View Full Version : Women will be allowed to serve in combat
(I did a search for this, didn't find it. Hope it's not a repost!)
http://time.com/4134976/pentagon-combat-women/ (http://time.com/4134976/pentagon-combat-women/)
Women will be allowed to serve as fully-fledged members of front-line U.S. military combat units, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced Thursday.
“They’ll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat,” Carter said, so long as they meet the same physical standards as their male comrades. “They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men.”
Female advocates cheered the change. “It’s a thrilling day for women serving in the military—and for women across the country,” said Nancy Duff Campbell of the National Women’s Law Center. “Thousands of women will now have the opportunity to be all that they can be and our nation’s military will be the stronger for it. Hip, hip, hooray!”
The impact of the decision will take some time. “Implementation won’t happen overnight,” Carter said. Women will have to be trained to fill the slots. While some have already undergone such schooling—three women passed the tough Army Ranger course earlier this year, for example—the Pentagon wants to ensure that it achieves a still-unspecified “critical mass” of such women before introducing them into previously all-male units. A senior Army officer has estimated that while half of incoming male recruits want to “go infantry,” for example, only 10% of female recruits share that sentiment.
The decision comes after decades of allowing women to move ever closer to front-line, direct-ground-combat units: infantry, armor and special operations. While they have been allowed in supporting roles alongside such units—in intelligence and logistics, for example—they were barred by Pentagon policy from standard service in most such outfits. While the Army had recommended to Carter in October that women be allowed to serve in all combat slots, the Marines had recommended against it.
Carter’s announcement represents an historic change for the U.S. military. But some of the leeriness accompanying it has been eased by the smooth integration of openly gay men and women into military service. In fact, the Marines also were the service most opposed to allowing them to serve in uniform, saying it would hurt morale and recruiting. Neither has happened in the four years since the ban was lifted.
There has been opposition to the change even inside the Army. “The average fighting load is 35% of average man’s bodyweight but half the bodyweight of an average Army woman,” William Gregor, a retired 23-year Army officer now at the service’s School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., wrote in 2011. “Keeping the men and women together can only diminish the training benefit received by men because the load or the march rate or both must be kept within the range of strength and endurance of the women.”
The Marines steadily built a case that their front-line units should remain all-male. “To move forward in expanding opportunities for our female service members without considering the timeless, brutal, physical and absolutely unforgiving nature of close combat is a prescription for failure,” an internal Marine study completed in August concluded. “Those who choose to turn a blind eye to those immutable realities do so at the expense of our Corps’ war-fighting capability and, in turn, the security of the nation.”
Gregory Newbold, a retired Marine lieutenant general, says physical strength is only part of the combat calculus. “It’s the fighting power of the unit that’s more relevant, and when you interject things that are corrosive, then you degrade fighting power,” he says. “It’s the sexual dynamic that’s important here—somebody has to get up early to clean the urinals and pick up trash, and Johnny says `Well Suzy isn’t doing it because they like Suzy,’ or Suzy says `I’m doing it because they hate me.’ That’s human nature, and it’s corrosive in small combat units.” But an internal Marine report disputes that. “Any initial detrimental effects on cohesion can eventually be mitigated with good training and solid leadership, it concluded.
Instead of simply setting physical requirements for individual Marines, the corps pitted all-male squads against mixed-gender units. “The majority of the operationally relevant differences occurred in the most physically demanding tasks, such as casualty evacuations, long hikes under load, and negotiating obstacles,” one internal Marine assessment said. “We have seen numerous cases of compensation during physically demanding tasks, in which males have shifted positions to take over certain aspects of the tasks from females, such as loading ammo into trucks or heaving loaded packs on top of a wall.”
The corps has pointed out that the more than 400 female Marines who earned combat decorations in Afghanistan and Iraq earned them in what might be called combat-lite. “None of those awards reflected a female Marine having to `locate, close with and destroy the enemy’ in deliberate offensive combat operations,” a recent Marine report said. “Rather, these actions were all in response to enemy action in the form of IED strikes, enemy attacks on convoys or friendly bases, or attacks on female Marines” assigned to all-female units designed to screen and interview foreign females. True enough, but hardly surprising: female Marines have been barred from “deliberate offensive combat operations.”
