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.
I see no problem with it provided that women are required to register for selective service when they turn eighteen, and that entrance into the military requires that they meet the same physical standards to which men are held.
Some women are fit for combat. Those being the ones that can pass the same PT as the men, carry the same wieght on an extended march, those who qualify with no curve. I seriously doubt that the average 125 pound female can meet these standards. Some perhaps but not the average.
Personally I don't think this has anything to do with the average female. The average female doesn't even join the military in the first place and the average military female would have no interest in even trying for a combat arms MOS. If they lower the standards and allow just any female into a combat arms MOS then I would be against it. However, I'm talking about the women who CAN handle it being given a chance.
Quote:
Close combat. I have been in close combat. It aint like AIT training. In fact in my experience basic and AIT don't begin to prepare you for the real deal.
The only thing about AIT I mentioned is that they showed both males and females the way they wanted Soldiers to work stack teams. Obviously no training is exactly like real life. However, there have been women in real close combat situations who have held their own, both in the military and in the civilian world (female cops have had to do this). There are some who can handle it, some who can't however the same can be true for men.
Quote:
I have met a few women out of the many I served with that I felt would make it on the battlefield. These women were serious bad azzes. But I can't say that even 20% that I served with would stand up to the physical stresses of combat.
I don't think anyone is talking about letting just any female become a part of these MOSs nor are they wanting to make it a 50/50 male to female ratio. The military itself isn't even at that. So IMO we're not talking about the 90+% of females who can't handle themselves on the males' levels, we're talking about the small percentage who can being given a chance to do so.
Quote:
A 125 pound female against a 170 pound lunatic hoped up on religion and hate? She better be well trained and well practiced, because most 170 men are taken to task in that situation.
There have been females who have gone up against someone crazy and bigger and been the victor. She would be well trained and well practiced (as much as anyone male or female can be until they're in the actual situation) because she'd be training right alongside the guys in these roles. And yet, the males who can't handle that same lunatic are still allowed into the combat arms MOSs.
Quote:
I am struggling with the idea of the average woman carrying a full grown man over her shoulder let alone picking him up to begin with.
Again we're not talking about the average woman here. I have seen some women able to pick up a grown man and carry him (I'm a medic and we did a lot of these carrying drills). At the same time, I saw males who couldn't. In my regular unit I've even seen infantry guys struggling to do so, yet they were still in the MOS.
So it boils down to this, should the men in a platoon be FORCED to take a female if they do not believe any female is up to the job?
It's the military, we're "forced" to do a lot of things we don't necessarily agree with or like but we deal with it anyway. It wouldn't be *any* female, it would be those who have proven that they can handle the same load. And it's not about whether they "believe" she is up to the job, it would be established before she is allowed to join. I really doubt they'll just open it up for any female to just hop in.
Quote:
Is giving a female a chance to find out that no she does not have the speed, aggression, or strength of the blokes more important than the bonding in the sections, squads, etc of the blokes?
As I said, since it's a new concept, I highly doubt that they will just allow females in who haven't already been tested to show that they can also do the job to the same standard. As for the bonding, there's no reason that has to be affected negatively. There are only 2-4 females attached to each of the combat arms units for the upcoming deployments that are including "female engagement teams" and this will still be the case when those units are on those remote outposts overseas. So far, all those in that unit still seem to be close and bonding just fine. As I've said before the higher ups made it a point to say that they don't need to act differently just because there are a couple females around and so far they haven't. Guess we'll see what this deployment brings.
Quote:
Women are owed, go count the casualties that the blokes have taken in the infantry and then mention women are owed.
Are referring to something I said (since you quoted me) because maybe I did but I don't recall using the word "owed". Being allowed to do something and being owed it are not necessarily the same. Do I think anyone owes me anything? No because to me that implies it should just be handed over and not something to be worked for. But I do think that those women who could handle it should be given a chance to show that they can. There have been casualties among women too and yes, the men in combat arms roles have suffered more of them but that's because their jobs are to do put themselves in direct danger. However, what I was commenting on was your comment about women having to be shown videos to fully understand the horrors of this war and what they're asking to be a part of. To which I say, a lot of women overseas have ALREADY been exposed to this in person. While there have been far more male combat deaths, there have been plenty of females and males right there to witness said deaths, deal with them, and continue fighting on because they have no other choice. Plenty of females who despite not having a combat arms MOS, have still been put in life or death situations all the same.
Quote:
I was amused that you ducked that test I mentioned, if you believe women could be just as capable you would have been saying they either make it or not.
Despite quoting me, I have no idea if you're talking to me with this comment because I didn't duck anything. There was no test mentioned in your comment that I was responding to, am I supposed to be commenting on every single thing you say? Whatever test you're talking about, if it's to measure whether or not they can handle themselves in an infantry type role, then yes, I believe they should have to pass in order to make it in.
Quote:
Here is where women's logic or lack of it shows up, you believe women who have less physical capability then men of sixty should be in the infantry. So I take it you believe men of sixty should have the opportunity to be in the infantry?
Apparently this is saying something about YOUR logic not mine because I never said that. If you're quoting someone else, you may want to make that more clear in the future by not just quoting me.
