• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women in the Military

Solace

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
685
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Most people aren't aware of this, but the United States women are not allowed in combat roles in the military. They are limited to non-combat roles, such as driving vehicles, establishing bases, and engineering, just to name a few. I for one am against this, I believe that women are every-bit as capable as men. Sure, most women may be physically weaker than most men, and sure it's possible they could go on their period in the middle of a mission, or a relationship may form between two soldiers, add on to that that males are often more protective of women than they are of other men, and terrorists like to torture females more than they do males (including rape and sexual abuse), plus terrorists think of women as inferior and are less likely to surrender to a female than they would a male.

Despite these "drawbacks," I'm still completely for full rights for women serving in the US military. What are your thoughts on this?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Most people aren't aware of this, but the United States women are not allowed in combat roles in the military. They are limited to non-combat roles, such as driving vehicles, establishing bases, and engineering, just to name a few. I for one am against this, I believe that women are every-bit as capable as men. Sure, most women may be physically weaker than most men, and sure it's possible they could go on their period in the middle of a mission, or a relationship may form between two soldiers, add on to that that males are often more protective of women than they are of other men, and terrorists like to torture females more than they do males (including rape and sexual abuse), plus terrorists think of women as inferior and are less likely to surrender to a female than they would a male.

Despite these "drawbacks," I'm still completely for full rights for women serving in the US military. What are your thoughts on this?

The only thing that matters is, "How will it effect our fighting forces?"

Strength and endurance: The 'average man' is stronger than the 'average woman.' This is a big, huge deal.
Morale: Women and the drama that can happen around them can be a pain in the ass.
Physical: Yeah, monthly mensus is a problem...even in the comfort of one's own home. So are the mood swings. Get a bunch of women in the same company, they all start cycling together, PMS becomes a WMD.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The only thing that matters is, "How will it effect our fighting forces?"

Strength and endurance: The 'average man' is stronger than the 'average woman.' This is a big, huge deal.
Morale: Women and the drama that can happen around them can be a pain in the ass.
Physical: Yeah, monthly mensus is a problem...even in the comfort of one's own home. So are the mood swings. Get a bunch of women in the same company, they all start cycling together, PMS becomes a WMD.

If I didn't already know, I wouldn't be able to tell you are a woman from your post. Its very sexist.

Equality is equality. Do you want it? I guess not.


You must know that there is no need for a period (or the - drum roll - dreaded PMS) with modern birth control pills. And drama is not a female-exclusive phenomenon. I work for a company where the males create drama regularly. Some of them seem to live for it.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The only thing that matters is, "How will it effect our fighting forces?"

Strength and endurance: The 'average man' is stronger than the 'average woman.' This is a big, huge deal.
Morale: Women and the drama that can happen around them can be a pain in the ass.
Physical: Yeah, monthly mensus is a problem...even in the comfort of one's own home. So are the mood swings. Get a bunch of women in the same company, they all start cycling together, PMS becomes a WMD.

Shows what you know. If you think male soldiers are free of drama, what with all the family problems, money problems, car problems, child problems, divorce and marriage problems, training problems, etc etc etc. Basically anything that's part of life, can and will become drama for soldiers.

Also find any female MP or truck driver and tell them that they can't do a combat job, they'll show you just how badly a woman can mess you up.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
While women are technically barred from "combat roles", the fact is they end up in combat sometimes anyway. War has changed, and there are no "front lines" and "rear areas" anymore. At least, not like in WW2.

Having said that, I think the only viable measure to decide this is: "how will it effect our combat forces?" I haven't seen any good studies done by the military on this, so I have no strong opinion.

My only caveat is that no allowance should be made for women in meeting the standards required for placement in a combat unit. If acceptance to a given unit requires you to load up 100 pounds of gear and march 20 miles in 12 hours, then everyone accepted into that unit should be able to do exactly that regardless of their plumbing. Men who don't meet the established standard don't get into the unit; it should be the same for women, and the standard should not be adjusted for them.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If I didn't already know, I wouldn't be able to tell you are a woman from your post. Its very sexist.

Equality is equality. Do you want it? I guess not.

Yeah, I want equality. But equality in all things isn't possible. IMO, women in combat would be a detriment to our forces in the field.