The advance of women toward the front lines has been a long time coming, and female trailblazers recall the challenges. Ann Dunwoody, the first four-star general in the U.S. military, recalls the Army banning barrettes and bobby pins to keep hair in place under jump-school helmets, claiming they were hazardous while parachuting. “It was an attempt to get us to cut our hair, and look manly,” says Dunwoody, who retired in 2012. She refused to go along. “I taped my hair to my head with masking tape—it looked ridiculous.” Eventually, the Army relented.
Darlene Iskra, who became one of the Navy’s first female divers in 1980, recalls the grueling physical harassment instructors would mete out during six weeks of scuba training. They’d yank off trainees’ masks and turn off their air supply, to ensure the fledgling divers were ready for dangerous undersea missions. Iskra spent her first three weeks in the pool with a female partner before each was paired with a male partner for the rest of the course. “We noticed after we got our new buddies that the pool harassment went down by about half,” says Iskra, who went on to become the first woman to command a Navy ship in 1990. “But our new male buddies said the harassment had gone up about half.”
In a perfect world, everyone wearing a U.S. military uniform would be an asexual brute with a stunningly high IQ who doesn’t eat much, is adept at following orders and leery of challenging authority. Given that such a creature has never existed, the nation has spent more than 200 years building its military, one compromise at a time. The Pentagon just made its biggest compromise ever about who can serve on the front lines in a U.S. military uniform.
The Pentagon just made its biggest compromise ever about who can serve on the front lines in a U.S. military uniform.
Agreed.
I feel the same way about the people working at my local fire station. I don't need PC when I need someone capable of lugging my fat ass out of a burning house.
This is very simple.... it's gonna happen. A woman can take a bullet just the same as a man. The only thing that should not change are the requirements. If the job requires you to lift 50Lbs all day, run 20 miles with an over burdened pack, shit in the woods or charge a hill when ordered it does not all of a sudden mean your sex has anything to do with the discussion. Anybody that becomes a soldier, sailor or any other military member, thats the job. Doors should not be opened (past what any guy would do normally for another guy) and that also does not mean that sex is an excuse. Guys give each other a great amount of shit on any given day, it builds a team (to a point). If that point goes too far it should be dealt with, male or female. I have seen men that had no business being soldiers/saliors, I have seen women that could do more than most men. No crying...... male or female. Especially about letting the girls play too.
BTW: +1 on screw being PC.
This is none other than SECDEV saying FU to the Marines and SEALs.
So when will 18 year old females be signing up for the Selective Service? Was that bit of equality left out? Will there be an act to ensure women and men are drafted in equal numbers and equal numbers come home in body bags?
Because if they aren't willing to do that, it's not equality.
There is more to this than "if a woman can meet the standards..." Remember Jessica Lynch? The first war with female grunts will completely break America's will. And I wonder if that isn't the end goal anyway.
This is none other than SECDEV saying FU to the Marines and SEALs.
So when will 18 year old females be signing up for the Selective Service? Was that bit of equality left out? Will there be an act to ensure women and men are drafted in equal numbers and equal numbers come home in body bags?
Because if they aren't willing to do that, it's not equality.
There is more to this than "if a woman can meet the standards..." Remember Jessica Lynch? The first war with female grunts will completely break America's will. And I wonder if that isn't the end goal anyway.
Yes, women will likely have to register for the Selective Service. They were discussing that back in October, and are now figuring how best to implement that: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/10/12/women-likely-have-register-draft-army-secretary-says.html
You want to talk about Jessica Lynch? Let's. 2003, first female soldier POW recovered y the US Special Operations Forces. She was Unit Supply. She never fired her rifle. She testified that she was knocked unconscious when her Humvee was hit by a grenade, was was seriously injured. She and five others were captured.
I'm not sure what your point in using Jessica Lynch is.
I'm afraid you'll have to explain in a bit more detail how having "female grunts" will "break America's will."
argonstrom
12-03-2015, 20:49
I'm afraid you'll have to explain in a bit more detail how having "female grunts" will "break America's will."
My interpretation is that dudes are expendable, chicks aren't. On that point, I agree with him.
