• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Women In Combat

Steve

Well-known member
pro...

having served in a half dozen units where woman were integrated, it didn't create any real problems.. in fact for the most part it was beneficial..

also in a field that had a higher percentage of female service members,.. the current law prohibited them from serving in many rotations..

a male member would see a rotation of 4/2 (four at sea two at shore) while a female would see a rotation of 2/2 (two at neutral /two at shore)
in other words.. she would get the cake duty while a guy was out at sea ...

same effectively happens across all services..

add in the physical fitness standards were different... and the disparities widen..

these disparities make it possible for a female to climb in rank with less experience training and sacrifice then a male soldier/sailor

with opening combat.. that disparity will shrink.. and if the requirements arn't watered down.. they will serve well..

and for many it will allow them to finally "earn" their way... for the rest they will at least see the reality of equality...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm pro....

I understand that this change in policy really just updates policy which to much extent has been going on anyway- with women already showing their abilities in combat- just not being able to recognize it on paper...

Back in the early 70's when women were coming into law enforcement- I was adamantly against it-- until I worked with some outstanding women officers- who showed they could not only do almost as much as any man- but could do some things better than men- like interviewing and working with women and children victims and witness's...
And some of those women I felt better trusting them with covering my back then I did some male officers...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Con.

I just don't see many, if any, positives of having women on the front line.

they are already on the front line... in modern warfare we do not march into battle, we shape the battle field

and the ladies are already doing that for the most part.. giving them more training and admitting that the battle field is world wide will actually make the rest of the unit safer..

woman have served and fought in every war.. and often without the needed training when thrown into the breech..
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Steve said:
Whitewing said:
Con.

I just don't see many, if any, positives of having women on the front line.

they are already on the front line... in modern warfare we do not march into battle, we shape the battle field

and the ladies are already doing that for the most part.. giving them more training and admitting that the battle field is world wide will actually make the rest of the unit safer..

woman have served and fought in every war.. and often without the needed training when thrown into the breech..

Understood, but in hand-to-hand type or close-quarter combat situations, I still would not want to see women fighting alongside men.
 

Mike

Well-known member
My main reservation is to have U.S. women POW's held by some bloodthirsty maniacal tribes like we are dealing with in the middle east.

Video of some torturous sexual molestation posted on Al Jazeera will make emotions run high.
 

katrina

Well-known member
No.... Just some places women don't need to be..... There are enough other jobs for women that could let more men go to combat....
 

Larrry

Well-known member
A question for you guys. If you and another woman soldier were captured would you be able to set back while the enemy abused the woman. Would setting back be harder if the other soldier was a woman as compared to a man?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Women have been in combat roles in the Canadian forces for 24 years, seems to be working okay. There's no better trained soldiers in the world than ours, so I would think if it wasn't working we'd have heard about it by now. Don't know how comfortable I am with it, but that's a personal problem.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Silver said:
Women have been in combat roles in the Canadian forces for 24 years, seems to be working okay. There's no better trained soldiers in the world than ours, so I would think if it wasn't working we'd have heard about it by now. Don't know how comfortable I am with it, but that's a personal problem.

Saw a Canadian Colonel or General "Sumpthin Or Other" talking about women in the Canadian forces and he said the ones they have chosen are exemplary.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Con for more than one reason.

1. If it is acceptable for women to be on the front lines, then what keeps them from being drafted? I'm not okay with my daughters being drafted.

Statistically, women are far weaker in muscle strength and therefore in hand to hand combat, it will not be a fair situation.

Not saying that women aren't tougher or as intelligent or what ever else. But there are differences in the sexes and this is one.


My main reservation is to have U.S. women POW's held by some bloodthirsty maniacal tribes like we are dealing with in the middle east.

Video of some torturous sexual molestation posted on Al Jazeera will make emotions run high.

2. I have an issue with placing women at the front of a war for this purpose as well.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
okfarmer said:
Con for more than one reason.

1. If it is acceptable for women to be on the front lines, then what keeps them from being drafted? I'm not okay with my daughters being drafted.

Statistically, women are far weaker in muscle strength and therefore in hand to hand combat, it will not be a fair situation.

Not saying that women aren't tougher or as intelligent or what ever else. But there are differences in the sexes and this is one.


My main reservation is to have U.S. women POW's held by some bloodthirsty maniacal tribes like we are dealing with in the middle east.

Video of some torturous sexual molestation posted on Al Jazeera will make emotions run high.

2. I have an issue with placing women at the front of a war for this purpose as well.

:lol: :lol: I know a couple of women that could have you crying and peeing your pants in about 2 seconds- no matter how big and tough you think you are....Size/strength doesn't matter- training does...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
okfarmer said:
Con for more than one reason.

1. If it is acceptable for women to be on the front lines, then what keeps them from being drafted? I'm not okay with my daughters being drafted.

Statistically, women are far weaker in muscle strength and therefore in hand to hand combat, it will not be a fair situation.

Not saying that women aren't tougher or as intelligent or what ever else. But there are differences in the sexes and this is one.


My main reservation is to have U.S. women POW's held by some bloodthirsty maniacal tribes like we are dealing with in the middle east.

Video of some torturous sexual molestation posted on Al Jazeera will make emotions run high.