You must know that there is no need for a period (or the - drum roll - dreaded PMS) with modern birth control pills. And drama is not a female-exclusive phenomenon. I work for a company where the males create drama regularly. Some of them seem to live for it.

If one chooses to take those pills.

Shows what you know. If you think male soldiers are free of drama, what with all the family problems, money problems, car problems, child problems, divorce and marriage problems, training problems, etc etc etc. Basically anything that's part of life, can and will become drama for soldiers.

Also find any female MP or truck driver and tell them that they can't do a combat job, they'll show you just how badly a woman can mess you up.

I'll change my opinion in a heartbeat. As soon as our military changes theirs.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
While women are technically barred from "combat roles", the fact is they end up in combat sometimes anyway. War has changed, and there are no "front lines" and "rear areas" anymore. At least, not like in WW2.

Having said that, I think the only viable measure to decide this is: "how will it effect our combat forces?" I haven't seen any good studies done by the military on this, so I have no strong opinion.

My only caveat is that no allowance should be made for women in meeting the standards required for placement in a combat unit. If acceptance to a given unit requires you to load up 100 pounds of gear and march 20 miles in 12 hours, then everyone accepted into that unit should be able to do exactly that regardless of their plumbing. Men who don't meet the established standard don't get into the unit; it should be the same for women, and the standard should not be adjusted for them.

What is the danger of dumbing down the standards if women are to be regularly destined for combat? Who does that hurt?
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Most people aren't aware of this, but the United States women are not allowed in combat roles in the military. They are limited to non-combat roles, such as driving vehicles, establishing bases, and engineering, just to name a few. I for one am against this, I believe that women are every-bit as capable as men. Sure, most women may be physically weaker than most men, and sure it's possible they could go on their period in the middle of a mission, or a relationship may form between two soldiers, add on to that that males are often more protective of women than they are of other men, and terrorists like to torture females more than they do males (including rape and sexual abuse), plus terrorists think of women as inferior and are less likely to surrender to a female than they would a male.

Despite these "drawbacks," I'm still completely for full rights for women serving in the US military. What are your thoughts on this?




contradiction, no?
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yeah, I want equality. But equality in all things isn't possible. IMO, women in combat would be a detriment to our forces in the field.

Like Goshin said, equality is the able men and the able women go into combat. You are saying women in combat are a detriment, period.

(No pun intended with the period)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Like oshin said, equality is the able men and the able women go into combat. You are saying women in combat are a detriment, period.

(No pun intended with the period)

If our military deems women to be an asset in combat roles, then I'm sure going to be okay with it. The only opinion that matters in this discussion is the opinion of guys who've been in combat, IMO. But my instincts tell me that the 'average woman' would be anything but an asset in the field.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If our military deems women to be an asset in combat roles, then I'm sure going to be okay with it. The only opinion that matters in this discussion is the opinion of guys who've been in combat, IMO. But my instincts tell me that the 'average woman' would be anything but an asset in the field.


The average woman, yes. The average man isn't so hot either. Those who are posted to combat arms are typically a bit more capable than average though.... if they weren't before training, they certainly are afterwards.

I think that leaving the standards as they are would mean that the large majority of women don't quality for most combat-arms postings. Some would qualify... if it doesn't negatively impact military readiness, then I don't really care.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If our military deems women to be an asset in combat roles, then I'm sure going to be okay with it. The only opinion that matters in this discussion is the opinion of guys who've been in combat, IMO. But my instincts tell me that the 'average woman' would be anything but an asset in the field.

But sometimes the military has to be forced to do what is right, blacks in the military and women in the military in any capacity, for instance.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What is the danger of dumbing down the standards if women are to be regularly destined for combat? Who does that hurt?


Was that irony?


Lowering the standards would mean less capable soldiers, of course. Maintaining them would mean that all soldiers have to MEET the standard, regardless of of their genitalia.

If all soldiers meet the standards, then the only questions are what effects mixed units would have on the psychological and morale issues. That question is one I don't feel adequately informed to address.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But sometimes the military has to be forced to do what is right, blacks in the military and women in the military in any capacity, for instance.


The military isn't about doing what it "right", it is about effectively fighting wars.