I think it's because there is a fear that the dudes will go all teary eyed if something happens to a chick they care about, this will make them do stupid stuff. It's about the nature of a quality man which desires to protect women, whether it's God given nature or evolved behavior, a good man wants to protect women the same way a good woman wants to protect children. This will take a while for the older generation to get used to. I fear we've caused most of the next generation of men to act like women and blurred the gender lines so much that it won't matter much for future generations anyway.
I'm torn. I like the idea of a badass woman eating a piece of bacon smoking some Muslim terrorist as the ultimate suck it to his little gay ass jihad.
on the other hand, women aren't signed up for the draft if that were to ever happen, and I honestly don't want them to. That's the last thing I'd want is my wife getting selected taken away from the kids and me stuck at home.
id like to know that physical standards are the same, same distances, same weight carried, same everything. If they can pass that, good for them. I know I couldn't.
as Jamnac stated, men have an inherent need to protect their women, when they are part of their elite team I'd imagine that need is emphasized to protect each other, men or women, but I'm curious the dynamic when a woman is thrown into the mix.
either way, it's above my decision making level and my opinion means squat on the subject so I'll just be supportive and hope they make a hot calendar of badass women with sweet weapons.
...badass women with sweet weapons.
What like a candy cane shiv?
Sure, id like to see that!
To the Jessica Lynch thing, she wasn't knocked unconscious by a grenade. The controversy over that, and the general feeling of disdain among Army personnel toward her are due to the fact that she, admittedly, didn't fight. She said it, she didn't fight, she didn't fire a single round, and when things looked most grim, she "went down, praying to my knees." That's flat out cowardly. No room for that in any front-line position.
Now, back to the point. Not to sound snobby, or crude, but show of hands, in our modern time, who has been in the service, deployed, outside the wire? If the answer to all of the above is no, you can't really speak legitimately on the topic, as you really don't know what it's like. It's not like on an FOB or in Garrison. Out there, be it at a COP (Combat Out Post), or an LP/OP (Listening Post/Observation Post), for several days with a bunch of guys, bathing (usually with wet wipes), shitting, sleeping, pissing, and in close proximity, things could get ugly adding a female into the mix. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it will be difficult. Sexual harassment will happen at the very least, at worst, rape. Again, not saying it will happen every time, or even a lot of times, but just once and the whole thing will be called into question. Not to mention the very hard period of transition where a female will be viewed as an outsider and the idea of special accommodations needing to be made will create problems. Ever piss into a Gatorade bottle while on a convoy? No? Neither will she. These are issues I can foresee. If individual units can figure out these issues, I'm all for it. But I don't suspect it'll be easy. It's easy on a bigger base to have separate quarters and latrines for men and women, but on smaller outposts I can anticipate issues. Just my $.02.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
ZERO THEORY
12-03-2015, 23:13
Any woman that can hump a ruck 20 miles, stay up for 72 hours, and carry a 200 pound casualty, all in a theater of war is fine by me.
Here's the reality: basic physiology is going to make it very difficult for a female physique to withstand the joint compression, ligament fatigue, and muscular stimulus that combat MOSes involve. Plain and simple. There are 10 Ellen Pages to every 1 Gabbi Garcia. The number of Garcias that then decide to eat slop, get bitched at for anything the NCO sees fit, all for $1/hour is going to be pretty slim. So with all that, it seems to me that if the standard is actually upheld, we'll see some very tough and suitable women join the boys up front. However, if the agenda machine keeps turning, you'll get a lot of questionable green lights in cool guy schools, much like the girls that got recycled half a dozen times during Darby phase over the summer.
If you can meet the EXACT same standard as a squared-away man, great. Otherwise...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIDJMRPMxJo
Oh being in the military isn't easy?
that then decide to eat slop, get bitched at for anything the NCO sees fit, all for $1/hour is going to be pretty slim
The pay is bad too? Then why do the men do it?
I expect better responses in this thread.
ZERO THEORY
12-03-2015, 23:32
Oh being in the military isn't easy?
The pay is bad too? Then why do the men do it?
I expect better responses in this thread.
The number of physically-capable American men who join the military and then go combat arms is pretty slim, as well. What part do you not agree with? Do you really think that there is just some giant pool of women 17-30 who are dying to join the infantry, but couldn't, so they got jobs as social workers instead?