2. I have an issue with placing women at the front of a war for this purpose as well.

:lol: :lol: I know a couple of women that could have you crying and peeing your pants in about 2 seconds- no matter how big and tough you think you are....Size/strength doesn't matter- training does...

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
I do think that instead of distinguishing directly on sex you need to distinguish on abilities. If you had all men force you would do it that way.
Not to say in some instances you would distinguish them in their jobs based on sex.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
okfarmer said:
Con for more than one reason.

1. If it is acceptable for women to be on the front lines, then what keeps them from being drafted? I'm not okay with my daughters being drafted.

Statistically, women are far weaker in muscle strength and therefore in hand to hand combat, it will not be a fair situation.

Not saying that women aren't tougher or as intelligent or what ever else. But there are differences in the sexes and this is one.


My main reservation is to have U.S. women POW's held by some bloodthirsty maniacal tribes like we are dealing with in the middle east.

Video of some torturous sexual molestation posted on Al Jazeera will make emotions run high.

2. I have an issue with placing women at the front of a war for this purpose as well.

:lol: :lol: I know a couple of women that could have you crying and peeing your pants in about 2 seconds- no matter how big and tough you think you are....Size/strength doesn't matter- training does...

Boy, your just not bright. I've never made a comment one on how big and tough I am. Matter of fact, I stated that women may be tougher- as in handle pain better than men. I truly believe that to be the case on a general basis. Women are also far superior at multi-tasking than men. There are differences.

But your argument doesn't hold water Einstein if both parties are trained in combat and you look at statistical averages- which I stated. Keep trying.... :wink:



Larry,

I can go with not distinguishing directly on the sex, but on abilities. Part of what Barry is trying is to force women to the top of leadership, no matter what their ability. Someone stated that it was like playing Jinga. You pull out a peg from a lower level and keep placing them on top until the whole thing becomes unsteady. I don't think men should be chosen over women that are more proficient in an ability either. The one exception, may be on the ground fighting. I will admit that I may have not have thought it all the way to completion, but I think there are many potential problems here.

Great Brittan and the USMC have conducted studies on the performance of women vs men. Brittan tried to alter the requirements to make the study fit the desired results. The USMC hasn't made theirs public. Wonder why?

Rape of women is a very common occurrence with war. I don't see how it is intelligent to make it that much likelier to occur. I think that it could make them specific targets.

Men don't have uteruses. There is no potential for a man to endanger a child inside of them. The opposite cannot be said of women. If one is pregnant during deployment or becomes pregnant during deployment, what now? Is she responsible for endangering her child? Is she called back out of duty? Will this disrupt the flow of surrounding soldiers?

I also think the same reasoning for not having women in battle applies to homosexuals. I don't want romantic issues occurring at the forefront of a war. It is a safety concern for all soldiers involved.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
There is little question that there are a number of women who might make good combat soldiers, provided they could pass the same physical, endurance and strength tests with the same acceptable scores that current combat troops achieve. But whether a handful of exceptional women might succeed -- or opt into infantry units for that matter -- is not the relevant standard. The question is, would women's presence in combat situations enhance military effectiveness or compromise it?

One study of a brigade operating in Iraq in 2007 showed that women sustained more casualties than their male counterparts and suffered more illnesses. Female soldiers experienced three times the evacuation rate of male soldiers. And of those evacuated for medical reasons, a shocking 74 percent were for pregnancy-related issues.

The high rate of pregnancy among female soldiers is one of the best-kept secrets in the military. The various military branches are loath to publicize the figures regarding female soldiers becoming pregnant while deployed. However a study released just this week shows that military women have a higher rate of unplanned pregnancy than the comparable general population -- some 50 percent higher. And the unplanned pregnancy rate for deployed women was as high as it was for those serving stateside.

http://townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/2013/01/25/women-in-combat-spells-trouble-n1496957?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
There is little question that there are a number of women who might make good combat soldiers, provided they could pass the same physical, endurance and strength tests with the same acceptable scores that current combat troops achieve. But whether a handful of exceptional women might succeed -- or opt into infantry units for that matter -- is not the relevant standard. The question is, would women's presence in combat situations enhance military effectiveness or compromise it?

One study of a brigade operating in Iraq in 2007 showed that women sustained more casualties than their male counterparts and suffered more illnesses. Female soldiers experienced three times the evacuation rate of male soldiers. And of those evacuated for medical reasons, a shocking 74 percent were for pregnancy-related issues.

The high rate of pregnancy among female soldiers is one of the best-kept secrets in the military. The various military branches are loath to publicize the figures regarding female soldiers becoming pregnant while deployed. However a study released just this week shows that military women have a higher rate of unplanned pregnancy than the comparable general population -- some 50 percent higher. And the unplanned pregnancy rate for deployed women was as high as it was for those serving stateside.

http://townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/2013/01/25/women-in-combat-spells-trouble-n1496957?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

That sounds pretty realistic with what I heard about the first Iraq war. I was young but a friend's brother was deployed. Deployment is a long time in the lives of young men and women. He was lucky enough to become a daddy while there. Too bad his wife wasn't there with him to celebrate.
 

smalltime

Well-known member
I,m pro.This is a democracy and everyone is equal.Chivalry has no place in our society in this modern age.All you have to do is ,ake pregnancy a court martial offence and shoot the offenders.Torture happens in war .Get over it
 
Top