More Woman Sue to Serve in Combat....

phobicsquirrel

http://news.yahoo.com/female-military-members-sue-serve-combat-192246975.html

I don't get it. I mean ever since I encountered my first pt test I was amazed at how woman could pass with more lax standards. Even when I went through courses one would think would be "combat" related woman were passing but with more lax standards. I was more than miffed. But some woman want to serve in units on the front lines but I don't see them pushing for the same standards as men and I don't see them fighting to make woman register when they turn 18 like men.

Rain

I was all for women in Combat Arms before I joined. All I can say is, from the females I've served with...most of them would not make it in Combat Arms. Trying to be objective, I'm not sure that it stops them from advancing...I've had several female officers above me. Are there as many female officers as male officers? Nope. Maybe because women make up 14%ish of the military?

marineatbn03

I think they should try it, just to finally put this to bed. But when they do, the females must pass all the same tests at the same standards as the men. I have known a few females in the military that could pass the physical fitness standards, but I think the biggest problem is the gender mix. It is going to create a distraction. The way I know this is when I worked at The Basic School, an officer training school. We used to opfor the new Lt's and they were mixed gender classes. On more than one occassion we snuck up and attacked the Lt's only to find some humping in the fighting hole going on.

beatnic

This article suggests that women aren't signing up.

link
<br.This article suggests that women aren't signing up.

webmost

1) Women's lib appears to always have been fueled by a sexist assumption -- the assumption that those things men traditionally do are inherently better than those things women traditionally do. There's no better example than this one. It is far more noble to create life than to take it. The world does not become a better place when the pool of people who may shove a bayonet doubles.

2) Not only is there a disparity in standards, but there is also a disparity in risk. For example: A captured woman can expect to get gang banged. Unless we go to war with Turkey, that's not about to happen to a captured man. This disparity then spreads risk to others. Look how many men were risked to rescue Jessica from the hospital in Baghdad. Optimum efficiency requires minimum distraction.

Amos_Umwhat

webmost:

Optimum efficiency requires minimum distraction.

Exactly.
That being said, if it is to be, I would opt for all same-sex units.
I remember one female tank mechanic, in particular, that stood out. Did her job, no fooling around, very capable. There are women who I believe could "do" combat, but probably not most.
Another thing to consider is: How will the enemy respond? By this I mean, will they surrender to females? Or, would they rather fight to the death than suffer such an 'indignity'?
In short, the mission comes first, politics should be the very last consideration in a legitimate military question.

.

beatnic

Its' been proven that women are better mothers than men. I don't see men lining up to sue anybody for that.

phobicsquirrel

webmost:

1) Women's lib appears to always have been fueled by a sexist assumption -- the assumption that those things men traditionally do are inherently better than those things women traditionally do. There's no better example than this one. It is far more noble to create life than to take it. The world does not become a better place when the pool of people who may shove a bayonet doubles.

2) Not only is there a disparity in standards, but there is also a disparity in risk. For example: A captured woman can expect to get gang banged. Unless we go to war with Turkey, that's not about to happen to a captured man. This disparity then spreads risk to others. Look how many men were risked to rescue Jessica from the hospital in Baghdad. Optimum efficiency requires minimum distraction.

lol, I do this not to make fun of the act happening but because you are right. though I do think that happened to that jessica lynch who got taken in Iraq or something like that. But there was also that contractor lady who was locked up by other contractors in a cargo box who was brutally raped.

skweekz

phobicsquirrel:

webmost:

1) Women's lib appears to always have been fueled by a sexist assumption -- the assumption that those things men traditionally do are inherently better than those things women traditionally do. There's no better example than this one. It is far more noble to create life than to take it. The world does not become a better place when the pool of people who may shove a bayonet doubles.

2) Not only is there a disparity in standards, but there is also a disparity in risk. For example: A captured woman can expect to get gang banged. Unless we go to war with Turkey, that's not about to happen to a captured man. This disparity then spreads risk to others. Look how many men were risked to rescue Jessica from the hospital in Baghdad. Optimum efficiency requires minimum distraction.

lol, I do this not to make fun of the act happening but because you are right. though I do think that happened to that jessica lynch who got taken in Iraq or something like that. But there was also that contractor lady who was locked up by other contractors in a cargo box who was brutally raped.

