Women in the Military

[OscarB63]

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?

all other considerations aside, the fact that the average female is not as physically strong as the average male is enough to preclude them from combat roles. All that equipment, body armor, weapons, etc that you have to lug around the battlefield gets heavy in a hurry. The average female just doesn't have the strength/stamina to do it. You would be putting lives in danger because the team would have to slow down in order to let them "keep up".

HOWEVER... If they change the PT standards so that males and females are held to the same standards then the above arguement goes away. If they can do the same PT as men, they should be allowed to do the same jobs.

Basically, as long as females are given preferential treatment, via lower PT standards,...they should accept being denied access to certain, more physically challenging, jobs.

 

[Taboon]

All I know is this. There are some women in this world that could probably kick the crap out of me and I consider myself to be above average in terms of physical condition. I see no reason why a woman who has the capability to do the job should not be able to do it. I agree with others though. The standards should be the same for men and women in this role.

 

[jamesrage]

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

Coed branches of the US military are not combat troops. They are POGs. POGs do not have the same military discipline as their combat solder counterparts nor is their physical and mental standards the same as their combat solder counterparts. I never been in a POG barracks but I am pretty sure they keep the men and women separate.

Pog is a acronym for persons other than grunts.Pronounced pōg.It basically means civilians in military clothing, non-combat troops or if you are a infantry soldiers it means everybody else in the military who is not a infantry solder.

 

[cpwill]

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've fought women in the military, and i've trained women in the military. i'm here to tell you that putting on a uniform =/= 30 pounds of upper body muscle mass. i'm not saying that individual females might not be able to in particular situations handle combat well and be an assett; but i am telling you that the notion of them serving as grunts is ridiculous.

frankly, i'm in favor of moving back to Gender-segregated units, just like Boot Camp.

 

[OscarB63]

I see no reason why a woman who has the capability to do the job should not be able to do it.

In a nutshell. Set reasonable minimum physical standards for serving in combat roles. if you can meet the standards, you can serve. If not, you can drive a truck. male/female, gay/straight, whatever.

 

[jamesrage]

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...'

You are going to compare race to gender?Yeah in this case just like race gender is something you are born with. However there are physical differences between men and women. WHich is why there is the NBA and the WNBA, other sports are separated by gender and even something like golf which is not a real sport has separate men and women competitions.

 

[Wiseone]

Coed branches of the US military are not combat troops. They are POGs. POGs do not have the same military discipline as their combat solder counterparts nor is their physical and mental standards the same as their combat solder counterparts. I never been in a POG barracks but I am pretty sure they keep the men and women separate.

Pog is a acronym for persons other than grunts.Pronounced pōg.It basically means civilians in military clothing, non-combat troops or if you are a infantry soldiers it means everybody else in the military who is not a infantry solder.

Again, see branches other than combat branches that are co-ed yet still involved in combat. The biggest example is MPs, who dispute being co-ed are often sent into combat situation.

 

[OscarB63]

Again, see branches other than combat branches that are co-ed yet still involved in combat. The biggest example is MPs, who dispute being co-ed are often sent into combat situation.

yeah, we (MPs) are often sent into combat situations...but we are sent in in trucks. there is a big difference between being a gunner on a Hummer or MRAP and humping you gear around on foot like the infantry joes do.

 

[Wiseone]

yeah, we (MPs) are often sent into combat situations...but we are sent in in trucks. there is a big difference between being a gunner on a Hummer or MRAP and humping you gear around on foot like the infantry joes do.

Let me clarify, I don't believe women should be in the infantry however I do believe they are capable and have demonstrated capability in the past to handle combat situations.

 

[OscarB63]

Let me clarify, I don't believe women should be in the infantry however I do believe they are capable and have demonstrated capability in the past to handle combat situations.

that is true. there is nothing "weak" about females when it comes to handling the mental/emotional factors of being in combat. but the truth is, there are just some things that the average female is not physically strong enough to do.

I have no problem with a 120 lb female being my gunner or driver, but I would hate to have to depend on her to drag my 210 lb ass out of a building if I were to get shot.

