HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » On the Reality of Combat

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:49 AM

On the Reality of Combat

There are no words that I can say, eloquently or otherwise, that could convince anyone who supports integrating women into combat arms (infantry, armor, cavalry or special operations) more so than the following article written by a Marine infantryman.

If, after reading the complete piece, you still believe that women have a place in the hell of combat soldiers headed into battle, please by all means sign yourself or your daughter up with the current Marine Corps experiment (you need to be an officer to volunteer for the program).

Flame away.

Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

A Pentagon push to mix the sexes ignores how awful cheek-by-jowl life is on the battlefield

By RYAN SMITH

America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

*snip*

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

*snip*

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

*snip*

Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

*snip*

Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.


338 replies, 18988 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 338 replies Author Time Post
Reply On the Reality of Combat (Original post)
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 OP
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #1
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #2
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #4
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #6
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #9
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #17
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #20
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #25
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #29
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #274
randome Jan 2013 #30
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #35
CreekDog Jan 2013 #122
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #126
CreekDog Jan 2013 #129
Scootaloo Jan 2013 #156
Squinch Jan 2013 #300
RILib Jan 2013 #319
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #169
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #166
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #277
BainsBane Jan 2013 #186
Auntie Bush Jan 2013 #264
BainsBane Jan 2013 #303
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #279
NealK Jan 2013 #267
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #276
CreekDog Jan 2013 #120
Sheldon Cooper Jan 2013 #178
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #180
Sheldon Cooper Jan 2013 #185
October Jan 2013 #272
mercuryblues Jan 2013 #327
dballance Jan 2013 #8
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #12
randome Jan 2013 #19
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #26
Voice for Peace Jan 2013 #158
BainsBane Jan 2013 #191
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #280
regjoe Jan 2013 #36
CreekDog Jan 2013 #117
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #119
CreekDog Jan 2013 #137
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #141
CreekDog Jan 2013 #142
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #146
CreekDog Jan 2013 #153
BainsBane Jan 2013 #192
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #196
BainsBane Jan 2013 #198
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #281
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #309
sarisataka Jan 2013 #233
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #268
sarisataka Jan 2013 #290
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #295
sarisataka Jan 2013 #313
randome Jan 2013 #3
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #5
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #7
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #11
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #14
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #21
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #24
RobinA Jan 2013 #74
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #77
LanternWaste Jan 2013 #81
BainsBane Jan 2013 #239
Squinch Jan 2013 #299
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #172
cyberswede Jan 2013 #179
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #182
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #190
Democracyinkind Jan 2013 #188
Squinch Jan 2013 #302
CreekDog Jan 2013 #124
randome Jan 2013 #10
dballance Jan 2013 #13
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #15
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #34
dballance Jan 2013 #47
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #54
dballance Jan 2013 #56
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #176
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #177
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #181
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #183
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #214
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #216
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #229
pkdu Jan 2013 #275
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #222
RobinA Jan 2013 #76
tblue Jan 2013 #160
DeschutesRiver Jan 2013 #106
Brickbat Jan 2013 #16
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #18
Brickbat Jan 2013 #22
WooWooWoo Jan 2013 #23
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #31
WooWooWoo Jan 2013 #46
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #223
Bigmack Jan 2013 #27
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #33
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #40
redqueen Jan 2013 #83
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #89
BainsBane Jan 2013 #311
white_wolf Jan 2013 #165
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #310
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #28
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #32
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #37
athena Jan 2013 #38
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #42
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #43
SQUEE Jan 2013 #53
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #55
SQUEE Jan 2013 #57
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #60
SQUEE Jan 2013 #61
Moonwalk Jan 2013 #80
SQUEE Jan 2013 #86
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #69
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #70
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #64
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #75
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #226
BainsBane Jan 2013 #230
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #251
kentuck Jan 2013 #39
MrYikes Jan 2013 #41
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #44
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #93
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #94
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #96
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #97
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #154
RILib Jan 2013 #334
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #45
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #50
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #78
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #48
loudsue Jan 2013 #49
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #51
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #52
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #58
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #59
Blue_Tires Jan 2013 #62
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #65
SQUEE Jan 2013 #98
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #103
SQUEE Jan 2013 #329
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #68
LanternWaste Jan 2013 #84
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #270
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #288
