Women in combat positions?

[bczoom]

Defense Secretary Panetta says he's going to lift military's ban on women in combat.

I haven't seen any details of what combat positions they may hold (and don't know if that's been determined yet).

Do you think women should be allowed in front-line positions (more then they are now)?

Right now I'm leaning towards they shouldn't be in more combat positions, especially infantry. A couple reasons:
- If they're captured, I don't think they'll be treated very nicely if you know what I mean.
- Their male counterparts may instinctively protect them more (which may detract from their specific role).
- Can they physically perform at the same level? If they throw on 50+ pounds of gear, can they keep up? If a soldier gets injured, can they drag him to a safe location?

What say you?

 

[Doc]

I agree with you. I see more reasons not to than to allow them .... but they want equal rights.

I doubt they would force all women into combat roles. But those who want it, why not give it to them? They would have to get past the same physical requirements as everyone else. Is it any worse for a family having a mom killed than a dad? Is a mom valued more than a dad? Both fill different roles in a family but both are equally important. Now that gays are allowed in, and can do combat why not women? I can see it now: a gay, two women and a straight guy in a fox hole. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Kane]

I can see it now: a gay, two women and a straight guy in a fox hole. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Imagine this situation during WWII, a real war.

I say 'real war' because the battle field today is one of technology more than of rifles and bayonets. Today war is a matter of 'fire and forget' weaponry, drones and other mechanized and/or electronic warfare. So the likelihood of a genuine GI in hand-to-hand combat alongside a woman or a gay is pretty remote.

So, as repulsive as it may seem, maybe it'll work. With the Progressive influences of guaranteed equal opportunity and guaranteed equal outcomes, the world has become a very strange place indeed.
.

 

[EastTexFrank]

Meeting the physical requirements are the main reason that I don't give this question a categorical "yes".

There are many specialties and niche functions that a female can carry out in the modern army but the average foot soldier carries close to 70# of equipment in to battle. If the female can do that all day, every day, then there should be no reason why not but ....

So, should women be allowed in combat positions? ... I have my doubts, on many levels.

On the lighter side, can you imagine running in to a female grunt with PMS. That should scare the hell out of any Muslim.

 

[tiredretired]

So if I am weighing in at over 250 or more with my gear I am going to expect her to drag me or lift me to safety if I am wounded or incapacitated? Hmmmm.

 

[FrancSevin]

We went thru this when I was in the Fire sevice. They had to lower the standards, but just for the women. BS but, I really don't have a problem with it.

The problem is simple physics which suggests that the potential bodymass of a Human Female is at a disadvantage to that of a Male. Howevr, technology can compensate. Specificaly, the weapons like the M-16 made light and easy to use. Yet effective.

Which is why we must protect and defend the 2nd amendment. If it works for the military, it should be allowed for the civilians.

The left won't make the connection but then reality and the left are from different universes.

 

[jimbo]

It's physics, but it is also emotion. Men are programmed to protect the young and the female of the species. I know I would go out of my way to protect a women, more than a man. We've seen that happen a couple of times already.

At some point the world has to recognize that men and women are different. Political correctness is generally political, but it is not always correct.

 

[luvs]

women, if they meet the criteria that many males cannot make, let them be in combat. we're much stronger than we may appear. i mean, u see women w/ two toddlers in her arms, & groceries. plus a few gallons of milk & another one on the way.
& a female used to be a fellow employee of my ex & when we would drink @ the shop, she worked in the spray booth & w/ the equipment & industrial tools the guys used like a champ.
women can be olympians,- the must be exhaustive- & play football, have careers- many in law enforcement & as attorneys & doctors-, cook, clean, be on the pta, Parent, on & on, & cram this into 1 day, so why not let them be in combat. a thin, muscular woman is usually strong, fast, & a woman is intuitive, etc

& women have very strong protective instincts. we hear an infant whimper during the night & we'll spring from snooze & be in that baby's room in seconds to see why.

 

[BigAl]

A Woman + A Gun + PMS + A ememy ????