To the Jessica Lynch thing, she wasn't knocked unconscious by a grenade. The controversy over that, and the general feeling of disdain among Army personnel toward her are due to the fact that she, admittedly, didn't fight. She said it, she didn't fight, she didn't fire a single round, and when things looked most grim, she "went down, praying to my knees." That's flat out cowardly. No room for that in any front-line position.
Now, back to the point. Not to sound snobby, or crude, but show of hands, in our modern time, who has been in the service, deployed, outside the wire? If the answer to all of the above is no, you can't really speak legitimately on the topic, as you really don't know what it's like. It's not like on an FOB or in Garrison. Out there, be it at a COP (Combat Out Post), or an LP/OP (Listening Post/Observation Post), for several days with a bunch of guys, bathing (usually with wet wipes), shitting, sleeping, pissing, and in close proximity, things could get ugly adding a female into the mix. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it will be difficult. Sexual harassment will happen at the very least, at worst, rape. Again, not saying it will happen every time, or even a lot of times, but just once and the whole thing will be called into question. Not to mention the very hard period of transition where a female will be viewed as an outsider and the idea of special accommodations needing to be made will create problems. Ever piss into a Gatorade bottle while on a convoy? No? Neither will she. These are issues I can foresee. If individual units can figure out these issues, I'm all for it. But I don't suspect it'll be easy. It's easy on a bigger base to have separate quarters and latrines for men and women, but on smaller outposts I can anticipate issues. Just my $.02.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I said nothing about Jessica Lynch fighting, and I am certain there are plenty of men that display "outright cowardice" to your line of thinking, when the rubber hits the road. I've also met a number of men that had nothing but contempt for the military, despite the fact that they were serving. Your points are not solely the purview of the female.
I also suspect that women that want to will be the ones to select combat and combat-support type of jobs. If they can't pass the physical requirements, they'll be washed out to join the other men and women that can't handle it. There are always jobs to be done for support, for painting, and for cleaning.
There will be quite an adjustment period, for both men and women. I would hope to hell that the instructors train female combatants to fend of potential rapists, and that if anyone in the squad attempts such a thing, they learn their lesson quickly. And brutally. Squads are meant to bond together while training, not victimized. On the other hand, women that expect to make selections as though at their very own smorgasbord should not be allowed to remain, either.
Similar arguments were made when the "don't-ask-don't-tell" was enacted; it worked out.
And yes, I have pissed in a Gatorade bottle. I have been the lone female in an all-male shop, and it was not easy. We were on foreign soil, there was sexual harassment from all sides, and because I was female in a male-dominated field, I had to work twice as hard to prove myself. But it was my choice; I persevered, and there came a time when I reached acceptance.
There were also times when I wished that I had a gun on me. I made do, and carried a knife instead.
The point is, of course it will be difficult. It should be. Fighting is a hard, dirty business. There is no room for exceptions. But just as women are expected to meet the standards that men must, the men need to accept that this is something that will be. There must be compromise.
Just when did we run out of men for these positions anyway?
If she meets the standards of a man, is she still a woman?[Coffee]
Just when did we run out of men for these positions anyway?
If she meets the standards of a man, is she still a woman?[Coffee]
WOW.
I'm given to understand if she can still run and fetch a sammich for you, then yes. [Sarcasm2]
I'm given to understand if she can still run and fetch a sammich for you, then yes. [Sarcasm2]
Naah, not interested.
Naah, not interested.
That wasn't an offer. [facepalm]
Well if anybody is offering, I could definitely go for a sammich right now
Since you're going for a sammich, would you mind bringing me and the Grey one as well? Thanks.
That wasn't an offer. [facepalm]
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Shot-down-in-flames2.jpg
GilpinGuy
12-04-2015, 00:50
This thread is gonna go downhill fast.
And as far as the comment that you can't comment on the subject because you don't know what it's like, no offense but that's bullshit. I guess I can't comment on Obama's performance either. Never been POTUS.
The number of physically-capable American men who join the military and then go combat arms is pretty slim, as well. What part do you not agree with? Do you really think that there is just some giant pool of women 17-30 who are dying to join the infantry, but couldn't, so they got jobs as social workers instead?