"Right" only comes into play when the issue won't affect military readiness.

To me that is the only debate: will women in combat negatively impact readiness?

I admit I don't know for sure.
 

Solace

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
685
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The military isn't about doing what it "right", it is about effectively fighting wars.

"Right" only comes into play when the issue won't affect military readiness.

To me that is the only debate: will women in combat negatively impact readiness?

I admit I don't know for sure.

He has a point about blacks though. They weren't typically allowed to serve too much (though they did in the Revolution, Civil War, and just about every other war in limited roles).
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,228
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Males and females are each better at different things.

Generally, women are not well suited for infantry duty.

In the art of warfare, it is essential to utilize the different qualities of each sex in an optimal manner.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Most people aren't aware of this, but the United States women are not allowed in combat roles in the military. They are limited to non-combat roles, such as driving vehicles, establishing bases, and engineering, just to name a few. I for one am against this, I believe that women are every-bit as capable as men. Sure, most women may be physically weaker than most men, and sure it's possible they could go on their period in the middle of a mission, or a relationship may form between two soldiers, add on to that that males are often more protective of women than they are of other men, and terrorists like to torture females more than they do males (including rape and sexual abuse), plus terrorists think of women as inferior and are less likely to surrender to a female than they would a male.

Despite these "drawbacks," I'm still completely for full rights for women serving in the US military. What are your thoughts on this?

I'm all for women in combat so long as they adhere to the same standards that men must adhered to when it comes to physical strength, birth control, behavior and mannerism, self-sufficiency, tactical and other abilities. (yes, I said physical - a minority of women are on the same physical level as men - thus - why prevent them from serving if they could purely be a benefit?)

Equality is equality - tits or no tits.

The majority of women can't cut it in this fashion - but the few who can ARE in the thick of things as they should be.

Those women *and men* who cant cut it simply don't make it - and would someone really want another who *didn't quite cut it* to be *there anyway?* - I say no.

But your concern of rape is ridiculous - it's not a woman's fault that some men can't keep it in their pants :shrug: I don't feel that those who are maltreated (in general - not just in particular to women and the issue of rape) should be limited because of how *others mistreat them.* - Nor should said rapists get a pass because of their rank or station in their platoon, etc. They should get the BOOT out - if they want to STAY in they should behave and control their selves. The majority of militant training has to do with CONTROLLING yourself: you fear, emotion, nature's call to piss and ****, and your shakes and hams. . . it's all about control. If someone can't control some primitive urges then do you WANT them to be actually making more serious and life-altering decisions for others? I, again, say no.

The only reason why rape continues to be a problem in the ranks is because it's just ignored and not attacked head-on seriously for the crime that it is. . . it's very wishy-washy and instead of proactively preventing it, the military chooses to just try to avoid it by denying some very capable women the position they've earned (combat).

And the notion that we should consider *our enemies* consideration, lack or respect or possible maltreatment of OUR soldiers is idiocracy and you know it. THEY should have no sway over our forces: how we man our troops, how we dispatch arm and detail out service-duties.

The very suggestion that our enemies are being taken into consideration is absolute nonsense - anyone who abides by this line of thought needs a bottle, bib and a burp.
 
Last edited:

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Males and females are each better at different things.

Generally, women are not well suited for infantry duty.

In the art of warfare, it is essential to utilize the different qualities of each sex in an optimal manner.

Generally, yes. But I think the argument is the able women should be allowed to serve as infantry, just as only the able men are.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,731
Reaction score
16,428
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Generally, yes. But I think the argument is the able women should be allowed to serve as infantry, just as only the able men are.

What if there is only one able bodies female in the whole entire infantry battalion(A,B,C,D, and headquarters companies) and she is of low rank? Does she get her own room? Her own barracks floor? Her own latrine in barracks that have gang latrines? I would think this would create a lot of resentment and accusations of favoritism. Do you we just have a coed barracks and rooms? Before you suggest that the only able bodies females to get in a infantry unit would be diesel dykes and therefore no guy would try to get with her then you have never heard of deployment goggles. Similar to beer goggles but instead of excessive drinking making a ugly chick look better its being away from the normal population of females for a certian period of time that makes ugly chicks look hot.
 
