Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, I don't understand when you say they are not recognized or compensated. Compensated how? Not recognized how?
A combat zone is exactly that. A zone, marked on the map. If you are inside the lines, you draw combat pay, regardless of your rank, gender, job, etc. Inside, pay, outside no pay.
If you are inside a combat zone for 24 hours or more, you draw combat pay for the entire month, and you are tax exempt.
Combat pay is actually called Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay. These are the rules:
"A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:
Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action;
or
On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.
Note: Reserve members are also eligible for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay."
I could understand a women not being able to fulfill certain billets due to not being in combat, however, if they were inside the lines, they got paid for it.
Note: Isn't it great to get a whole $225 per month to engage the enemy and possibly get killed?
There is more to compensation than just pay.
"By eliminating the 1994 direct ground combat exclusion for women, the Pentagon paves the way for women to advance into military leadership positions that would have required combat hours. By putting military policies in place that credit when such combat service has been given, for the first time in U.S. history the path to the top will be accessible to women and gender will no longer be an obstacle."
I mean seriously.. Let's be honest. Do you honestly think that most women cant pass the physical testing (same as the men) carry around 70 plus pounds, stay out on missions for several days, handle a massive assault rifle etc... What is the benefit of having females serve in combat roles when A) most wont be able to handle it anyways and B) it will inevitably cause a disturbance within the unit?
Wars have been fought for thousands of years without females.. Let me ask you. Do you honestly think that women who received the same training as men could have stormed the beaches of Normandy sucessfully against a wall of German/French/Czech/Italian men, tanks and artillery?
There are a lot of men and women who cannot pass the physical requirements of military service, much less the rigors of combat. There should only be one standard, one set of requirements, and all those who meet that standard and pass those requirements should be allowed to serve in combat positions, regardless of their gender.
As a Marine who served 8 years on active duty, I would have absolutely no problem with anyone who underwent the exact same training I had to endure, be they male or female. They would have the exact same amount of respect because they would have earned it. If a male or female did not have to meet the same standards and requirements I had to meet, they would not deserve any respect.
I would love to hear about a successful women expiditionary force. Also would you be able to explain how women will be able to carry over hundred pounds of gear for days on end with lower bone density. Maybe you could explain how to mitigate all the female hygien issues that arise without taking showers for prolonged periods of time.
I would live to hear of America defeating an integrated army.
Just once?
Oh wait... The VC and North Koreans smoked us didn't they?
There are MANY examples of female warriors from thousands of years ago to recently.
Your inability to consider it says note about you than anything else. I know women that could out march you, out shoot you and out carry you.
Sure, most women can't but there are those that can. Hell, many men couldn't hump the weight we had in airborne school.
As to hygiene issues, how do the Russians, Syrians, Israelis and the many latin american countries that have female warriors handle it?
I already said that Women in the military are valuable. They are just not suited for combat.
I have nothing against women in the military, in fact I know that the military is stronger with them. But don't try to tell me you can insert a female into a frontline combat unit and not put someone in danger.
When I was in the military, 1974-1992, we had a problem called "Little sister syndrom".
My age group was taught manners differently then they are today. We were taught to never swear in front of a female, always open the door, put the women on a pedastal, treat them much different then a guy. This would cause trouble, say there are 5 guys in foxholes and one woman. Each person is assigned a sector to watch. The problem was you now had one woman watching her sector, and 5 guys dividing their time between their assigned sector, her sector, and her. Hence, you had 5 guys not doing their job, but instead, making sure the woman was protected. The woman wasn't important, the hill was important. But our whole life we were taught that you protect females like every one of them were your sister.
So the idea of women in combat was insane. But later generations aren't taught the same way. Everybody wants equality. Women today can open their own doors. Women today will cuss people out as well as a drunken sailor. It's a whole new generation. A whole new set of ideals.
I do think that women can operate in combat. Not every woman, but the majority can. Infantry training will weed out the ones that can't. The rest can do their job just as well as any man can. You no longer have women jumping on the counter and screaming because there is a spider on the floor. "Quick, somebody kill it". It's a whole new life out there.