Quote:
If you believe infantry sergeants are sharing caring PC types you would be wrong.
Ha, where did anyone say that??! Seriously, I don't know of anyone who believes that nor should they. I think you're going under the false impression that women want or need a sharing&caring PC type Sgt. Maybe some do but I highly doubt any woman hoping to get into a combat arms MOS would. I know the Sgts I've always liked best are those not afraid to tell it like it is and never ever took it easy on me just because I'm female. They're the opposite of PC and any female interested in going into a combat arms MOS would have to do so with a thick skin.
Some women are fit for combat. Those being the ones that can pass the same PT as the men, carry the same wieght on an extended march, those who qualify with no curve.
I seriously doubt that the average 125 pound female can meet these standards. Some perhaps but not the average.
Close combat. I have been in close combat. It aint like AIT training. In fact in my experience basic and AIT don't begin to prepare you for the real deal. A few jujitsu lessons don't make you a grappler. Just as busting a few caps on the range doesn't make you a marksman.
I have met a few women out of the many I served with that I felt would make it on the battlefield. These women were serious bad azzes. But I can't say that even 20% that I served with would stand up to the physical stresses of combat. LOL Bayonet training. No it didn't begin to prepare me for that day. A 125 pound female against a 170 pound lunatic hoped up on religion and hate? She better be well trained and well practiced, because most 170 men are taken to task in that situation.
I was on a 6 man team when we walked into an ambush. At the end of that day we were carrying 2 and we were all hit pretty hard. I am struggling with the idea of the average woman carrying a full grown man over her shoulder let alone picking him up to begin with.
I mean no offence against the women who serve but there is no curve when it comes to physical realities. In other words either you can do it or you can't. The elements, gravity and the enemy won't make exceptions.
Yep, the boss made a mess one day straight into a L ambush, two wounded, went to ground, then heard the clunk as the bomb hit the pin, fixed bayonets, half of us were carrying fully auto heavy barreled FN 7.62s using thirty round Bren magazines which gave us along with the pig a lot of firepower.
They did not wait around.
My niece holds the Queen's commission with the Aussies, last time she was over she mentioned joining the infantry, so I asked her, leading a platoon of woman ?
Her answer made me laugh, no, women are not up to it
Chucked her on the scales, she was 126lb
The physical realities, loaded a couple of packs to 90LB,
Nope she could not handle that pack at all.
But this is the amusing part, she believed it was totally unfair that that load was close to her body weight yet a third of mine.
I wonder how many female army officers will be stating the loads need to be gender normed when they are in the infantry ?
It wouldn't be *any* female, it would be those who have proven that they can handle the same load. And it's not about whether they "believe" she is up to the job, it would be established before she is allowed to join.
This has been said many times...
A woman who want to be in the Infantry will need to pass the same test's as a male...
A woman who want to be in the Infantry will need to pass the same test's as a male...
Period...
You realise what you are saying, any woman wanting to join the combat arms will need to be 6' 1'', 6' 2" and up around 200lb so she will be able to a carry a load of 90lb minimum.
I wonder how long it will take until some woman of 5' 1'' and 105 LB.
will go to the courts in the USA screaming sexism.
Will it be like your fire departments having to tailor the tests to the women and not to the job ?
Let me see this policy is for female commissioned officers ?
You realise what you are saying, any woman wanting to join the combat arms will need to be 6' 1'', 6' 2" and up around 200lb so she will be able to a carry a load of 90lb minimum.
I wonder how long it will take until some woman of 5' 1'' and 105 LB.
will go to the courts in the USA screaming sexism.
Will it be like your fire departments having to tailor the tests to the women and not to the job ?
Let me see this policy is for female commissioned officers ?
Before you smart off..you need to go read all my comments I have posted on this thread.
First, I never said anything about size, or weight, you did.....
I have also said IF a female can pass the exact same test as a male...then why not?
I have also said, that NO polices should be changed because of a female, and there should also be no training camp to help a woman to get in infantry, they should be-able to do it on their own.
As for a woman that want's to join at 5' 1" let them, and be embarrassed, BUT if they can make it and do the same thing as a male...
Why would you bring up a fire department into this?
And please tell me what policy you want to see for a female commissioned officer?
The question has been around for decades. Really, it's been on the table since at least the beginning of the modern-day, all-volunteer armed forces.
For it come up again right now may be simply an effort to make hay while the sun shines. With support for the repeal of DADT pretty strong, it seems the public is in the mood to make changes, so now is the perfect time to discuss it again.
Let's not forget that 70% of combat personnel were opposed to the repeal of DADT.
I would hazard a guess that the percentage in opposition to this would be even greater as this is aimed directly at them. Especially if they start seeing women getting in under gender normed standards while they are still expected to meet higher standards.
If this is forced through so soon after another major change combat troops were overwhelmingly opposed to, there may very well be a massive drop in morale and other issues.
I don't really understand women who want to be like men. ? Instead of trying to do everything a man can do, why not do the things men cannot do or cannot do as well as women?
I'd much rather be the woman back home that inspires the soldier on the battlefield to make it through another day of hell.
I don't really understand women who want to be like men. ?
I believe that is the smartest question on this thread that has been asked!
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.
