Women in Combat? Why? (Part II)

Like I said, I don't like women in infantry roles. As far as wooing the public, only a jackass would put a women in charge of dealing with locals who don't respect women in their culture.

 

Even the most battle hardened combat veteran, eventually is going to have to get
used to working alongside a woman in the civilian job market. I can't think of many, if any,
civilian jobs which ban women. Even on construction sites, there are often women
hard hats.

Women in the work force are here to stay, even if the ban remains in place
for them to serve in direct ground combat units.

 

What bearing does the civilain job market have on direct ground combat units?

 

Nobody with any sense gives a damm.

To an opposing force of men with comparable armaments and training and the determination to win, it wouldn't be. Only a fool would think otherwise.

 

The fear seems to be, that the complete structure of the ground combat
arms is going to collapse if a woman is allowed into a squad.

Police and fire fighters risk their lives everyday...often life and death situations...
and they seem to get along as men and women serving alongside one another.

I don't buy into the argument that women will automatically be a detriment
in every possible circumstance.

They serve in 95% of available service jobs...many of which have peripheral
combat requirements like Medics..and some direct combat, for example
attack and fighter aircraft crews.

There seems to be a double standard, the infantry used to take a draftee who more than
likely doesn't even want to be in the infantry, or the more modern example lower their standards
to take a volunteer, but then claims it's "too risky" "too dangerous" to allow women in the ranks...they'd get everyone killed.

It's somewhat hypocritical...we won WWII when the infantry was composed of 60% draftees...guys who didn't even want to be there...and the vast majority served with
courage and honor....they didn't seem to think that was "too risky" or may cost lives. Here's a rifle,
and too bad you don't want to be in combat...you're going.

The Army and Marines didn't seem too concerned about that at the time, only wanting the absolute most qualified
personnel who voluntarily chose the combat arms profession.....

I'm confused why the Infantry is being held up with kid gloves and a Gold chalice now...when
historically the combat arms have been strictly a numbers game. Draft them, train them, and ship them to the front.

 

Most of WWII's army consisted of support personnel. Today's professional army is much better trained than their fathers/grandfather's. However, back then they still realized the importance of physical fitness. These guys may have not wanted to be there, but they were still physically capable of carrying out the mission. When rounds are coming at you downrange you quickly become motivated to be competent.

Those lacking in physical ability were put in other jobs. What does risk have to do with anything? I don't think the greater chance of women dying is a legitimate excuse to keep them out of combat. I think the risk that they bring to an infantry unit is what should keep them out of combat, be it individually or economically.

Highly trained infantry are more important now than ever in today's asymetrical battlefield. The preference is for a smaller highly trained force, rather than a large conscripted one. We don't use quantity to compensate for quality.

Also, consider WWII in a different view. That war was certainly the most desperate and serious of the last 120 years of American military history. It was a war that killed millions and put old men and young boys into combat. Despite this, the U.S./Germany/England/France/Italy/Japan and dozens of other countries never got so desperate as to put women into Infantry roles. Even the Russians didn't use them as a mainstream ground pounders. Even when these countries were fighting for their very existence they didn't think it effective to use women as Infantry.

In the event of a WWIII scenario, women could be pushed into support roles to free up men for direct combat ground jobs. Less than 10% of the military are direct ground combat jobs. With a pool of women available to fill 90%+ of all the other jobs there would be more available men than could ever be used on the ground.

 

I agree, I'm somewhat playing the devil's advocate...
Just volleying various arguments into the discussion to see the responses.

One being that culturally a man's life is expendable...he used to get drafted into combat
as long as he was physically qualified. Whether he wants to be there or not.
For a truly equal society, shouldn't women be made eligible for the draft also?
Not necessarily for ground combat, but drafted to fill the ranks in whatever particular support job
is needed.

Another argument questions what is it exactly that separates the ground combat arms from
other elements of both the military and civilian World, that have already unified
the work place for men and women.

Certainly when a bunch of civilians who represent us in Congress, maybe a few veterans
here and there, and argue whether to rescind the current ban on women in direct ground
combat...all of these arguments, both pro and con, will be made. The ulitimate decision
will be based on social engineering, I think. Certainly that was the biggest factor in the
repeal of the DADT policy.

"We know better than you."

 

I'm totally against women in the infantry. they can be behind the scenes in military triages, working the GPS computers etc...but not fighting.

A woman's place is in the kitchen and the bedroom. period. j/k

Not on the battlefield. I'd hate to be a soldier and have some voluptuous broad diving down in
front of me screaming "Cover Me!!"..I might lose my train of thought and try to cover her for real
and get my head blown off...lol

Women on the battlefield = too much of a distraction.


I'm against it.

 

What's with with you infantry guys, you see a girl and turn into jelly?
You've already got women in the skies above you, and women as combat medics...among others.
Maybe they should all just wear burkas so as not to force y'all to get excited and
run into a minefield.

Y'all are beginning to remind me of junior high boys at their first school mixer
"Lookie a girl, with real boobs"

Air Force has the highest percentage of females as part of the total force, than any other branch..
we may be mostly chair jockeys in a support role...but we are certainly a lot more professional
in terms of dealing with women in the ranks.

The Army used to put saltpeter in the food to lower soldiers' libidos maybe they should
start doing that again.

Heck, the bad guys should just airdrop some hookers on the battlefield and apparently
that's all it takes to defeat the World's most highly trained, best equipped and effective fighting force.

