Women in Combat? Why? (Part II)

I dont doubt it a bit.. when I was in the military.. the Radio humpers and the M60 guys humped over 100 pounds all the time... I'm 45 years old and I jog with a 50 pound weight vest for 3 miles 3 days a week. I KNOW I can hump 150 pounds for 3 miles.. and I'm an old fart.

 

i'm sure you can, but how far are you getting with it? i took my end of a 500lb piano up a 100 ft of stairs yesterday, backwards with a bum leg, but if my buddy wanted it on the second floor, he would have had to wait until today.

 

3 miles!

you must be teh superman!

 

Sounds like you're destroying your knees.

 

I don't understand the monkey comment.

The general consensus here is that Women can and should do pretty much every job in the military excluding direct ground combat.

 

To quote the famous closing line of Teddy's eulogy for Bobby -- "Some men see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?"

 

during the roman empire there were also woman gladiators....the point is simple.....just like womans rights movement, whenever economies are doing very well this is always what happens........it will end as soon as america collapses....just like it ended when rome collapsed and also when greece collapsed before rome.


My point? This is nothing new!

 

If the combat ground forces are meeting their recruiting goals without having to open it up
to women, I don't see any point in giving them eligibility.

We ever get in another large conventional war, then maybe think about opening up
direct ground combat occupations to women; the alternative being the need to bring back the draft to meet manpower needs.

Typically the infantry, in a large conventional war, has the greatest replacement needs.

Why fix what isn't broken. Women can already serve in 90% of military occupations including
combat...just not direct ground combat units. I don't see any evidence that women
are being discriminated against in terms of being non-eligible for the vast majority of military
specialties.

As there is no Constitutional right to service in the military, changing the current DoD policy
which bans women from direct combat units...would be purely based on social engineering...certainly
no other legal basis to mandate a change.

 

I maybe a bit off base here, but I believe there is an argument to the effect combat arms within the Army lends strength to promotion chances, infantry being chief amongst the combat arms side of the house within the Army--basically, because women are denied the opportunity to serve in infantry rolls, they are similarly denied promotions due to the lack of said experience.

Have you served in the US military within the last sixty years or so? "Social Engineering" has been the name of the game since desegregation in the fifties.

 

That’s really only important for their consideration for the most senior flag ranks...
I had assumed this discussion centers primarily on the enlisted ranks serving in direct ground combat.

Glass ceiling? There are about 310 active duty general officers in the Army, that's 0-7 and above;
and yes combat arms is about the only way to get promoted to that level...so we socially engineer
the entire Army...because of an alleged discrimination of such a small percentage?

That doesn't make sense to me, as the bulk of the ground combat units women are currently banned from consist of enlisted...and enlisted in service support roles are offered the same opportunities for promotion as the combat arms based on merit.

How's this for a solution for women seeking flag officer ranks...

Don't join the Army...

Women can serve in combat roles in the Navy and Air Force.

Seems asinine to change a DoD policy because of an alleged shortfall of female
generals when it's the enlisted in the combat arms who would bear the brunt of the change

 

What makes you think they want to see that happen to a man anymore than a woman? No one wants to see any person dragged through the streets. I am not "up in arms" over anything. I have the ability to serve in a combat role. I accept the fact that I can be forced to eject and then dragged through the streets. It does not bother me in the slightest nor should anyone else really care.

Actually I am the furthest thing from a feminist, but I understand that everyone woman that wants to serve is a feminist to you. I am just letting you know why your opinion is misguided. Your opinion is based on emotion. Tsk tsk tsk.

I am not dumbing it down at all, it was dumb to begin with. There are some women, like me, that are not cut out for your archaic beliefs. You do not make policy, and the world is better off that way.

It is not an intrinsic quality of females as a whole, but some of us are very much an exception. I can find my BAT scores if you want to see them. They are phenomenal. As far as being more vicious, again, I do not believe that as a whole. I know I and my fellow female pilots can be just as vicious. I once hunted down a Hajii after he launched a rocket my way. I tore him to shreds.

Simply misunderstanding is quite an understatement.

Dware likes to impugn fighter pilots' role in combat. Since we have the ability to fly at 30,000 feet, we are not actually in combat. Even though most of what I did in my B-course for the Mudhen was low-level attacks.

 

Whom do you think you're kidding?

Yes you were and no it wasn't. That's why you won't say what's wrong with what I said.

Obviously it gives you great pleasure to repeat this, but there is no real purpose to it.

 

I have apparently "kidded" a lot of people into think I was a feminist. No, I just love my job and am grateful the vast majority of people like me to have it. That does not equate to being a feminist, especially since I love men.

I have in almost every thread you have spread your outdated views. You are the one that has yet to put forth any evidence to substantiate your claims. You are entitled to believe whatever makes you feel better but...

...there is no real purpose to what you say. The policy will not change. Sorry, but you are not going to take away my pleasure in blowing (*)(*)(*)(*) sky-high.

 

And obviously I never came within light years of saying it does.

Yes, you respond with threadbare feminist cliches crafted by women who were screeching about "male oppression" before you were born. I think this is not purely coincidence.

I'll be the judge of that, thanks anyway.

 

That I am able to fight and die for my country and the fact that it tickles me inside? That is what women whining about "male oppression" have been saying? Mmmmk.

No problem.

 

You think that's what I was referring to?