I don't think I implied any of that, nor does any of it matter. My only point is that it is a weak argument to say that being in the military is difficult. Men and women have toiled and fought their way through the highs and lows of the entire history of the human race together. There are plenty of things in life that are equal to, and even surpassing the difficulties of combat roles in the military, and if women were as fragile and frail as they are made out to be, they would have died out thousands of years ago. There aren't that many good arguments against women in the military, so let's not waste our breath even discussing topics like hygene, carrying weight, staying awake, or even rape. Our women don't have to go intobattle to face potentially being raped by men, hell that starts in middle school.
While catching up on my fredoneverything.org reading, I came across an old column he wrote that seems to sum it up well:
http://fredoneverything.org/a-petticoat-military-comedy-in-uniform/
As I said in another thread, I highly recommend Fred Reeds columns. He is quite a character with a colorful background, and writes some entertaining and interesting stuff.
As always, YMMV
... (snip)...
and because I was female in a male-dominated field, I had to work twice as hard to prove myself. But it was my choice; I persevered, and there came a time when I reached acceptance.
...(snip)...
As a female, I appreciate that you clarified that it was your choice to work twice as hard. Some females do choose to work twice as hard simply to prove themselves, to their own self or to others- and all too often in attempt to prove themselves equal to males. Some females act as if their choice to work twice as hard is some sort of favor to the rest of us, when that is not the case. I am perfectly content not being in the military, and not working twice as hard simply to prove myself. I am much happier being good at certain things because I put the time and effort in to become better at them- for my own satisfaction and personal growth.
I don't think men and women are equal. Roles are changing over time, but I still believe we have different strengths and weaknesses, and that when we truly work as a team we can accomplish great things.
I'm sure the women who attempt to fight the front lines have a clear understanding that they will have to work twice as hard to prove themselves as a certain caliber of soldier, and with that comes added stress, health issues, and a more defensive demeanor overall. My hope would be that they are putting themselves out front because they really believe they are making a difference in the safety and overall well-being of US citizens, or otherwise protecting our country, and not simply to be the "first female on the front line".
...(snip)... and if women were as fragile and frail as they are made out to be, they would have died out thousands of years ago. ...(snip)... Our women don't have to go intobattle to face potentially being raped by men, hell that starts in middle school.
Well said.
BushMasterBoy
12-04-2015, 05:57
When it comes to out and out battle, I prefer women behind the lines. I am basically a prick in battle, and I don't need it made any harder. SECDEF is NOT a veteran. Neither is POTUS. This personal policy is based not on logic, but experience. Betsy Ross is fine with me, Boudica not so much. I will be so glad when this administrations' term expires.
This thread is gonna go downhill fast.
And as far as the comment that you can't comment on the subject because you don't know what it's like, no offense but that's bullshit. I guess I can't comment on Obama's performance either. Never been POTUS.
Let me rephrase, unless you've been in combat, and you're one of these decision makers, you shouldn't be allowed to make these kinds of decisions that affect combat operations, unless you've carefully and fully consulted with the leaders of said combat operators. I wasn't trying to insult, I was trying to convey that those who haven't BTDT don't know the entire scope of the issue, so they might be somewhat misguided or misinformed.
Personally, because I saw it done legitimately, and then I saw it done as a form of getting out of deployment, any female combat troops that are found to be getting pregnant to get out of deployment should be chaptered immediately. I saw it in our S1 and S4 shops in my BN, and it was very clear these 3 females all got preggers to avoid deploying. I almost told them "if you didn't want to deploy, why did you even sign up?" That makes about as much sense as an aquaphobic life guard.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I'm raising three girls. I am very proud of how tough and athletic they are. They could probably carry the packs, shoot, run, crawl, and follow orders as well as a man. If, however, I needed to be lifted over a wall or dragged away from a conflict, I doubt they could do it. I don't want to see them drafted for the coming war. If they want to join, more power to them.
SuperiorDG
12-04-2015, 08:26
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12342426_1044032468981722_8411663930455084414_n.jp g?oh=8fb6748a822ed597d7d94d86c97499b4&oe=56E65BA1
In my experience as a Rifleman in the Marine Corps infantry, there were plenty of weak bodied men that could barely carry thier own weight. They slowed down the stronger and more agile Grunts. The standards of being a Marine should not be the standards of being a Infantryman. I hope that with this PC motivated announcement, that the Marine Corps announces even higher physical fitness standards for the Infantry. They have every right to do so. You know for Janes safety.
