I guess this is why Women needed to be in combat roles

I never felt good that women wanted to engage in the ugly mess of combat. Bad enough men do it but somehow I do not see the nurturing woman as very eager to go into combat. Sure it turns out that the army put some in extreme danger. But was it really necessary?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m_term=.596969f74bf5&wpisrc=nl_az_most&wpmk=1
Nearly four years ago, Spec. Hilda Clayton, a combat photographer in the U.S. Army, was documenting a live-fire exercise in Afghanistan when without warning a mortar tube accidentally exploded in front of her.

Clayton, 22, was killed in the blast, along with an Afghan military photographer she was training and three Afghan National Army soldiers. Eleven other people were injured.

In the instant before the device detonated, Clayton snapped one last picture. So did her trainee.

On Monday, the Army published the images in its May-June issue of Military Review, the Army’s professional journal.

Unreleased until now, they offer a haunting view of a soldier’s final moments, capturing the dizzying burst of fire, smoke and debris that claimed the lives of five people.

[A young photographer took this harrowing image of the Vietnam War. He didn’t live to see it published.]

In a short write-up on the incident, Military Review praised Clayton’s service, saying she died documenting a “critical juncture” of the war in Afghanistan.

“The story was not in the fighting but in the partnership that was necessary between U.S. and Afghan forces to stabilize the Afghan nation,” Military Review wrote.

“Not only did Clayton help document activities aimed at shaping and strengthening the partnership but she also shared in the risk by participating in the effort,” the journal wrote. “Clayton’s death symbolizes how female soldiers are increasingly exposed to hazardous situations in training and in combat on par with their male counterparts.”


(U.S. Army/Hilda Clayton)

(U.S. Army)
Clayton was the first combat documentation and production specialist to be killed in Afghanistan, the Army said.

 

Chilling photos.

 

Wow. War is hell.

 

Pictures like this should be broadcast everywhere. Reminds people of how nasty and merciless war is. Maybe make a couple more people think twice before they advocate for it.

 

Women graduate infantry training...

First Women Finish Army's Enlisted Infantry Training
21 May 2017 | The graduates are part of an Army initiative to integrate women into previously closed military occupational specialties.

 

Women complain often of unfair representation in the military high command positions well to get those you need combat experience and testing under fire to be considered to lead men and women in combat making vital decisions its not a textbook game. So they want half the leadership roles they need to be in the horror of war and take the same risks as men which they aren't. In this current conflict 98% of people who died were men, well, according to the Red Pill movie stats they showed. When its 50/50 or in that range it will then be fair.

I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the armed forces and treated with equality and honor for their service but save the Coast Guard and maybe the Navy I don't see high command options for them until half the ground combat forces in war are women.

 

Even men who have had no combat experience often do not make great leaders. Common leaders lead to the results Saddam Hussein suffered.

 

I'm just saying war isn't equal during WW2 many men and women served to and men went off to be chewed up in war far more than women and the draft was limited only to men so they were enslaved to risk being crippled or killed while women got a pass but in their defense women were not integrated into the armed forces. Now with the Selective Service and women open to all rolls there is no longer an excuse women should have to sign up like a man, be drafted in proportion to their percentages of the population and women deemed fit enough should be forced into all combat roles they can qualify for with men and die in battle with men equally.

And any woman training in a combat role in a volunteer service such as the Rangers should be in Ranger or other combat units to bleed and die if needed like the men.

That is then equality if the Feminists fight this then they are hypocrites.

 

Well, that is accurate.

I am shocked this has not reached the Supreme court. Women escaped the draft. Talk about not fair nor equal.

My problem with ladies in combat is the lady part. They may engage in sports and even attempt to on an equal basis, such as ninja Warriors where male or female competes on the same terms, but sports is not combat.

As to women seeing bloody warriors, they see them as doctors and nurses so I think they can handle that part, the gore of war.

But men in general do not nurture as women do. Men are not built to do this as women are. Women tell us the value of being a mother. Even where the family is split up, in general she keeps the kids. She is considered legally to be better for the children than the men are. Who makes the kids lunches to take to school? Few dads do.

Oh, I find your argument compelling.

 

Women should not be in combat units, or on Navy ships. Women don't have the physical ability to do the job, its that simple. The data is clear.

A data point I ran across a few days ago: the world record 100 meter dash for boys u19 (under 19 years old) is 9.84 sec which is better than the best womens 100 meter (10.49, by Florence Griffith-Joyner).

Its the same down the list of world records, teenage boys world records are better than any womans world record. Despite the best training, financing, sports science, what are essentially women professional athletes are beaten by teenage boys who have not received the training benefits and have not even peaked.

 

Uncle Ferd don't like it when his g/f orders him around...

First Woman Takes Command of Special Forces Group Battalion
11 Jun 2017 | Lt. Col. Megan A. Brogden was handed a flag today that was full of symbolism. It marked her new position as a battalion commander and all the responsibilities associated with that job. It marked the pinnacle of her U.S. Army career so far. And it marked a milestone in the continued diversification of Army special operations.