 

[liblady]

that is true. there is nothing "weak" about females when it comes to handling the mental/emotional factors of being in combat. but the truth is, there are just some things that the average female is not physically strong enough to do.

I have no problem with a 120 lb female being my gunner or driver, but I would hate to have to depend on her to drag my 210 lb ass out of a building if I were to get shot.

agreed. physical tests are important for each gender.

 

[Paschendale]

I've never seen any proof that women can't aim a gun as well as man. Only that maybe they can't usually lift heavy stuff as well. Aren't we fortunate that we no longer use broadswords in combat?

To be more serious, there should be a simple and straightforward physical aptitude requirement to be a soldier, and to access any types of duties you want. If you pass it, you're in. Regardless of your gender, race, or any other consideration. It's the same way firefighters do it.

I also see a lot of comments about how women will bring down the morale of the unit, or will cause problems by having sex with other soldiers. Why would a well disciplined person have a problem with another person's sexual habits. I give our military personnel much more credit than that. Even if they do have sex... why is this bad? Do you really think that a unit will suddenly be less interested in fighting the enemy? Mostly I just see a lot of disrespect for women in this thread, like the belief that a woman on her period somehow cannot fight, or won't follow orders if she's PMS'ing, or that "women cause drama."

Just a lot of disrespect and unfounded supposition. Also a very entrenched male-centric perspective.

 

[OscarB63]

agreed. physical tests are important for each gender.

I think everyone who want to be in a "combat" position should have to pass the same test. set the minimum score and everyone who can make it gets in, male, female, whatever.

 

[liblady]

I think everyone who want to be in a "combat" position should have to pass the same test. set the minimum score and everyone who can make it gets in, male, female, whatever.

that's why i posted "each gender".

 

[liblady]

I've never seen any proof that women can't aim a gun as well as man. Only that maybe they can't usually lift heavy stuff as well. Aren't we fortunate that we no longer use broadswords in combat?

To be more serious, there should be a simple and straightforward physical aptitude requirement to be a soldier, and to access any types of duties you want. If you pass it, you're in. Regardless of your gender, race, or any other consideration. It's the same way firefighters do it.

I also see a lot of comments about how women will bring down the morale of the unit, or will cause problems by having sex with other soldiers. Why would a well disciplined person have a problem with another person's sexual habits. I give our military personnel much more credit than that. Even if they do have sex... why is this bad? Do you really think that a unit will suddenly be less interested in fighting the enemy? Mostly I just see a lot of disrespect for women in this thread, like the belief that a woman on her period somehow cannot fight, or won't follow orders if she's PMS'ing, or that "women cause drama."

Just a lot of disrespect and unfounded supposition. Also a very entrenched male-centric perspective.

i knew a police woman who was attacked by a teenaged kid and she ended up shooting him because she could not defend herself. he was unarmed on a bike, and she killed him. there's my argument for physical testing.

 

[OscarB63]

that's why i posted "each gender".

ah, my confusion. you see, there are already tests for "each gender" the males have one set of standards and the females have a different, lower set of standards.

I am 47 years old and am expected to be faster and stronger than a female who is half my age. I am expected to do 2 1/2 times as many push-ups as a female my age and 1 1/3 as many as a 17-21 year old female. A female my age is given 4.5 minutes longer to run two miles than I. and then I have to sit around and listen to some females complain about how they aren't treated "fairly". meh

so, there should not be a test for each gender, there should just be "a test"

 

[OscarB63]

i knew a police woman who was attacked by a teenaged kid and she ended up shooting him because she could not defend herself. he was unarmed on a bike, and she killed him. there's my argument for physical testing.

well, IMHO, any dumbass who attacks a cop deserves to get shot. :shrug: that's like sticking your hand in the fire and expecting not to get burned

 

[liblady]

ah, my confusion. you see, there are already tests for "each gender" the males have one set of standards and the females have a different, lower set of standards.

I am 47 years old and am expected to be faster and stronger than a female who is half my age. I am expected to do 2 1/2 times as many push-ups as a female my age and 1 1/3 as many as a 17-21 year old female. A female my age is given 4.5 minutes longer to run two miles than I. and then I have to sit around and listen to some females complain about how they aren't treated "fairly". meh

so, there should not be a test for each gender, there should just be "a test"

if they are not in actual combat, i think that's ok, don't you? if they are in combat, all bets are off.