Plus wtf are they going to write down on Janies Infantry Training Battalion graduation cert? 0311/ Infantrywoman doesn't quite have the right ring to it. Facepalm. America dies a little more.
[snip]
I'm afraid you'll have to explain in a bit more detail how having "female grunts" will "break America's will."
The days of gentleman officers bringing troops to bear against one another, obeying a set rules of engagement, with respect for POWs is over. 4GW will be the future and there is growing evidence that even more civilized nations will use 4GW forces as proxies. You may have noticed the US is supporting some fairly unsavory characters in Syria for this very reason.
Female POWs won't just be taken hostage and quietly abused/executed. It will be on YouTube/Liveleak for all to see and used as propaganda. If you haven't seen the ISIS vids, then I would suggest you do so. Not to turn your stomach but to understand how the enemy has changed.
While Washington/media/Liberals/Feminists are "progressive" and think they can tolerate this, the rest of the country is not. The idea of someone's daughter, mother, wife being graphically tortured to death will change psychology.
To the Jessica Lynch thing, she wasn't knocked unconscious by a grenade. The controversy over that, and the general feeling of disdain among Army personnel toward her are due to the fact that she, admittedly, didn't fight. She said it, she didn't fight, she didn't fire a single round, and when things looked most grim, she "went down, praying to my knees." That's flat out cowardly. No room for that in any front-line position.
[snip]
I want to be clear... How she became a POW is irrelevant (to me) and not why I brought her up. I mean her no disrespect for how it may/may not have happened. The intense international focus on a single POW, precisely because she was female, is why I brought her up.
Can you name one other POW from the same timeframe? I can't without hitting Google. The people in her convey who died are largely forgotten. If she had died, she would have been forgotten as well (sad, but true). The recovery of Pvt. Lynch became an important mission for the reasons I stated above.
Now put that on the team/plt/company level. Think about how that hits the news cycle stateside. That was my point and I know we agree on the other points you've brought up.
I just wanted to call out that I wasn't bashing or accusing Jessica Lynch of anything or blaming her.
Zundfolge
12-04-2015, 09:40
This crap would go away overnight if it wasn't optional ... opening up the ranks of combat troops to women who volunteer is foolishness ... opening the ranks of combat troops and telling chicks fresh out of boot "guess what honey, I know you had your heart set on being a REMF but you're infantry now" and you'd see less support from the feminists for it.
I don't think I implied any of that, nor does any of it matter. My only point is that it is a weak argument to say that being in the military is difficult. Men and women have toiled and fought their way through the highs and lows of the entire history of the human race together. There are plenty of things in life that are equal to, and even surpassing the difficulties of combat roles in the military, and if women were as fragile and frail as they are made out to be, they would have died out thousands of years ago. There aren't that many good arguments against women in the military, so let's not waste our breath even discussing topics like hygene, carrying weight, staying awake, or even rape. Our women don't have to go intobattle to face potentially being raped by men, hell that starts in middle school.
You must be selectively reading.
My argument is that the performance of the extraordinary GI Janes who sets a precedent for 51% of our population is irrelevant because of the nature of warfare. While women do tough things in life that I couldn't do, there isn't much historical precedent for civilizations that sent women into battle (as a rule) and prevailed.
If what you have said is true, then we wouldn't be having this conversation because women would have a millennia long record of serving in combat right next to men. It would be non-controversial.
And don't get me spun up on "rape culture." First world rape is an anomaly, so much so Feminists have to invent ways to get rapped ("I didn't say yes even though we're both naked in bed and I kept going" and "he lied to me" or "I regret it now"). Absent rule of law (aka any warzone) it is a regular occurrence and mostly unreported. You may have heard of the recent scandal involving a certain Army officer who reported the regular and unmitigated (through leadership) rape of children in Afghanistan. Same deal and those were our "allies" with which women would hypothetically serve.
This is a hard reality and doesn't change based on how strong, capable, or worthy a woman is.
RblDiver
12-04-2015, 10:43
Surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet. The Marine commander did a study which found that the females in the unit had more injuries and couldn't shoot as well as the men. That's a reason why he was against the integration. The SecDef doesn't care and said full steam ahead anyway.
