Women Should Absolutely Not be Put on the Front Lines

I think you are thinking of this article: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

 

Yes, you caught me. I'm 23 years old, and I was oppressing women for the last 6,000 years. I was there for all of that oppression that happened decades and centuries ago.

Grow the f up.

When it comes to combat, I generally agree, but I see no reason to preclude women from other jobs. There are many technical jobs where we need the manpower and they can function - granted, the standards should be bumped. It's BS that an 18yo woman who can do 40 push ups is 'raising the bar' and 'an exception sailor(/soldier/marine/airman), but an 18yo man who does the same is physically 'unfit for service.' They should rationalize the fitness standards. If, for example, a nuclear technician on a submarine is overweight, so what? He's a nuke, he doesn't actually need to be gung-ho. But an infantryman? Wtf? We're going to allow women who can't do 20 push ups in the infantry and the Marines?

 

I'm confident that women have no problem killing. Cable TV is full of shows about just that topic. I'm less optimistic though that they can carry a full combat load for a prolonged period of time.

 

Nope, I posted them in English, which is obviously not your primary language.

 

Maybe the rule should be, for every woman placed in combat, they get two men for luggage carrying ?

 

Agreed. When isn't it?

 

No, the one I was thinking was from a journalist who changed her mind on the issue after she spent time at an army base. It was a few years back. The one you posted though is even better though because if is coming from a woman who actually served in combat and who is against women on the front lines.

I swear some of the posters in this thread apparently never dated a single female in their life for any length of time. They also apparently never took a biology course.......anywhere. Women and men are NOT the same.

 

That's what helicopters are made for. The days of humping from Normandy to Berlin are over.

 

I suggest that you educate yourself and read the link posted by Lil Mike at the top of this page. It's an article from a marine woman who served in combat in Afghanstan and Iraq who is opposed to women being on the front lines in infantry based on her experiences and observations. I also posted a article linking to some studies by the US and the UK showing that women simply cannot keep up with men.......its not even close. When less than 1% of the women can only keep up with the bottom 16% of men in aerobic measurements........that is a complete blowout.

People really need to stop and think for a second. Is it more important that they feel good about themselves and pat themselves on the back and run around and tell everyone about their "enlightened" opinion. They don't have to deal with the consequences. It's not their life on the line, all they care about is that they look sophisticated to their friends.

 

When combat turns into an Olympic event with timed scoring, I'll agree with you. In the meantime, the bullets from a woman's M-16 go just as fast as the bullets from a man's M-16.

 

Yes, because that is all that they carry out in the field, just their M16s and a couple clips of ammo. And they never have to actually hike anywhere since there are helicopters for everyone.

 

Does the 100# of gear on the back of a 120# female move as fast as the same gear on a 200# male?

 

A long time ago in Ireland, they decided to have female warriors in war. After a short while they forbade females from participating in warfare.
Why?
Because the females were far more vicious and effective killers than the males. They were too good at killing.

My Grandmother used to quote a professor she heard once: "The female of the species is the most deadly."

 

Then why didn't the women just kill the men who excluded them from warfare?

 

It does if it's in an APC or Chinook or Humvee. Almost exactly as fast.

We can get ridiculous about this. For example, you can get MORE 120# females with 100# of gear in an APC or Chinook than you can get 200# men with 100# of gear. You want more speed over greater distances or do you want more boots and guns?

 

You have certainly demonstrated your capacity in that regard.

They'll only be carrying it on their backs in the aircraft if they have to carry on foot when they're out of it; so the only reason to do that is if you want more troops of lesser ability to either get there slower or move slower when they get there.

 

You seem really uninformed about current combat conditions. I'm not talking about WWII or Korea, I'm talking about right now. Soldiers still have to hump a ruck. However I can't really blame you for not knowing anything about that. I really blame the JCS who supported this and know better. You can just be ignorant, but what's their excuse?