 

I am not sure what else you think pertains to warfare/military, given that is the forum you happen to be in. We are also discussing women serving in combat roles.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSb-ok65KGI"]Female Soldiers: Asset or Liability? - YouTube[/ame]

 

She's in the Army now?

The initial part of the youtube video features an all female C-130 aircrew..
they're airman, not soldiers.
Another thing that bugs me is that the narrator
of the clip (who appears to be British) infers that women only join the military to take jobs that will never put them in dangerous situations.

C-130's provide for the airlift requirements and employment operations within a combat zone and/or forward areas...
they also provide aeromedical/refugee evacuation and augment strategic airlift forces.

Those aforementioned female airman, deployed to missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the
Horn of Africa...these include flying into and out of many dangerous areas.

Frankly I'm offended at the premise of the entire video...even with a propensity
to not support the idea of women in the infantry.

I can personally attest to their competence
as aircrew members...a job which frequently places them in harm's way.

The video is condescending, misleading and downright misogynist.

Present a case for continuing the ban on women in direct ground combat units
but do so without patently offending everyone in the process...particularly those
women who have served and continue to serve honorably and willingly, placing
themselves in harm's way.

I'm not directing this "anger" at Unifer, only the clip itself that he posted.

*end of rant*

 

I think most women agree with the, why? Question. Which is why men will continue to make up the vast majority of combat units even when they lower the physical standards in order to serve in them.. But they will only lower the standards for women, not men. Equality at its finest, when PT standards in the military show otherwise. When a woman my age only has to run nearly a 16 minuter mile and a half, While I have to run it in 13 to pass and she gets to do half as many pushups.... That is not equality. I THINK ALL SHOULD HAVE TO MEET THE SAME STANDARDS REGAURDLESS OF GENDER, RACE, SEXUAL PREFERENCE, OR RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE.

 

In harms way.. Im sorry, but the plane does all the lifting and manuvering.. And what harm... The worst thing they can hope to deal with is anti aircraft fire or small arms fire that has little chance of doing any damage. They are at more risk of an in flight malfunction due to shotty maintnance, pilot error, or flying in to bad weather than getting shot out of the sky. Tell mehow many C-130's have been shot down in iraq or afghanistan? They are no where near as in danger as those patrolling the battle zones. Heaviest thing they have to manage is probably carrying their A bag from their car to the plane.

It does not make what they do any less important than anyone else on the battlefield below. But lets not pretend it snows in the desert..... There are vast differences than being in the army, in the infantry and on the ground, than in the air force.

 

I appreciate your service, and I have nothing further to add allowing you the last word.

 

Australia has recently allowed women to fight in combat. I am unsure how many Australians actually support this, but I'd imagine it would be a 50/50 split.
Having a woman in war is one thing, but to have them on the frontline, in danger, is another thing entirely. On one hand I think that women should be allowed to do anything that men can do, but on the other hand I wonder if women are emotionally equipped to deal with what they might see on the battlefield. I guess it is up to them, and they can fight on the frontline if they wish, but its not something I'd approve of.

 

It's interesting that you use emotions as a possible reason for women NOT to be on the battlefield. It's incredibly difficult to quantify "emotional stability" in a combat zone so its an argument I've always steered well away from. It would be interesting to see a study on it though. I've read that even in young infants there is a difference in reaction to stressful situations by gender; I'm sure its by no means all encompassing though.

 

Herkdriver might not take issue with your statement, but I do. The threat isn't there for the flying side of the house now like it was early on--but we didn't shy away from it when it was there, any more than the Army bubbas do when they went down town in 2006 or 2007.

I know a lot of what the some of the Herks were doing there, and there was more than one female there carrying her end of the load without (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing any more than anyone else. We've been mortared and rocketed on those airfields more than once. Got flushed out of Khandahar twice in '02 due to incoming. More than one gunship—with female crewmembers—has been shot back at, both the AAA and MANPADs. There were more than a few AF helos that got popped out there, too. There was one guy in J-bad that I swear was shooting a musket at us almost every night on the run ins during February of '02. There have been several herks that either got hit (Here, Here) or flat out shot down (here).

Just because you don't hear about it in the news doesn't mean it's not happening--and there were quite a few women directly involved. And the threat is there to this day. Vigilance is still required . . . and it's not always because we're that good we don't get popped. Sometimes we just get lucky.

It ain't kicking in doors, but it's not exactly home in the kitchen baking cupcakes, either. The aerial threat has diminished, not the courage or skill involved. Let's not disparage the contributions of our brothers and sisters in harm's way by making such blanket statements.

Don't look at the 'Deid or Liberty or Anaconda and assume that's what it's all about, brother, because it's not. The Army has it's REMFs, too, they just hide them better. We're not as up forward in the quantity the Army is, that's for certain--but it's a different war now than it was in '01 and '03. You've got JTACs with the teams, medics with the FOBs and LNOs with almost every company on the ground out there. Maybe not all female, true, but that's not the point. Old school parochialism needs to find it way somewhere other than everyday thought within the US military.

I stand by what I said before: If they're qualified for it without lowering the standards, then let them have at it. I don't care. We let homosexuals in becuase they could do the mission, impacts on good order and discipline be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed, so the sex / distraction angle just doesn't cut it as the argument against not having women in combat arms anymore. Just do not lower the standards to make a political point or two because the cost is far too high.

And some of you folks are more backwards than I am. Geez.