Well we certainly know their achilles heel, they can't view women as anything but sexual objects,
certainly never as fellow military professionals.

 

Call me whatever you want to call me a chauvinist, a pig whatever.. but I don't want to fight next to a female on a battlefield. Unless of course it is the wars of today and we are sitting down together pressing buttons like a game of battleship! Sorry but just because you want to pretend like their is no difference between men and women does not mean that it is actually true. I am all about equality for everyone but there is a reason my wife doesn't do an equal amount of work on my car and I don't do an equal amount of soothing my kids... sorry... but their is no way I am trusting my life to a female on the battlefield.

 

By God, Herkdriver I think you're on to something!

Kim Kardashian, Snookie, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and a few others could defeat al-Qaeda in an afternoon!

American bimbos are the world's BEST bimbos!

 

It's not about turning to jelly. but the male/female attraction can be one heck of distraction. Especially if they are on our side.

one of my best friends is a Marine Sgt. and he talks about it all the time how beautiful some of the enlisted women are and how hard it is to stay focused.

So I can just imagine that Military outfit hugging all of her nether-regions and making my mind switch from serious to playful mode back and forth. that's not good if you're in battle.

 

The military has a problem with misogyny and it seems that many women have experienced sexual assault or harassment and limited opportunity in the military because of a culture of misogyny. This misogyny that is prevalent in some parts of the military only hinders, not helps, the combat effectiveness of the armed forces. All service members should exercise some level of self control which is expected of professionals. In addition, in past wars, the enemy has used women to get intel from our soldiers and to directly fight our soldiers. The military, in my view will need to take measures to combat this culture and mentality of misogyny that seems to pervade some parts of the military. But I have said my piece and my opinion on this matter and posters know where I stand when it comes to permitting women in combat units.

 

I don't think women belong in the infantry, with the best argument being
the physicality aspects of it...

Too distracting?

We've got women as combat pilots and the men in their squadrons seem to be doing ok with it...aviating a fighter aircraft takes a great deal of concentration.

 

Wow. Riveting analysis.

Do you people actually read before you respond to someone? Do you even think? When have I "pretended" there were no differences. Like it or not, a lot of men trust me with their lives. You might be a chauvinist, but your more glaring issue is your stupidity and insecurity. Fix those and the minor problem will fall out of line.

Only if you are mentally weak. Gauging your stability by your verbal masturbation in the rest of your post proves you are not very capable.

Oh great. This discussion again. There is little to no misogyny. There is nothing stopping me from doing my job and moving up the chain of command. No glass ceilings- that finally died in the 90's. Go discuss this in the rape forum (Women's Rights) if you want to, but it has no bearing on this discussion as it stands. Yes, sexual assault happens like it does in every other environment. No, it has nothing to do with people stopping you from achieving your goals, which is what is detrimental to combat effectiveness. Also, if you think it is only crimes against women, you have never heard of Man Love Tuesdays.

 

I have been on your side with this since post one in the first thread. I know I am a very small minority of women. Hell, I am even asked to do things for other women and it drives me nuts. I know where you are coming from on this. Only thing I wish I could do for someone else is handle my own travel pay so it never gets screwed up. Sweet dreams.

As far as equality with fitness standards, I am on board with that. I ran the mile and a half in under 9:30 and I am not some physically gifted person. Anyone can do it. I can also do 60 situps which would ace that on the men's test too. Only thing I cannot really do are the pushups and even then I am only five away. It is feasible if I took more time to train for them. The point is the men's standards can apply to women who are willing to work for it. I am a fighter pilot, I should be held to a high standard of physicality. Every other female pilot should as well.

However, I do not think the standards should be equal between jobs. The standards can be lowered for people who want to work in their pajamas in Space and Missiles because it is not a very physically demanding job. You do not need to be able to run a sub-10 minute mile for that. If most women do not want to work in the physically demanding jobs, then they should not have their standards raised, but those that do should be prepared for it.

 

I once requested immediate vectors for an approach and all I heard from Approach was "fap, fap, fap, fap, fap." Clearly we are a problem in aircraft...

 

They don't call it a "cockpit" for nothing...so to speak.

You should be relegated to desk duty, men are too easily distracted by your feminine charms.

What about the repeal of DADT however?
If women are a distraction for straight men, won't gay men therefore be too distracted to fight properly?

 

Now you are pissing in the drinking pale. Do not even get started on DADT.

 

pail......

 

Fighters were always the choice of the stupid people.

 

Cleared hot...so to speak. I understand that it is distracting to think in the presence of women. That is why I excuse many of the inane posts in this thread.

Did I spell anything wrong, Admiral Airlift?

 

Negative Capt. Marlboro.

Honestly, you gals have my sympathies. I have no idea how you go about your lives
while simultaneously being leered at, by every passing straignt man.

There are advantages, at times, to just being a "regular Joe" and blending in.

 

How you know them straight guys aren't getting leered at by her? Something tells me she's the type to smack us on the ass and do some "fap, fap, fappin'" herself.

 

I have no comment on that...
and none of this conversation should be construed as anything remotely serious.

I'm just playing up on the notion that women are too much of a distraction
for military service, or more specifically combat.

Governor is a combat pilot by the way, or at least claims to be...

if I've offended Up on the Governor, or insinuated anything about her character. I certainly apologize.