 

Gen. Sam Houston, the Texas Ranger that defeated Santa Anna and gave us Texas said “There is no honor in waging war against a woman”. The recent action of the Defense Department in arming our women to fight in the front lines has crossed a line that will only embolden our enemies to annihilate us. God did not make women so good looking, to carry an assault rifle and put holes in our enemies, but to make them attractive to men and bear children. To force our enemies to shoot at and put holes in women to protect themselves will bring dishonor to them and convince them that we should be removed from this earth. The very essence of going to war is to protect our women and children, to put a weapon in their hands in addition to putting them in harm’s way is the stupidest action this country has taken in the name of equality.

Men and Women will never be equal because God made a woman a lot better looking than a man and they are the ones that bear children.

 

They needed them for breeding purposes. They're having difficulty breeding out the paternalistic twonks.

 

This is a really long post and I admit I did not read all 17 pages of it.

But I will now use my 1st amendment right to comment on it. Yankee Rebel will state again “Not all people were created equal, they were created unique and that they share opportunities and responsibilities equally”.

This discussion has probably turned into a upper body strength vs. excessive love handles argument. Now let’s not bicker about whom can carry whom off the battle field when wounded, if I were wounded on the front lines I would NOT be asking for a man or a woman, I’d want some morphine RTFN! This blown off leg hurts like hell!

These jobs are just that, jobs. Every job has its minimal requirements. If you can’t make the requirements, you don’t get the job; it’s as simple as that. There are lots of women who can’t make the requirements, but there’s a heck of a lot of guys who can’t either. I don’t care whether you’re a girl, a guy, a hermaphrodite, or a 3rd gender, if you’re physically ready, mentally ready, and medically approved, and this is what you want to do with your life, then your opportunity should not be denied, but you must be held to the same standard.

Right now in the military on a multitude, or a majority of jobs, there is a minimal strength requirement and marksman requirement for men and a different standard for women. I disagree with this, it should be one standard for all. If they try to get tricky and make a standard like “you must be able to urinate while standing” then by the gods women will find a way, and nothing makes me more proud than a woman standing up while taking a leak! Brings a tear to my eye, what determination!

Please read my blog HBSC too big to take responsibility in which I show the true nature of equality of opportunity and responsibility applies to other topics as well. Or if I’m completely off course please tell me why I’m so out of touch with reality.

 

Like I've already pointed out, you don't have to be Thor to be a good GI anymore. You don't even have to be able to shoot straight. Just aim 'n spray.

 

It doesn't matter what you've "pointed out", because clearly either you have no idea what the hell you're talking about or you're trolling.

Oh sure, everybody knows ammunition is weightless and without bulk, so every soldier has an infinite supply.

 

Obviously I do know what the hell I am talking about because the military has just allowed women into combat. Please, don't try to set yourself up as somebody who knows squat, because you just flat do not.

 

The policy change is long overdue. The last few decades had made the ban largely irrelevant; increasing counterinsurgency warfare virtually erased the concept of combat front lines and female soldiers' contributions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were undeniable. The policy had nevertheless continued to officially exclude women from 7.3 percent of army positions, largely in Infantry, Armor, and Special Forces. More importantly, it had limited women's career paths and promotion opportunities and contributed to gendered stereotypes about war as ultimately "the business" of men.

The decision to remove the exclusion now is a sound one based on careful consideration of several factors. Specifically, there was increasing support from within the military leadership -- including from Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, and Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who had both acknowledged that now is the time to remove gender-based barriers to service. There have also been distinct changes in public attitudes about women's capabilities and roles in war. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, the vast majority of Americans support allowing women into combat roles. Meanwhile, studies by the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, along with various military and academic experts, have dispelled myths about women's impact on unit cohesion and their physical abilities. It could not have hurt, of course, that the Department of Defense is facing a lawsuit from several female service members (backed by the American Civil Liberties Union) who rightly claim that the exclusion was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

By changing the policy now, the Department of Defense is recognizing women's contributions to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and acknowledging that times have changed, both in terms of the ways wars are fought and in terms of attitudes about appropriate roles for women in the forces. The next battles for female soldiers will be ensuring that this policy is implemented effectively, stamping out any remaining sexist attitudes, and fighting to ensure that the military addresses its outstanding sexual violence problem.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138200/megan-h-mackenzie/let-women-fight