Someone is going to die

 

[Kane]

& women have very strong protective instincts. we hear an infant whimper during the night & we'll spring from snooze & be in that baby's room in seconds to see why.

Can a woman POW stand up to the strains of 'enhanced interrogation'? I suspect not, if all it takes is the sound of a baby crying to put her over the edge.

 

[FrancSevin]

Can a woman POW stand up to the strains of 'enhanced interrogation'? I suspect not, if all it takes is the sound of a baby crying to put her over the edge.

I would disagree. A determined woman can and will endure a lot. Except perhaps a stupid mate.

If you want to see a woman in a combat position, cup her boobs and suggest they feel just like her sister's.

Sorry ladies, I simply could not resist that one.

 

[Kane]

If you want to see a woman in a combat position, cup her boobs and suggest they feel just like her sister's.

Demi Moore would have slapped the shit out of you. But can any woman determined to have equal access and equal outcome GUARANTEE this kind of resolve?

If so, fine and dandy. But it may very well take a generation to reach that kind of comfort level within the ranks. Until then, haunting reservations ensue.

 

[luvs]

Can a woman POW stand up to the strains of 'enhanced interrogation'? I suspect not, if all it takes is the sound of a baby crying to put her over the edge.

kane, i was speaking of nothing of being 'put over the edge.' i was speaking of instinct & taking action. & if u wanna try & say women could not take interrogation, think again. women're the most stubborn type there is. i've seen videos of that years ago. u have nary an inclination of the stuff i've lived. only chit i allot yinz to know. 'kay~

franc & al, haha

 

[FrancSevin]

kane, i was speaking of nothing of being 'put over the edge.' i was speaking of instinct & taking action. & if u wanna try & say women could not take interrogation, think again. women're the most stubborn type there is. i've seen videos of that years ago. u have nary an inclination of the stuff i've lived. only chit i allot yinz to know. 'kay~

franc & al, haha

I agree 100%

We can only presume, Kane must be single.

 

[FrancSevin]

Demi Moore would have slapped the shit out of you. But can any woman determined to have equal access and equal outcome GUARANTEE this kind of resolve?

If so, fine and dandy. But it may very well take a generation to reach that kind of comfort level within the ranks. Until then, haunting reservations ensue.

Trust me, next time I'm with Demi, I'll try it ,,,,,and let you know how it went.

 

[Kane]

kane, i was speaking of nothing of being 'put over the edge.' i was speaking of instinct & taking action. & if u wanna try & say women could not take interrogation, think again. women're the most stubborn type there is. i've seen videos of that years ago. u have nary an inclination of the stuff i've lived. only chit i allot yinz to know. 'kay~

franc & al, haha

'kay.

Honestly, then, would you have had the balls to leave the LST into the overwhelming machine gun fire on the beaches of Normandy? I'm not sure that many young people, men OR women, of this fat and lazy generation that would. And just how are women today different than Rosie the Riveter of 1944?

Please don't be defensive or contrary. I ask for a serious discussion.

'kay?
.

 

[luvs]

oh, well, if ur fer conversation, kane. ur berating a genertion & women. that's not serious conversation. that is unkind & is 2 blanket statments in 1 post. be rude to someone that tolerates that kinda stuff- i'm not one of those ppl.

kay'~

 

[Kane]

oh, well, if ur fer conversation, kane. ur berating a genertion & women. that's not serious conversation. that is unkind & is 2 blanket statments in 1 post. be rude to someone that tolerates that kinda stuff- i'm not one of those ppl.

kay'~

Again, I do not understand the defensive posture, luvs.

War is hell and has little resemblance to what is shown on cable teevee. And I cannot imagine wh
.at our Greatest Generation went though on the beaches of France or the South Pacific. The sacrifices and dangers must have been unimaginable; the horrors unthinkable.