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #296
LanternWaste Jan 2013 #322
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #324
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #63
Blue_Tires Jan 2013 #66
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #67
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #71
WooWooWoo Jan 2013 #72
cynatnite Jan 2013 #73
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #111
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #199
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #79
we can do it Jan 2013 #82
Moonwalk Jan 2013 #85
SQUEE Jan 2013 #87
randome Jan 2013 #109
SQUEE Jan 2013 #118
Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #138
SQUEE Jan 2013 #328
RILib Jan 2013 #337
SQUEE Jan 2013 #338
aaaaaa5a Jan 2013 #88
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #90
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #91
zipplewrath Jan 2013 #105
DeschutesRiver Jan 2013 #110
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #115
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #136
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #143
zipplewrath Jan 2013 #171
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #278
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #285
zipplewrath Jan 2013 #286
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #258
zipplewrath Jan 2013 #167
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #130
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #135
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #228
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #271
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #151
zipplewrath Jan 2013 #170
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #260
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #273
aaaaaa5a Jan 2013 #317
Victor_c3 Jan 2013 #92
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #95
SQUEE Jan 2013 #100
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #101
SQUEE Jan 2013 #107
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #99
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #102
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #104
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #108
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #113
CreekDog Jan 2013 #163
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #194
REP Jan 2013 #112
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #114
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #116
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #121
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #123
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #127
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #132
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #139
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #125
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #128
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #232
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #134
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #293
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #131
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #133
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #140
REP Jan 2013 #147
CreekDog Jan 2013 #162
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #211
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #210
REP Jan 2013 #144
DollarBillHines Jan 2013 #145
REP Jan 2013 #152
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #148
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #149
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #155
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #208
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #213
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #215
BainsBane Jan 2013 #243
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #282
BainsBane Jan 2013 #301
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #312
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #259
BainsBane Jan 2013 #195
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #209
auntsue Jan 2013 #308
jmowreader Jan 2013 #150
Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #157
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #159
BainsBane Jan 2013 #161
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #164
Spazito Jan 2013 #168
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #173
MadrasT Jan 2013 #174
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #184
Gormy Cuss Jan 2013 #175
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #187
Lone_Star_Dem Jan 2013 #189
RC Jan 2013 #193
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #197
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #201
BainsBane Jan 2013 #202
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #203
BainsBane Jan 2013 #205
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #234
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #206
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #235
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #207
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #212
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #218
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #238
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #242
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #221
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #231
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jan 2013 #246
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #298
Ehanson005 Jan 2013 #200
pinto Jan 2013 #269
Ehanson005 Jan 2013 #332
BainsBane Jan 2013 #204
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #219
BainsBane Jan 2013 #224
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #225
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #237
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #241
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #240
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #247
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #250
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #255
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #217
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #220
Aviation Pro Jan 2013 #227
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #236
BainsBane Jan 2013 #244
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #249
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #261
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #265
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #283
BainsBane Jan 2013 #306
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #314
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #262
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #263
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #266
BainsBane Jan 2013 #305
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #256
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #245
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #307
Hekate Jan 2013 #248
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #252
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #254
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #257
Jester Messiah Jan 2013 #253
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #284
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #291
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #294
LanternWaste Jan 2013 #325
Jester Messiah Jan 2013 #297
RILib Jan 2013 #323
Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #287
Warpy Jan 2013 #289
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #292
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #304
noamnety Jan 2013 #315
CreekDog Jan 2013 #316
RILib Jan 2013 #318
RILib Jan 2013 #320
LWolf Jan 2013 #321
another_liberal Jan 2013 #326
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #330
JanMichael Jan 2013 #331
Romulus Quirinus Jan 2013 #333
Matariki Jan 2013 #335
tblue37 Jan 2013 #336

Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:57 AM

1. they are moving to one standard for the pft...

...and whoever passes it is in. Its the way it should be. And both genders will adjust to the close proximity of each other. Of that, I have no doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:58 AM

2. Wrong answer

And you ignored the article. Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:05 AM

4. i read the article. twice.

The article focused on the shitty life that grunts have, and my statement still stands. Both genders will adjust to seeing each other in "shitty" situations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:08 AM

6. Have you ever experienced a month in these conditions?

Your answer is 'nope.' Move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:10 AM

9. deployed 4 times. as a Corpsman. with the Infantry. N/T

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:18 AM

17. Where?

Let's add some context. Was it training or live and yes I'm calling you out. You can do the same to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:21 AM

20. twice to iraq and twice to afghanistan. and i dont feel the need...

...to call you out as I don't care. You may have deployed more or less, or seen more combat, but as I said in another post you don't need to serve to have an opinion. The CIC is our boss, and the people is his boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:25 AM

25. That's right the President is the boss....

....and the SECDEF did this on the way out. That's cowardly in my book. This is the one line in the sand that I draw in spite of being a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:27 AM

29. do you really think...

...he did this without the Presidents knowledge? I find that VERY hard to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:48 PM

274. By the way, thank you for your service and welcome to DU!



Honestly, I hope you've lurked here for a while because let me assure you that blatent discrimination isn't usually tolerated. I'm mystified as to why this has persisted this long.

Anyway, thanks for chiming in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:28 AM

30. But it's an argument you have already lost.

Just as there is no turning back for gay rights, women WILL serve in combat roles. Either deal with it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:35 AM

35. No I will not deal with it

And Congress will stop this buffoonery before it gets too far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:04 PM

122. DU isn't a place for you to rant against women's equality

whatever issues you have, there are other venues to work through your sexism.

that's not what we're for.

word to the wise. you should know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #122)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:06 PM

126. Pulling the sexism card on me

Is stupid considering who I support as CINC in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:07 PM

129. sexism card?

is this your way of saying good bye to us?

if you keep it up, we'll see what happens.

you want to stay on DU, or do you want to be sexist?

you think you can do both?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:32 PM

156. "Some of my best candidates are women!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #156)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:51 PM

300. There's a binder joke in there somewhere!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #300)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:31 AM

319. Squinch, lol!

 

I was about to post about the Repubs landing on this, but I see we have one of our own in a snit as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:49 PM

169. You pulled the sexism card all by yourself.

No one had to do it 'on' you, they merely had to read your OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:44 PM

166. This thread and your responses on it have zero place on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #166)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:53 PM

277. I think it's against TOS, personally

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:07 PM

186. You sound exactly like those who opposed racial integration

of the armed forces. There is no daylight between your position and theirs. Suck it up. You're going to have to compete on the merits. The country is not going to legislate based on (some) male insecurity anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #186)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:35 PM

264. You sound like those who said women couldn't be in the millitary because they get histerical once a

month and have periods. Women seem to have conquered that problem! Next!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #264)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:02 PM

303. You, meaning AviationPro

I hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #186)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:54 PM

279. Same exact argument as against racial integration

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:40 PM

267. The Paleolithic called.

They're missing a Cro-Magnon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:52 PM

276. It is a done deal -- Congress won't stop it

And, why, pray tell, is it "buffonery"? Women are the buffons, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:03 PM

120. it's NOT OK to be sexist on DU

that's that.

there's another board where you can talk contemptfully about women.

this aint it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:57 PM

178. Hahaha

Got your ass handed to you on this one, didn't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #178)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:58 PM

180. Nope

I stand my ground on this one; I won't budge for buffoonery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #180)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:07 PM

185. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #180)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:47 PM

272. You won't budge? So you have a closed mind and are not interested in others' experiences or opinions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #180)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:51 AM

327. By your standards

women should never be nurses or nursing assisants either. You know because sometimes male patients are incontinent and shit and piss themselves and require cleaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:10 AM

8. Why is it the "Wrong Answer?" Because it doesn't agree with your opinion?

Because it doesn't jibe with your opinion?

I didn't ignore the article and I don't see why we have two standards based on gender. I know several women who are much tougher than a lot of men I know and I'd rather have them in battle with me than some of those men.

If, by the time you're a marine or solider on the field you can get over seeing the death and carnage war brings of burned and maimed bodies but the thought of seeing the opposite sex naked or being seen naked by them troubles you then you have a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:16 AM

12. In what?

A Tough Mudder? False equivalency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:21 AM

19. Maybe you're not as tough as you imagine if the things you listed truly bother you.

All the best on this thread, though. Hopefully you'll learn something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:26 AM

26. Written by someone....

...who's never experienced them.

Next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:32 PM

158. people just see it differently.. doesn't mean anybody is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:11 PM

191. lots of women are better than men at many things

and there will be women stronger than you, just as there are women smarter than you. You're going to have to deal with that fact. If you can't handle the competition, you'll have to find another career.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:55 PM

280. No one ever mentioned a Tough Mudder

Nor compared it to being in combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:39 AM

36. Seriously?

 

Why do we have two standards based on gender?

Answer: So women can serve in the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:01 PM

117. it's not a badge of honor to be sexist and proud of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #117)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:03 PM

119. I'm pragmatic

Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #119)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:14 PM

137. no, you're not. or else you wouldn't question the physical prowess of people who disagree with you

which is pretty much the sum total of your rationale for supporting a sexist policy.

you even told a war veteran here that they are physically inferior to you, why? you assumed that they were because they disagreed with you.

pragmatic? no. your position is DOGMATIC.

it's not informed, it's stereotypical, it's even anti-veteran.

it's unthinking.

and it's losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #137)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:17 PM

141. Did you even read the article?

Doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #141)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:19 PM

142. i'm arguing with your stereotyping

and your stereotyping is shallow, unthinking, anti-progressive and not even practical (as you claim it to be).