Last edited:

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What if there is only one able bodies female in the whole entire infantry battalion(A,B,C,D, and headquarters companies) and she is of low rank? Does she get her own room? Her own barracks floor? Her own latrine in barracks that have gang latrines? I would think this would create a lot of resentment and accusations of favoritism. Do you we just have a coed barracks and rooms? Before you suggest that the only able bodies females to get in a infantry unit would be diesel dykes and therefore no guy would try to get with her then you have never heard of deployment goggles. Similar to beer goggles but instead of excessive drinking making a ugly chick look better its being away from the normal population of females for a certian period of time that makes ugly chicks look hot.


Inelegantly put, but there is a point to the special-accomodations thing.

Do we need to just get over gender-segregation in the military, and say pointers and setters use the same fireplug, the same shower, and live in the same barracks? Will that cause problems?

The military Tashah serves in has probably the longest history of utilizing female soldiers in combat, maybe she can weigh in on that aspect.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What if there is only one able bodies female in the whole entire infantry battalion(A,B,C,D, and headquarters companies) and she is of low rank? Does she get her own room? Her own barracks floor? Her own latrine in barracks that have gang latrines? I would think this would create a lot of resentment and accusations of favoritism. Do you we just have a coed barracks and rooms? Before you suggest that the only able bodies females to get in a infantry unit would be diesel dykes and therefore no guy would try to get with her then you have never heard of deployment goggles. Similar to beer goggles but instead of excessive drinking making a ugly chick look better its being away from the normal population of females for a certian period of time that makes ugly chicks look hot.

There are all kinds of excuses to justify anything you want to justify. Don't know exactly when this changed, but blacks in the Navy were only allowed to serve as messmen in early WWII.

Course, black fighter pilots were trained as a part of the Army Air Force, but only at a segregated base, so maybe you do have a point regarding 'special accomodations...'
 

WI Crippler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
15,427
Reaction score
9,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Women who are a part of ground forces should be trained in small arms maneuvers, marksmanship, and required to maintain acceptable levels of physical conditioning. The US Marines already requires this of their female members by sending them to a 3-4 week basic rifleman course after boot camp where they go to the field and learn how to do these very basic infantry skills, amongst other things. This leaves them better prepared than their US Army counterparts who don't know how to behave when lead starts flying(see Jessica Lynch).

However, women should not serve in infantry roles because they are not as expendable as men. The majority of casualty comes from "frontline" units that are exposed to heavy fire and sometimes indirect friendly fire. Men are expendable. A society that willingly sends its potential mothers to the frontlines out of some misguided notion of "equality" is setting itself up for failure, or is at the end stage of self preservation. in the former example, it is my opinion that a woman taking the spot of an otherwise able bodied man is a waste(and in the latter it is acceptable). Not because I believe the female would be unable to perform, but because a healthy, growing, society needs women in greater numbers than it needs men. simplified, a unit of 10 men goes to war, and 3 come back alive to 10 women. There are 10 potential children that can be born. If you send a unit with 5 men and 5 women, and only 2 women come back, thats 2 potential children that can be born.

This country is already experiencing declining birthrates, putting women into infantry roles would be foolish IMO.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Women who are a part of ground forces should be trained in small arms maneuvers, marksmanship, and required to maintain acceptable levels of physical conditioning. The US Marines already requires this of their female members by sending them to a 3-4 week basic rifleman course after boot camp where they go to the field and learn how to do these very basic infantry skills, amongst other things. This leaves them better prepared than their US Army counterparts who don't know how to behave when lead starts flying(see Jessica Lynch).

How about we just train everyone equally - and then put them were they prove *on an individual basis* to function the best.

Once they opened all sections of the service to blacks (or others) did they divide them based on pre-existing assumptions of mental capacity? No - it took a while but when the walls of equality were finaly overcome there was *no* existing barries to positions held and training given.

However, women should not serve in infantry roles because they are not as expendable as men. The majority of casualty comes from "frontline" units that are exposed to heavy fire and sometimes indirect friendly fire. Men are expendable.

A soldier of any position (private, corporal or sergeant) is FAR MORE than mere expendable cannon fodder. The military has changed - a lot - and many people carry far more roles in their military careers than "stand here - shoot there" . . it's actually offensive to all servicemen and women that you think of it on such a basic, brutish and tripe level.