I think this may be one of those things that has to be done so that in the future we can say, "We tried this, and it didn't work."
The days of gentleman officers bringing troops to bear against one another, obeying a set rules of engagement, with respect for POWs is over. 4GW will be the future and there is growing evidence that even more civilized nations will use 4GW forces as proxies. You may have noticed the US is supporting some fairly unsavory characters in Syria for this very reason.
Female POWs won't just be taken hostage and quietly abused/executed. It will be on YouTube/Liveleak for all to see and used as propaganda. If you haven't seen the ISIS vids, then I would suggest you do so. Not to turn your stomach but to understand how the enemy has changed.
While Washington/media/Liberals/Feminists are "progressive" and think they can tolerate this, the rest of the country is not. The idea of someone's daughter, mother, wife being graphically tortured to death will change psychology.
I want to be clear... How she became a POW is irrelevant (to me) and not why I brought her up. I mean her no disrespect for how it may/may not have happened. The intense international focus on a single POW, precisely because she was female, is why I brought her up.
Can you name one other POW from the same timeframe? I can't without hitting Google. The people in her convey who died are largely forgotten. If she had died, she would have been forgotten as well (sad, but true). The recovery of Pvt. Lynch became an important mission for the reasons I stated above.
Now put that on the team/plt/company level. Think about how that hits the news cycle stateside. That was my point and I know we agree on the other points you've brought up.
I just wanted to call out that I wasn't bashing or accusing Jessica Lynch of anything or blaming her.
Thanks for the clarification!
I need to think some more. You bring up some very good points.
Lots of interesting points all around here. Just wanted to say as a side note that I'm glad you're here Tan. We need more like-minded females on this sausage-fest of a forum. ;)
I think this may be one of those things that has to be done so that in the future we can say, "We tried this, and it didn't work."
Are you serious?
We're talking about people who put there lives on the line, and you are suggesting, let's just see what happens?
I think this may be one of those things that has to be done so that in the future we can say, "We tried this, and it didn't work."
While I want to believe leadership would reverse course if it turned out to hurt out mil/defense, I don't see that happening with any other social experiment.
Many of the senior leadership who opposed what is happening to the mil have been purged. We just riffd how many combat vets?
I'm still waiting for that level of integrity on the ACA and it isn't happening. Hell, has anyone asked Obama to back off of Assad after the humanitarian crisis he created? And Obama is the Peace Prize President! Zero accountability means no motivation to change.
Lots of interesting points all around here. Just wanted to say as a side note that I'm glad you're here Tan. We need more like-minded females on this sausage-fest of a forum. ;)
Thank you, Brian!
I appreciate being here. It gives me an opportunity to understand where differing views are coming from (for the most part) and I am shown perspectives that make me think.
Are you serious?
We're talking about people who put there lives on the line, and you are suggesting, let's just see what happens?
I'm confident that they would weed out the ones that can't hack it in training before they deploy. We've had instances where young men are all gung ho and make it through OSUT (Infantry) and get to their unit, do well in all the training, shoot fine, stay up on their PT, check all the pre-deployment boxes, and then deploy and completely fall apart. No one is immune to being a crap soldier. I would be curious to see how this works out, if it works out. It works in Israel, Canada, Germany, to name a few. I would hope our culture is not so dissimilar from them, that maybe this could work. But Zund makes a great point, at least for the Marines Infantry. Army we get to pick our jobs.
ETA: When I went through basic in 2006 our Iron Soldier (that's the individual who scored the highest on all their PT tests) was a female. FWIW.
As a female, I appreciate that you clarified that it was your choice to work twice as hard. Some females do choose to work twice as hard simply to prove themselves, to their own self or to others- and all too often in attempt to prove themselves equal to males. Some females act as if their choice to work twice as hard is some sort of favor to the rest of us, when that is not the case. I am perfectly content not being in the military, and not working twice as hard simply to prove myself. I am much happier being good at certain things because I put the time and effort in to become better at them- for my own satisfaction and personal growth.
I don't think men and women are equal. Roles are changing over time, but I still believe we have different strengths and weaknesses, and that when we truly work as a team we can accomplish great things.