I have two grown sons in their forties, both good solid men. But given the luxury and relative ease of their generation, I still could not imagine them - even as strong and patriotic as they are - doing the brave things our own fathers did in WWII, or worse yet, what our grandfathers went though in France during WWI. The carnage of both wars was inhuman. The Korean Conflict and the Viet Nam War, on a smaller scale, were no better. Utter Hell on Earth.

So I ask you: can you imagine the reaction we would get from the spoiled brats of the Occupy Wall Street crowd if asked to storm a faraway beach under overwhelming machine gun fire? Ask one. They'd look at you as if crazy to suggest such a thing. Screw America, they'd say, she can go to Hell. But our fathers did it, even the fathers that were drafted unwillingly into service by their country. They did it, did it bravely and well, and asked for nothing but a chance to live and go home.

But things are different nowadays. Not to discount the efforts and bravery of our fine men and women in uniform today, war is can be described more generally as a game of overly political 'rules of engagement', advanced body armor and remote-fire technology. The threat to the all-volunteer foot soldier today is more of a risk to arms, legs and (unfortunately) severe head trauma from brutal EID's set in place by an invisible, cowardly enemy; an enemy that hides from return fire in mosks and from behind innocent children. Again, I make no slight of the brave, volunteer American soldier; just pointing out a difference in the ages of warfare.

Do you think we could ever legislate the mandatory conscript draft again? Or do you think the youngish voters would say emphatically NO?

And what about Rosie the Riveter? Except for the very rare bird, women of the Forties felt huge self worth just working the war effort at home. So what is it that makes women today demand combat equality? Is it really that you desire the visceral demands of a war zone firefight?

Or is it, as I suspect, pressure from liberal women's rights groups for symbolic equality in the workplace? Because, come on, who in their right mind would really want to go to war?

Peace and luv. You have the floor.
.

 

[Danang Sailor]

This question was debated in my presence many, many times while I was still on active duty. My stance was always the
same: there is a major difference in upper body strength, which will (not may) lead to a major difference in performance
under some circumstances. That is not sexist; just simple physiology.

However, there are two caveats here:
1) Anyone who can pass the non-downgraded physical requirements, gender not considered, should be allowed to
pursue any MOS they are otherwise qualified for and, even more to the point;
2 In today's anti-insurgency warfare there is no such thing as a rear echelon position. If you are anywhere near an active
hostile fire zone, you have to be considered to be in a combat position ... even if you're just a cook stationed in an area that
would have been considered a safe rear-area in previous wars. This makes it impossible to send a woman anywhere near
fighting and presume she is not in a combat position.

Based on the sad truth of #2, this whole discussion is moot. In the war with Islamic Supremacism, any position anywhere
in the world can become a hostile fire zone in an instant - Col. Hassan's actions at Ft Hood proved that. The Secretary's
announcement may be nothing more than an acceptance of the realities of today's world.

 

[Doc]

Can a woman POW stand up to the strains of 'enhanced interrogation'? I suspect not, if all it takes is the sound of a baby crying to put her over the edge.

I would have to suggest that you are right, some could not take it. Others could. Same with men. All are not the same. Some could handle tough interrogation and torture, others would crack before you could say BOO. Since we now have an all volunteer force I would think that most of them have the right mindset and could handle the tough stuff. Both men and women.

And I would also agree with your more recent post that our whole nation is softer than the WWII days. WWI was only over a hair over 20 years and WWII was a continuation of that War. The mindset was different. Our nation was tougher back then. All the PC 'nobody loses' everybody gets a trophy crap has softened up the last few generations. Still, I do think we have some men and women who are up to the task and can 'handle' it. Not near as many as we used to but such is life.

 

[mla2ofus]

If you want to see a woman in a combat position, cup her boobs and suggest they feel just like her sister's.

:

Franc, that sounds a lot like the definition of "rodeo sex"!!
Mike

 

[FrancSevin]

Franc, that sounds a lot like the definition of "rodeo sex"!!
Mike

similar but, now she is facing you.
One can survive "rodeo sex"

 

[bczoom]

We're talking about POW's here.

I would have to suggest that you are right, some could not take it. Others could.

