begin to affect the mission.

This is a stupid assed idea. News flash - men and women are different. Let's just recognize that and not cut off our nose to spite our face...

Cathe Friedrich - Do Women Have Greater Muscle Endurance Than Men?

Top 10 Badass Female Warriors - Listverse

but i'm sure you think women dont have a place outside of the home lazarus so its probably wasted effort

Originally Posted by moving-target

Cathe Friedrich - Do Women Have Greater Muscle Endurance Than Men?

Top 10 Badass Female Warriors - Listverse

but i'm sure you think women dont have a place outside of the home lazarus so its probably wasted effort

Hmm how many male names pop up since the 16th century BCE?

There's only one way to solve this.

Do women belong on the front lines?

Originally Posted by iLLusioN

Those problems all already exist with the way we currently deploy. At least in the AF...and 90% of the time AF is deploying with the Army so...

Like it or not women are in the military...the military claims equal opportunity in pretty much all things. It was only a matter of time until that ban was lifted. I think there will be incidents and hiccups...it's probably going to be better than you fear and worse than the higher ups claim to expect.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I was in the Army. I know that women are here to stay, and honestly, that's a good thing. But what you're talking about and what I'm talking about are two different things. I'm talking about the 11-13 MOS's in the Army (and those similar is other branches), which are front line, infantry/combat units. Not some support personnel which advances with the CiC, or other element. I know women are in harms way outside the wire, conducting those ops which are critical to the overall theater success.

I'm talking Rangers, Marines, Armored Cav, Artillery, Submariners, etc. Pretty much everything else is fine, and in fact encouraged. And I'm not speaking about this from a "good 'ol boy, lets-keep-it-in-the-club" kinda perspective, but rather one which assume certain realistic issues which can compromise the integrity of the mission itself.