ALSO, it's basically the same argument used to stop the overturning of DADT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #142)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:21 PM

146. Wrong answer

Gay is not female. I've served along side gay soldiers and had no problem with it because they could pull their weight.

Yet another false equivalency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #146)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:26 PM

153. it's the right answer

you have no credibility on this topic now that you denigrated a veteran in this thread for simply disagreeing with you.

no credibility left whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #146)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:14 PM

192. so the nation is supposed to discriminate because you hate women?

and are insecure?

Women are already in combat. They aren't being paid for it and promoted based on that experience. You're entire argument is based on male insecurity, which is entirely the problem of men, not women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #192)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:18 PM

196. Like insulting people don't you?

This discussion is about females serving in Combat Arms units as stated in the OP. Your denseness stems from the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Welcome to the ignore list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #196)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:23 PM

198. LOL

You've insulted half of the world's population. And your determination to add me to ignore only proves my point about insecurity. By all means ignore me. Run away from a fight with a girl. No wonder you don't want to see women in combat.

The decision has been made by your superiors. You opinion holds no more weight than mine, and you've already proven you lack the ability to construct a persuasive argument or converse with those who disagree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #196)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:57 PM

281. Women are serving in combat

Just because they aren't assigned to "official" combat units doesn't mean they aren't in combat. Circular logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #146)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:21 PM

309. Apparently, you can't pull your weight because you are afraid of being naked

and filthy in front of women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:53 PM

233. Correct

I deployed with both combat and 'non-combat' units. We had females in the non-combat units and exchanged bullets with some close personal friends on more than one occasion. Our women did as well as the men did. We had no problems working together with minimal privacy.

When we were in quarters, our women got pissed that they had to go to segregated barracks. They felt like they belonged with the men and were insulted that they had to live apart after having been together in close conditions. We had more brother/sister attitudes towards each other than generic male/female views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #233)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:41 PM

268. Thank you for your service. Your now probably ignored like the rest of us...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #268)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:14 PM

290. It was an interesting job

with unusual 'perks' Would do it again in a moment and would not wish it on my worst enemy...

It doesn't matter if a person ignores or not if they won't listen

Saol fada chugat- My wife is Irsh, I would say Sto Lat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #290)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:54 PM

295. Ah well, the worse for you - I AM the Irish wife! Fiery temper and all....

but I don't know any Irish... My Irish grandmother did but she never did pass it along to my mum or I.

Alas.

So...

Saol fada chugat back atcha!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #295)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:06 AM

313. Her grandpa who passed on last year

taught a few phrases. It means Long life, basically.
And yes having an Irish wife is good for the karma

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:05 AM

3. So the article supports the proposition that it's tough being in the military. Got it.

The horrors of having to pee in front of someone! The horrors of having to sit on a man's lap in crowded conditions! The HORRORS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:06 AM

5. That was about as stupid a response as I could possibly imagine....

...you went for the salacious instead of focusing on the reality. So, try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:09 AM

7. saying "try again"...

...until we come up with the answer YOU want is not what a discussion board is for. Grunt life sucks, there will be one standard for everyone, whoever passes it is in. What is the problem with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:13 AM

11. So your suggestion is to norm the standards, huh?

Does that mean lower the male standards and raise the female standards? Let me guess, instead of dragging or carrying a 180 lb sack, let's lower it to 110 lbs (the lowest common denominator) and without combat gear.

Did you serve in an infantry unit? Your answer is 'nope.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:17 AM

14. they are already moving to one standard...

...female Marines are now going to be required to do pull ups instead of the flex arm hang. Eventually they will have the same standards as male Marines, in the pft and the cft.

See my response above for my service record, though you don't have to serve to have an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:22 AM

21. How many?

I do pull ups and can still knock them out in the gym at my advanced age. I never see any females doing pull ups at my gym.

My guess as to the new one standard, four, which is an embarrassment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:24 AM

24. right now i believe it is 8...

...but eventually it will be 20 to get full points. Of that I have no doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:54 PM

74. So Now We See

what this is really about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #74)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:05 PM

77. Wrong answer

No you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:48 PM

81. Simply saying "wring answer" does not, fact mean it is the wrong answer

Simply saying "wring answer" does not, fact mean it is the wrong answer, regardless of whether that answer validates your own opinions or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:54 PM

239. It does mean he can't counter the argument

however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:50 PM

299. Wrong answer.

There. No backs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:53 PM

172. Who gives a shit what happens at 'your' gym.

This is a question of policy, not mindless anecdotes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:57 PM

179. "I never see any females doing pull ups at my gym."