It was eventually found that Jessica Lynch was never raped, slapped, beaten or tortured. She was actually protected in a hospital in a city in the southern part of Iraq called Nasiriyah.

phobicsquirrel

well that's good. some where I heard she was but glad that didn't happen.

marineatbn03

skweekz:

phobicsquirrel:

webmost:

1) Women's lib appears to always have been fueled by a sexist assumption -- the assumption that those things men traditionally do are inherently better than those things women traditionally do. There's no better example than this one. It is far more noble to create life than to take it. The world does not become a better place when the pool of people who may shove a bayonet doubles.

2) Not only is there a disparity in standards, but there is also a disparity in risk. For example: A captured woman can expect to get gang banged. Unless we go to war with Turkey, that's not about to happen to a captured man. This disparity then spreads risk to others. Look how many men were risked to rescue Jessica from the hospital in Baghdad. Optimum efficiency requires minimum distraction.

lol, I do this not to make fun of the act happening but because you are right. though I do think that happened to that jessica lynch who got taken in Iraq or something like that. But there was also that contractor lady who was locked up by other contractors in a cargo box who was brutally raped.

It was eventually found that Jessica Lynch was never raped, slapped, beaten or tortured. She was actually protected in a hospital in a city in the southern part of Iraq called Nasiriyah.

This is true, she was treated rather well, and the rescue was a joke. She was barely even guarded, everyone else was busy fighting my guys as we were getting slaughtered. The rest of her convoy that we found had it far worse than she did.

[Deleted User]

It's always been my opinion that matters such as these should not be be decided upon by people not directly affected by the decision. Who am I as civilian to tell those in the military who should fight and who shouldn't when I have no direct knowledge of the implications this would or wouldn't cause?

beatnic

james40:

It's always been my opinion that matters such as these should not be be decided upon by people not directly affected by the decision. Who am I as civilian to tell those in the military who should fight and who shouldn't when I have no direct knowledge of the implications this would or wouldn't cause?

I would agree. Let the military decide.

webmost

beatnic:

james40:

It's always been my opinion that matters such as these should not be be decided upon by people not directly affected by the decision. Who am I as civilian to tell those in the military who should fight and who shouldn't when I have no direct knowledge of the implications this would or wouldn't cause?

I would agree. Let the military decide.

Yeah, that ain't happening. This is just the kind of trigger sets off our plague of social engineers.

raisindot

james40:

It's always been my opinion that matters such as these should not be be decided upon by people not directly affected by the decision. Who am I as civilian to tell those in the military who should fight and who shouldn't when I have no direct knowledge of the implications this would or wouldn't cause?

With all due respect, sir, this is exactly the same argument the military used when opposing the integration of the armed forces, and those who opposed integration used many of the same excuses--blacks weren't smart enough or brave enough to fight; mixing black and white soldiers in units would cause distractions and decrease their effectiveness, etc. It took a civilian--President Harry Truman--to force the military to embrace the 20th century, and it only took one war--Korea--to demonstrate that integrating the military was a total non-issue. Today, no one thinks twice about men of different ethnic backgrounds fighting in combat together, and it's probably been one of the strongest strategies used to break down racial barriers in the U.S. The bravery and valor of gay soldiers in recent conflicts has made the long-held and now ended discriminatory practices against them a moot issue as well. Who knows--in ten years, people may question why women were disallowed from combat roles as well.

Rain

raisindot:

james40:

It's always been my opinion that matters such as these should not be be decided upon by people not directly affected by the decision. Who am I as civilian to tell those in the military who should fight and who shouldn't when I have no direct knowledge of the implications this would or wouldn't cause?

With all due respect, sir, this is exactly the same argument the military used when opposing the integration of the armed forces, and those who opposed integration used many of the same excuses--blacks weren't smart enough or brave enough to fight; mixing black and white soldiers in units would cause distractions and decrease their effectiveness, etc. It took a civilian--President Harry Truman--to force the military to embrace the 20th century, and it only took one war--Korea--to demonstrate that integrating the military was a total non-issue. Today, no one thinks twice about men of different ethnic backgrounds fighting in combat together, and it's probably been one of the strongest strategies used to break down racial barriers in the U.S. The bravery and valor of gay soldiers in recent conflicts has made the long-held and now ended discriminatory practices against them a moot issue as well. Who knows--in ten years, people may question why women were disallowed from combat roles as well.

My team leader in Iraq was a gay male, we never had a problem. I made it clear to him from the start that I was not gay, and he respected it. We had a great relationship, both at work and off duty (haha, no jokes!). I respected his lifestyle, and he respected mine. Obviously, if either one of has had pushed the issue, the results could have been bad.