Today, when a woman talks to me about "We demand equal pay, equal opportunity." I ask them, "Would you go into combat with me?" Some say, "That's different, absolutely not." Others say, "Damn right I would." The second group are the ones that enlist, knowing fully well that it's going to be tough.
When I was in the military, 1974-1992, we had a problem called "Little sister syndrom".
My age group was taught manners differently then they are today. We were taught to never swear in front of a female, always open the door, put the women on a pedastal, treat them much different then a guy. This would cause trouble, say there are 5 guys in foxholes and one woman. Each person is assigned a sector to watch. The problem was you now had one woman watching her sector, and 5 guys dividing their time between their assigned sector, her sector, and her. Hence, you had 5 guys not doing their job, but instead, making sure the woman was protected. The woman wasn't important, the hill was important. But our whole life we were taught that you protect females like every one of them were your sister.
So the idea of women in combat was insane. But later generations aren't taught the same way. Everybody wants equality. Women today can open their own doors. Women today will cuss people out as well as a drunken sailor. It's a whole new generation. A whole new set of ideals.
I do think that women can operate in combat. Not every woman, but the majority can. Infantry training will weed out the ones that can't. The rest can do their job just as well as any man can. You no longer have women jumping on the counter and screaming because there is a spider on the floor. "Quick, somebody kill it". It's a whole new life out there.
Today, when a woman talks to me about "We demand equal pay, equal opportunity." I ask them, "Would you go into combat with me?" Some say, "That's different, absolutely not." Others say, "Damn right I would." The second group are the ones that enlist, knowing fully well that it's going to be tough.
If that was true I would not be killing spiders every day.
You no longer have women jumping on the counter and screaming because there is a spider on the floor. "Quick, somebody kill it". It's a whole new life out there.
I served in the Marine Corps from 1972 to 1980, and providing women went through the exact same training and met the exact same requirements I had to meet, I would have absolutely no problem with them serving beside me in combat. However, Carter ensured that would never happen by lowering the standards for women in the military. By doing so he robbed women of the respect they would have achieved if they had met the same standards as men.
Courtesy is given freely, but respect must be earned.
IDK...I think women can be involved with many aspects of it, but when it comes down to charging a hill....that is best left for the big old corn fed boys.....
I don't think a 110lb 5'2" woman is gonna be the most effective at that point....
In Feinstein's world one gets promoted and the other one eats a big plate of ****.
Of course there are women who have seen combat, but serving in combat and serving in a combat arms MOS are not the same things. Are there women who could meet or even exceed the current PT standard for males? Yes. But that doesn't mean they are capable of handling everything their MOS might require. In order to integrate women into all positions there needs to be one physical standard for all events, and also the removal of separate living/hygiene areas--a move that could easily damage the good order and discipline of any unit. By creating a gender-less force, we also need to re examine the Selective Service system.
It's not a question of fair, it's a question of doing the best we possibly can to meet the mission head on and succeed. This decision does not help us do that, end of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
I served in the Marine Corps from 1972 to 1980, and providing women went through the exact same training and met the exact same requirements I had to meet, I would have absolutely no problem with them serving beside me in combat. However, Carter ensured that would never happen by lowering the standards for women in the military. By doing so he robbed women of the respect they would have achieved if they had met the same standards as men.
Courtesy is given freely, but respect must be earned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter
Today, when a woman talks to me about "We demand equal pay, equal opportunity." I ask them, "Would you go into combat with me?" Some say, "That's different, absolutely not." Others say, "Damn right I would." The second group are the ones that enlist, knowing fully well that it's going to be tough.
Agreed!
Also "Just over ten percent of women in the military said in 2008 they'd had an unintended pregnancy in the last year - a figure significantly higher than rates in the general public, according to a new study.
The findings come amid news that the Pentagon will lift the ban on women in front-line combat jobs starting in 2016.
What if these service women get pregnant? Allowing them to take a maternity leave and come back? They join the military not a fortune 500 company for crying out loud.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