I'm sure the women who attempt to fight the front lines have a clear understanding that they will have to work twice as hard to prove themselves as a certain caliber of soldier, and with that comes added stress, health issues, and a more defensive demeanor overall. My hope would be that they are putting themselves out front because they really believe they are making a difference in the safety and overall well-being of US citizens, or otherwise protecting our country, and not simply to be the "first female on the front line".
Bingo! Well-said. I believe that it boils down to intent and motivation, in addition to the physical and mental will. If she's doing it to be the first female on the front line, she's doomed to fail. If she has the physical capability and the willpower to make it happen, as well as the desire to be a capable soldier first, then more power to her. In a combat situation, the team comes first.
Are you serious?
We're talking about people who put there lives on the line, and you are suggesting, let's just see what happens?
1) Don't forget who exactly is volunteering their lives here.
2) That is my observation of the decision in this time and political climate. Fortunately, this is not a decision that I'm required to make.
Where are those sammiches? I'm hungry
Where are those sammiches? I'm hungry
Jerad has your sandwich...
http://www.memepile.com/pics/5201-o.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjMlO70_sLJAhUMzoMKHY9tAX8QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.memepile.com%2Fphoto%3Fid%3D5 201&psig=AFQjCNHZuY1D0hYsdB_OGA-l6VYHQCZvpA&ust=1449345490688244)
68Charger
12-04-2015, 14:00
As for the selective service, how well do you think the special snowflakes in Academia right now would deal with being drafted, regardless of their gender?
PugnacAutMortem
12-04-2015, 14:05
As for the selective service, how well do you think the special snowflakes in Academia right now would deal with being drafted, regardless of their gender?
They will have to build more prisons because my guess is 95% of people eligible for selective services would rather go to prison than into the military. I don't think they will ever be able to man an army with the draft ever again.
RblDiver
12-04-2015, 14:06
As for the selective service, how well do you think the special snowflakes in Academia right now would deal with being drafted, regardless of their gender?
I think all would get an exemption for clear mental illness.
JohnnyDrama
12-04-2015, 14:11
This thread is hilarious.
@Skip, post 41, plus one.
Speaking of selective service, wasn't that what sank the ERA back in the mid 90s?
I'll also add it's not "mens" job to "protect" women from (torture, rape, execution, blah blah blah). They are responsible for their own choices, and all of those atrocities happen in the great U.S. of A. Maybe you just don't notice them. Wisdom has given me the capacity to see past emotions....so I'll say this flatly. I honestly think an ISIS execution of a female POW would have mostly positive ramifications for our country. (While obviously horrific to the individual). Want a solution to that problem in the first place? Don't let yourself be taken prisoner. It's worked in the past and makes you fight harder or... fall on the sword if you don't want your death publicized.
At any rate, it is no reason to deny someone the choice of careers or the choice to fight and die. The mathematical probability alone - it would be no different than denying someone a career as an Alaska state trooper because they *MIGHT* get raped by a moose while a tourist films it, which would look bad for Alaska...
It's not mens job behind the veneer of Western Civilization where the odds and severity are fixed.
Create a scenario without those boundaries and I think we'll have a problem with the realities. ISIS doesn't execute people and take sex slaves because it works against them. They know their audience better than the audience knows itself. ISIS using "assault rifles" in Paris/CA is no accident either. We are a civilization that can't even execute murderers for the most henious crimes. What happens if horrible things play in front of the hand wringers? They vote!
This is the very phenomenon that gave us Obama; the politicization of war in Iraq/Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=foxtrot;1935940]I'll also add it's not "mens" job to "protect" women from (torture, rape, execution, blah blah blah
Yes, it is. So... Na Na Na. We will have to agree to disagree here.
Specifically, in regards to a woman in the service who was captured after she chose to go fight, then no. Generally, if you see a man beating a woman, you wouldn't think it was a duty to stop it if it was within your power?
Female POWs won't just be taken hostage and quietly abused/executed. It will be on YouTube/Liveleak for all to see and used as propaganda. If you haven't seen the ISIS vids, then I would suggest you do so. Not to turn your stomach but to understand how the enemy has changed.
The only thing that has changed is their production value. They've always been this barbaric.
The only thing that has changed is their production value. They've always been this barbaric.
I agree completely but their barbarism has delayed their entry into the info space. Now that has changed and based on some of the sickening videos I have seen, I believe they alter their plans/methods based on shock value in the video.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.