 

I agree but I would argue simply they tend to be better educated and can still do a lot of support roles not in combat but close enough to be in harms way driving trucks, medical support, operate artillery, man surveillance systems and some could be big fit women who could fight and at least the draft system could be equitable in that they should be drafted and forced to serve in war. Men likely will be the ones dying most but is it fair if the nation is at such a risk as to demand drafting that women get out of it due to their gender when many roles are suitable for women also. Even if you say keep them out of front line combat there are clearly roles they can fill in a war zone not per se a combat dedicated role. The British Army does that and many women serve in combat support units such as communications technology where they might have to go out in a combat unit as protection to fix a radio in an outpost or maintain a radar system and could be attacked and she would fight like anyone else. And the 14th Amendment demands no less now the military dropped all limits to duties the reason for the bias they used is gone.

And they need to work in the meantime of tech to allow women into combat units like power armor suits so it would compensate for their lighter combat ability.

 

I don't care about political correctness or "equality" or some manipulation of the 14th Amendment. The reality is that women are not physically fit to perform certain tasks, many will argue women are not mentally fit for certain tasks as well.

Women do not "fight like anyone else". In test after test, women fail to come even close to meeting the standards for various military jobs. They failed the Navy's damage control tests, they failed the Army's field tests (including the ability to operate artillery), and in reality they failed the Army Ranger School tests.

The idea that there might be that rare woman who is the exception does not work. How are you going to find that one woman? Those 3 women who passed (after 3 attempts) the Ranger School course were the end result of 100's of women who started a process created to prepare women for that one school.

About 50% of men pass the course. <0.5% of women pass the course. The Army has limited resources. Do you want to spend those resources to get <0.5% success or 50% success? Or are you going to increase the Army personnel and training budget 10,000% so you can be "equal" with women?

Whether you like it or not, many military jobs are very physically demanding. Those jobs require you to face the enemy - not enemy women but enemy men. If your life depended upon it, would you start off with a huge hadicap by facing the enemy man with a woman? Or would you put the very best you have against the enemy (and they will put their best up against you, because they take it seriously, its not a PC game for them)?

 

I did say based on ability and need but women have proven as valued armed service members and for every combat soldier in a war we need several in support roles from administration to moving war materials to family support to technical experts and yes roles such as pilots and women do make damned good pilots in all kinds of aircraft. And during a real war with a draft officers won't be the only ones offered training I would suspect if an NCO has the required ability.

I'm just saying have the Selective Service for all, if there is a draft women should be half the draftees and assigned to duties they are tested and qualified for its a start to fairness overall.

And work on technology to compensate if you saw the Expanse women marines from Mars wore powered armor and it made them move faster and hit harder and gave them enhanced strength and they then could be equal since the tech compensated, to be fair they need to work on that to eliminate the gender differences enough to open all roles to women. If they can pour money into fancy fighters they can build exo-skeleton suits given enough efforts on it.

 

I agree, there are military roles for women. But there are also military jobs that are totally unsuited to women.

Powered armor is science fiction. When its actually here and in the field, then the role for women can be revisited.

 

Well then to bring parity they need to get to work on it, pronto, we don't want to keep women out of combat any longer than needed and they can fight just like men. For now the selective service and draft should be gender neutral like I said the last reasons died with the lifting of the ban of women IN combat at least on paper. So they should be legally forced into military duty and used as they are able to be used just like men for each drafted woman in uniform is one less man called on to serve where she fills the slot. Men also do ample support roles so its one less man forced into the armed defense of the nation. Fair is fair as far as it can be provided without reducing combat efficiency.

 

Vitamins Boost Female Grunts' Performance...

Services Use Vitamins, Nutrition to Boost Female Grunts' Performance
15 Jun 2017 | Army officials were tasked with looking for ways to get the best performance out of female troops.

 

Womens onna horseback...

First 4 Women Graduate Cavalry Scout Training at Fort Benning
25 Jun 2017 | For the first time, four women were among 162 soldiers who graduated Thursday from the Cavalry Scout One Station Unit Training.

 

Granny says, "Dat's right - you go gurl!...

Combat-Tested Marine Cobra Pilot Selected to Become an Astronaut
6 Jul 2017 | When NASA opened its application process in December 2015, Marine Maj. Jasmin Moghbeli knew she was ready to apply.

 

The Expanse is science fiction not just because of powered suits for Martian Marines. If your first thought to make women-in-combat work is to find some technological cheats for them, then there is something wrong with the concept to begin with. Right now, women don't even need to meet the same physical standards as men. Until the military is serious about doing that (and they won't unless they can lower the standards) I can't take these chicks in combat seriously.

 

Constitutionally the military is required to work on such tech to make it equal for both genders and it should be a serious focus of the R&D budget. So make power armor and then everyone who is able to get to fight and die in war regardless of having a penis or vagina.

 

Constitutionally?

 

14th Amendment it demands equality and its not equal if women are not at the same threat risk as men in the military both the selective service and in combat situations the infantry must equalize numbers half men and half women which demands tech to bring women into combat parity with men, so power armor for all infantry is a required priority of R&D in the infantry forces the Army and Marines and special forces. If its not then there needs to be lawsuits to force the issue on the side of men to not be cannon fodder for wars any longer than absolutely necessary even if courts need to enforce government spending on this.

 

How about, people should be able to do what they want and NOT be forced to do things they don't want. That goes for men and women.

 

Yes I'm quite sure that's exactly what the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind.