Women in combat policy to change

[Onkel Neal]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...nge/?hpt=hp_c2

Is this being done primarily so military women can receive citations?

I'm not sure I understand why in this time of complete equality that women are not allowed to serve in any capacity as a man? And why are women exempt from conscription? That's not equality.

I agree with this guy's comments

Infantry vet here, Hey as long as the rules remain the same and a woman is willing to be in the field for 2 weeks at a time without a shower, cleaning with wetnaps and a few drops from a canteen then sure. I also feel there should be a combat MOS PT test vs the Male/Female PT test. Reason on the latter is that if someone else goes down most non-combat personal would not be in the shape required to fireman carry a 180LB infantry guy with battle armor 100meters and if a female is going into that MOS that requirement should stay. As long as that is met I have no other complaints about them serving in any capacity they qualify for.

[August]

I agree with him too but the problem is that the rules won't stay the same. Any job that requires physical strength, Infantryman, tank mechanic, etc, will start out with one standard but when women start failing in greater numbers than men there will be charges of gender bias and then the military will do what they always do, which is lower the physical standards causing overall efficiency to suffer.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I agree, fitness standards should be same. I have never been in military, they didn't accept me , but my brother served as NCO in Army. He told me about exercise during which company was ordered to move in squads as quick march to another position. There was one female soldier in my brother's squad who just wasn't strong enough for the job. Rest of the squad ended up carrying her equipment in addition of their own and even after that their movement took about 45 min longer than from other squads.

My brother, squad leader, wasn't very pleased.

[GoldenRivet]

The important thing to remember:

There are women who dont want to serve in the military and couldnt care less about having similar rights as men. There are women out there that dont want to be submarine commanders, who dont want to fly fighter jets. There are women out there who are perfectly happy to contribute to a household by cleaning the house, taking care of the kids, making sure a good meal is prepared and managing the home. I happen to have one such woman and she is just as vital and important a part of this household as I am.

then...

there are women who want to have these equil rights, they want to roll in the mud and blood for weeks without hot showers, they want to be fortune 500 CEOs, they will not be happy unless they are flying their A-10 down flak alley at 350 knots bearing HARMs down on some SAM site. Some women just want to be one of the guys so bad they can taste it.

and hey, that's fine to want those things... but their crusade - is currently - will continue and always has screwed things up for a lot of women out there that didnt want to burn their bras.

i say give them what they want.

from this date forward all women at the age of 18 should have to sign up for selective service.

the physical and mental standards should remain the same as they have always been.

If any one of us men got drafted and hopped over into Canada we are labeled shameful draft dodgers... why shouldn't a woman have to live with the same choices and decisions?

I think from a perspective of discrimination - I'll have to insist on equality.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

The important thing to remember:

There are women who dont want to serve in the military and couldnt care less about having similar rights as men. There are women out there that dont want to be submarine commanders, who dont want to fly fighter jets. There are women out there who are perfectly happy to contribute to a household by cleaning the house, taking care of the kids, making sure a good meal is prepared and managing the home. I happen to have one such woman and she is just as vital and important a part of this household as I am.

These are the women who know their place, then?

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

These are the women who know their place, then?

I do not think he was being mysogynistic as you are painting it out to be.

I like homecooked meals from my wife, and she has no problem making them. I do not beat her or drag her by her hair to force her to make them, she does it because she likes me enough to demean herself enough to cook her old man a meal.

Am I oppressive?

I am also from a military family, and see where male/female integration can self destruct.

I am sure someone will call me a woman hater, but it is more a common sense, and human nature thing with me.

Boys and girls in war do not mix. I can just see too many 18-20 year old soldiers trying harder to get laid in the foxhole, than fighting the enemy.

I knew how I was at 18-20... Use your brains, seriously.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

I agree, fitness standards should be same. I have never been in military, they didn't accept me , but my brother served as NCO in Army. He told me about exercise during which company was ordered to move in squads as quick march to another position. There was one female soldier in my brother's squad who just wasn't strong enough for the job. Rest of the squad ended up carrying her equipment in addition of their own and even after that their movement took about 45 min longer than from other squads.

My brother, squad leader, wasn't very pleased.

In politically correct America, you will be labeled a sexist, and any valid point you made is automatically discounted.

That sarcastic comment aside I agree. My cousin and brother were both marines (My left leg is 2 inches shorter than my right, due to a car accident and substandard medical care given to uninsured 14 year olds from poor families, I walk with a permanent limp, they didn't let me in either)

I asked both their opinions on women serving alongside them, and they both agreed it is not a good idea.

Not out of sexist reasons, so hear us out.

In war, man is brought to the most primal of instincts, which explains the high amount of wartime rapes, throughout any war in history. Just look at how German women killed themselves to avoid the Russian army retaliations, or the rape of Nanking by Japanese soldiers.

Anything with a vagina would be nothing more than an impediment, yes that sounds incredibly mysogynistic, but it is not my intention. Men get extra sensitive over a woman falling in combat over another swinging "jimmy"

It sounds bad, I am having troubles articulating myself today. Not minimizing the woman warrior. Just trying to highlight the potential distraction to the male majority.

(no matter how I say it, I am an a-hole, it is not intentional, nor do I hate women, after all someone did marry me.)

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

In war, man is brought to the most primal of instincts, which explains the high amount of wartime rapes, throughout any war in history. Just look at how German women killed themselves to avoid the Russian army retaliations, or the rape of Nanking by Japanese soldiers.

Anything with a vagina would be nothing more than an impediment, yes that sounds incredibly mysogynistic, but it is not my intention. Men get extra sensitive over a woman falling in combat over another swinging "jimmy"

On the other hand, Soviet experience of women in combat in WWII frequently throws a wrench into this alleged historical inability of women to perform. Certainly not all women, and certainly not all of them were equally capable, but the Eastern Front provides many examples of women in WWII who fought on par and in some cases better than men. There are several exceptional cases of women as combat troops in front line units, as tank drivers, attack aircraft pilots. There are very large numbers of Soviet women who distinguished themselves as partisans and saboteurs, nurses and other frontline support troops, bomber pilots and air defense crews (i.e. these are roles they performed often, not rarely). There are also whole schools and units of women night bomber pilots and women snipers who, arguably, outperformed all-male units in the Soviet effort.

What does that say as a precedent, then?

There is, of course, the other side - the Soviet army was hardly a professional one (that is, it was a war emergency situation) and hardly dealt with political issues and rules in the same way as the modern-day US army does. But I think the difference here is one of motivation and politics, not necessarily ability. A woman who wants a US army career and social acceptance is probably not motivated by the same things as someone fighting for the survival of their country in a war emergency. It's nonsense to suggest that a woman in combat is always a liability, however. There are many historical cases where they proved themselves to be assets, rather, and the study of the Soviet WWII efforts shoots down a lot of these myths.

[GoldenRivet]

Situation:

a unit is overrun and captured by an enemy force.

the unit has 2 female combatants and 15 male combatants.

the enemy soldiers separate the 2 females and any number of enemy soldiers proceed to rape them repeatedly in brutal fashion in view of the male combatants.

The senior military officer approaches the male combatants in their cell

"This can all stop if you just give us the information we want."

what happens?

Does someone talk at the expense of thousands of other soldiers?

Do the women talk to save themselves?

Knowing the vitality of the information you posses as one of the male combatants... would you feel more compelled to talk considering the torture of your colleague was especially heinous and unusual?

Either way the women and probably even the men involved are psychologically scarred - probably well beyond the normal psychological stress of war- for the rest of their lives.

an back to the draft situation.

Both of these girls are drafted:





which is more likely to be killed in the first 5 minutes of a deployment?

[soopaman2]

CCIP sir. I see your point and am not minimizing the combat capibilities of a woman, war is a human instict. You are kinda comparing women defending the homeland to what I was comparing it to (imperialistic actions overseas, with no penalty to defeat, not like your losing your mother land), is women in aggressive combat situations far from home, for little sovereign gain to the agressors. (what is the US getting from Iraq and Afghanistan. China already bought the mineral fields we found in afghanistan.)

But the post below you by GoldenRivet illustrates my point, better than me.

What real man would let a woman be abused by savages, no matter how well trained they are, a mans paternal/protectionist instinct will take over, and can cost many lives in unecessary/vain bravado.

Please do not take me as being mysogynistic. But it is a fact men and women are built differently, it is this politically correct crap that forces us into eventual conundrums as GoldenRivet highlighted so well.

[RickC Sniper]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

which is more likely to be killed in the first 5 minutes of a deployment?

That is a good post by you but I ask other questions.

Which of these two is more likely to get her squad mates killed?

If the weak get killed off the quickest is it or is it not actually beneficial to the rest?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

which is more likely to be killed in the first 5 minutes of a deployment?

If we are taking the two individuals above into combat as is, which you seem to have indicated by the nature of your post, then I would say that they both stand excellent chances of death. I would also, if this were the case, question why was are spending so much money on our war machine if we are sending troops without training.

That aside, if the individual can do the job required then I have no issue of what their gender, race or sexual orientation is.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Situation:

a unit is overrun and captured by an enemy force.

the unit has 2 female combatants and 15 male combatants.

the enemy soldiers separate the 2 females and any number of enemy soldiers proceed to rape them repeatedly in brutal fashion in view of the male combatants.

The senior military officer approaches the male combatants in their cell

"This can all stop if you just give us the information we want."

what happens?

Does someone talk at the expense of thousands of other soldiers?

Do the women talk to save themselves?

True. But just imagine, the enemy captures you, and me, and Sailor Steve. They take me aside and tell me that a hundred enemy soldiers are gonna rape me if I don't talk... I'll probably sprain my jaw spilling the beans so fast.

Originally Posted by August

What are you wearing?

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

which is more likely to be killed in the first 5 minutes of a deployment?

So men who were seemingly unfit for service were never drafted? If that's not the case, then you're just pointing out the negatives of conscription, and not female soldiers.