OK, I'm done beating around the bush. A female POW will be raped, over and over. As a Marine myself, for that reason alone, I have a hard time putting women in forward positions.

 

[Kane]

I would have to suggest that you are right, some could not take it. Others could. Same with men. All are not the same. Some could handle tough interrogation and torture, others would crack before you could say BOO. Since we now have an all volunteer force I would think that most of them have the right mindset and could handle the tough stuff. Both men and women.

And I would also agree with your more recent post that our whole nation is softer than the WWII days. WWI was only over a hair over 20 years and WWII was a continuation of that War. The mindset was different. Our nation was tougher back then. All the PC 'nobody loses' everybody gets a trophy crap has softened up the last few generations. Still, I do think we have some men and women who are up to the task and can 'handle' it. Not near as many as we used to but such is life.

Agreed. It is my position that women, as a whole, are lessor inclined by nature for the rigors of war and training standards must not be lowered to accommodate them.

However, if up to the charge mentally and physically, no woman should be denied he opportunity to serve.

 

[AAUTOFAB1]

This question was debated in my presence many, many times while I was still on active duty. My stance was always the
same: there is a major difference in upper body strength, which will (not may) lead to a major difference in performance
under some circumstances. That is not sexist; just simple physiology.

However, there are two caveats here:
1) Anyone who can pass the non-downgraded physical requirements, gender not considered, should be allowed to
pursue any MOS they are otherwise qualified for and, even more to the point;
2 In today's anti-insurgency warfare there is no such thing as a rear echelon position. If you are anywhere near an active
hostile fire zone, you have to be considered to be in a combat position ... even if you're just a cook stationed in an area that
would have been considered a safe rear-area in previous wars. This makes it impossible to send a woman anywhere near
fighting and presume she is not in a combat position.

Based on the sad truth of #2, this whole discussion is moot. In the war with Islamic Supremacism, any position anywhere
in the world can become a hostile fire zone in an instant - Col. Hassan's actions at Ft Hood proved that. The Secretary's
announcement may be nothing more than an acceptance of the realities of today's world.

i think along the same lines here, if needed ,and she is willing to put her life in the line of fire for me ,knowing the risk's,plus passes all the physical and mental tests. trust is earned, and for the few women that advance far enough and prove to be as good or better, so be it.

 

[FrancSevin]

We're talking about POW's here.



OK, I'm done beating around the bush. A female POW will be raped, over and over. As a Marine myself, for that reason alone, I have a hard time putting women in forward positions.

Don't you think that is her decision?

When I joined the fire service people would ask, How do you get the courage each time go into places people are runing from. Aren't you worried about dying in a horrible fire? I responded "It's quite easy really. That decision isn't made every time. I made it once when I agreed to do this." It had nothing to do with being a man.

On a similar subject, when the women joined the firehouse there was concern that the men would put themselves in danger protecting the women. Not unlike the same situation in the battlefield.

But that attitude is an insult to our fighting men and women. Such summary judgements forget that with military comrades, each of them is more worried about their mates in arms than themselves. Amoungst true professional soldiers,,, Brotherhood, not sex, is the prime consideration.

Not to dimminish the individual torture of repeated rape but, in war times POWs have been raped, male and female. Women don't hold the patent on receiving that cruelty.

 

[Doc]

Agreed. It is my position that women, as a whole, are lessor inclined by nature for the rigors of war and training standards must not be lowered to accommodate them.

However, if up to the charge mentally and physically, no woman should be denied he opportunity to serve.

One news report I saw said that last year they had over 1300 combat like positions that were open for women to request. Only 130 of those spots were volunteered for by women. Many women do not have any desire for combat and they would not be forced, but if they have the desire and can fulfill the requirements now there will be more opportunity for those that want that kind of duty.

As for POW's in today's wars I do not hear much about them. Did we have any in Iraq or do we have any in Afghanistan? In Vietnam the majority of the POW's were pilots who were shot down. Would that even be considered a combat position? Don't we already have women flying jets and helicopters in the armed forces?