 

[liblady]

well, IMHO, any dumbass who attacks a cop deserves to get shot. :shrug: that's like sticking your hand in the fire and expecting not to get burned

a man could have dealt with this particular situation differently. trust me on this.

 

[OscarB63]

a man could have dealt with this particular situation differently. trust me on this.

agreed, but that still doesn't change the fact that if you are stupid/scummy enough to attack a cop, you deserve to get shot. :shrug:

 

[OscarB63]

if they are not in actual combat, i think that's ok, don't you? if they are in combat, all bets are off.

oh yeah. if they want to be in combat, pass the same test as the guys. If they don't want to be in combat then they can keep their lower standards.

just don't bitch about it "not being fair"

 

[liblady]

oh yeah. if they want to be in combat, pass the same test as the guys. If they don't want to be in combat then they can keep their lower standards.

just don't bitch about it "not being fair"

we actually agree.

 

[WI Crippler]

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?

The nature of warfare has changed. We don't face frontlines anymore. Women who are in "non-combat" MOS need to be trained at a basic level on small arms maneuvering and fire control. If they get ambushed, they need to be adequatley prepared to return fire. However, infantry MOS face an exponentially higher risk of death and injury than non-combat MOS. in one case, the enemy has found a way to hit supply lines and "safe zones" and it is better to be able to return sufficient fire to supress your enemy. All military personell should be trained for such an event. The other instance is taking the fight to the enemy, going out with the intent to go into harms way. That is not where we need to send mothers/potential mothers. Its a completely unnecessary risk to send potential mothers into that offensive role. The reason men are more expendable, is because one man could, in theory, impregnate as many women as he could have sex with. In a simplified, drawn down scenario, in a society with 1 man and 9 women left after a war, the population could increase by 9 in one year. In a scenario where women go to combat and we return 5 men and 5 women, the reproductive capability of that society is almost halved. Women's role as the bearer of children in society is the most important role there is, and it should be protected, not casually discarded to prove "something".

 

[jamesrage]

I've never seen any proof that women can't aim a gun as well as man. Only that maybe they can't usually lift heavy stuff as well. Aren't we fortunate that we no longer use broadswords in combat?

Swords were not that heavy back then.

What Did Historical Swords Weigh?
In a brief article on swords specimens of the 15th to 16th centuries from three major museum collections, including samples from the Stibbet Museum in Florence, Dr. Timothy Dawson noted no single-hand sword weighed more than 3.5 pounds and no greatsword weighed more than 6 pounds. He concludes, “From these examples it can be seen that the ideal that medieval and Renaissance swords were heavy, clumsy objects is far from true.” (Dawson, p. 34 & 35).

These are some of the weapons a infantry soldier may carry and use depending on position and type of squad, this does not take into account the weight of the extra ammo and other gear a infantry soldier may carry.

M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Specifications (M16A2)
Weight 7.8 lb (3.5 kg) (unloaded)
8.79 lb (4.0 kg) (loaded)

M4 carbine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Specifications
Weight 5.9 lb (2.7 kg) empty
6.9 lb (3.1 kg) with 30 rounds

M249 light machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Specifications
Weight 7.5 kg (17 lb) empty,
10 kg (22 lb) loaded

AT4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Specifications
Weight 6.7 kg (14.8 lb) [4]

M240 machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Specifications
Weight 12.5 kg (27.6 lb)

FGM-148 Javelin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Specifications
Weight Missile: 11.8 kg (26 lb)[1]

 

[tryreading]

You are going to compare race to gender?Yeah in this case just like race gender is something you are born with. However there are physical differences between men and women. WHich is why there is the NBA and the WNBA, other sports are separated by gender and even something like golf which is not a real sport has separate men and women competitions.

The point was the service has to be fair to all who can serve. Black people were thought of as animals in the past, but they were not. They could do anything white people could do. And able women, who can do what average men in the infantry can do, should be offered infantry service.