A society that willingly sends its potential mothers to the front-lines out of some misguided notion of "equality" is setting itself up for failure, or is at the end stage of self preservation.

What about a society that sends it's potential fathers to the front-lines out of some misguided notion of freedom or world-peace assurance is really setting itself up for failure?

If you knew women the way I know women you wouldn't be encouraging HALF of them to pro-create.
Likewise can be said about men.

in the former example, it is my opinion that a woman taking the spot of an otherwise able bodied man is a waste(and in the latter it is acceptable). Not because I believe the female would be unable to perform, but because a healthy, growing, society needs women in greater numbers than it needs men. simplified, a unit of 10 men goes to war, and 3 come back alive to 10 women. There are 10 potential children that can be born. If you send a unit with 5 men and 5 women, and only 2 women come back, thats 2 potential children that can be born.

This country is already experiencing declining birthrates, putting women into infantry roles would be foolish IMO.

This country is experiencing declining birthrates?
Hah yeah sure - we're really going to suffer because we're not cranking them out one right after the other. :roll: (see Andrea Yates)

Our societal troubles actually can be pointed to the fact that we have TOO MANY people - not to some false thought that we're not birthing enough.

I think you're holding the purpose of the ***** and the value of the vulva TOO damn high . . . bring it down a few notches - it's not THAT big of a good-deal. You're undervaluing the role of the father and the male in society and family life and overvaluing your biased view of the role of the female in society and family life.

My husband is an important person in our family. When he's deployed - for a lengthy stent or a short muster - the kids miss him. Things unravel a bit. Everyday issues become harder to sort through. It's obvious when he's gone - he's a strong center that we all rely on. To undercut his worth in our family in order to overemphasize my "role in society" is misguided and obtuse. We both carry the weight equally - we're just better at some things than at others. And things would be EXACTLY the same if I was in the air-force (as I tried to become years ago) and if I had to deploy and if he chose to relent his military career as was the plan in the past.

Society doesn't suffer *any* when women deploy - you just think it does.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
WI Crippler . . . thinking of your post, again (too late to just edit my previous post to add in these thoughts) I'm actually unsure of where you stand.

You claim that "deploying women would decline birth-rate" . . . but you also say "Women who are a part of ground forces should be trained in small arms maneuvers, marksmanship, and required to maintain acceptable levels of physical conditioning."

Well you can't have one view and then have the other - if they're IN the military in any way - they WILL likely deploy. :shrug:
And not all deployment missions are OVERSEAS to a combat zone, either. A vast majority of what many people are sent off to do ranges from disaster-relief to charting and exploring new terrain (depending on which branch or unit one serves in).

Yet ALL of these people are likely to be in the occasional or frequent combat-setting. Even doctors, nurses, and lab technicians can face combat environments.
So your stance would only make sense if its all or nothing - not even female doctors, cooks in the mess hall or laundry service.

When this was the case in WWII all the women back home were gainfully employed to fill the void and it actually led to situations *away* from your pro-gender roles stance. Women were all home - yet society did suffer anyway :shrug: So much for that buffer getting things smoothed out.

The point, then, is to note that WAR JUST ****S EVERYTHING UP and throws off the balance of a society.

On that note - it's becoming more common to permit injured veterans to rejoin - and even redeploy - after recovering from serious injuries - including ones that resulted with false limbs. . .if it's acceptable in that arena then why stop there?
 
Last edited:

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What if there is only one able bodies female in the whole entire infantry battalion(A,B,C,D, and headquarters companies) and she is of low rank? Does she get her own room? Her own barracks floor? Her own latrine in barracks that have gang latrines? I would think this would create a lot of resentment and accusations of favoritism. Do you we just have a coed barracks and rooms? Before you suggest that the only able bodies females to get in a infantry unit would be diesel dykes and therefore no guy would try to get with her then you have never heard of deployment goggles. Similar to beer goggles but instead of excessive drinking making a ugly chick look better its being away from the normal population of females for a certian period of time that makes ugly chicks look hot.

The same way they handle all the other co-ed branches of the military and Army.
 
Top Bottom