So clearly, no women can do pull ups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #179)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:00 PM

182. Or clearly they don't want to embarass themselves.

But in the Marines you have to do three as a minimum and you will be laughed at if you do that. You can Google the standards if you'd like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #182)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:10 PM

190. I see, so since you've never seen it, women can't do a proper pull-up.

&feature=player_detailpage#t=73s

This explains everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #179)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:09 PM

188. I bet he ain't got nothing against her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #179)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:01 PM

302. Hey, wait a minute! You know, I never see females giving birth at my gym....

WHAT CAN IT MEAN??????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:05 PM

124. what about firefighters?

police officers?

athletes?

women are in field after field, doing hard physical work.

what about that?

your opinion sound backwards even by standards a half century ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:12 AM

10. You thought those 2 points were worth snipping.

Regarding the others: soreness and having to defecate in a bag? Pfft!

Oh, and then there's the problem of being naked in front of other soldiers. Again, Pfft!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:17 AM

13. Become accustomed to burned/maimed bodies okay - seeing opposite sex naked bad

Did I get that right? The delicate flower soldiers can become accustomed to the daily carnage of war seeing the burned, maimed bodies of the enemy. But they can't become accustomed to having to perform a bodily function or being naked in front of the opposite sex. And well, they are women and since they're women we shouldn't subject them to these horrors of war. I mean they have a uterus and not a penis.

Let the flames fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:18 AM

15. +1.

Not sure why the resistance to women in combat arms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:34 AM

34. Nobody gets accustomed to the horrors of combat ever.

And your point is well taken. So let's ask the next question, why would females want to be part of this circle of hell?

The answer: pay and promotions (but only for the officer corps).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:05 AM

47. Right, Pay and Promotions, Because They're not as Patriotic and Dedicated as Men

Look, all the types of arguments being made against women in combat are the same types of arguments made when Truman integrated the services. Unit cohesion would go down, whites didn't want to share quarters with blacks, etc.

And I'm sure unit cohesion did go down at the beginning until the time came when it was an "oh, ho-hum" the new guy in the unit is African American. I'm sure the same thing will happen as women are further integrated into units until the time it becomes an oh, ho-hum. But for us to get to that point we must start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:20 AM

54. Yeah, it is pay and promotions

There have been exactly two females who've attempted to go through the USMC infantry training program. Both were officers, both were dropped (one failed physically, the other quit). So, as an officer and knowing officer mentality, I can safely say that this is all about pay and promotions for the officer corps. If not, then why isn't there an equivalent experimental program for enlisted Marines?

Again, this is my line in the sand and there are plenty of others who share the same opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:30 AM

56. You Have Every Right to Your Opinion and Line in the Sand

If you want to fight this I suggest you contact your congress people and urge them to sponsor bills reversing the decision and prohibiting women in combat zones. That's probably the best way I can think of for you to try to effect a change.

Actually, I'd be surprised if there's not already someone in congress already preparing bills to reverse the decision and prohibit women in combat zones.

Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:55 PM

176. Your opinion is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #176)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:57 PM

177. So is yours

So let's stick to the facts, it's all about pay and promotions. See the recent lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #177)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:59 PM

181. I don't care if it is 'about pay and promotions'.

I don't find that claim credible, but even if it is true, I don't give a shit.

And apparently neither does the military leadership.
Women have already served competently in combat roles, sometimes unexpectedly. Sometimes as POW's. Everything you are all worried about has already happened, and the movement continues to make this the norm.

That should probably tell you something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #181)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:02 PM

183. Name one female infantry officer.

Just one, because that's what this discussion is all about. It's not about serving in combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #183)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:42 PM

214. How about a Major General? Orna Barbivai of the IDF. Do you want two names? OK

Capitan Merav Buchris, again IDF.

Want still more names? There out there on google but you only asked for one.

Or do you think the Israeli military has a tendency to simply promote without merit?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #214)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:43 PM

216. U.S. name

This thread is about Combat Arms in the United States of America.

Now name one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #216)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:52 PM

229. Changing of the goalposts. Dishonest and disingenuous. Face it, Israel is doing it already

since 2000. Or do you really believe that the IDF has lesser standards for their military personnel and that these women don't somehow "measure" up to the US combat forces?

Since that chaps your ass (or feet in this case), deal with it.

You said to name ONE person. I did. I'm not doing your research for you since you refuse to acknowledge what's already been put out there by me and others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #216)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:49 PM

275. Oops....just dropped another bollock . Really , reread your post . In the context of your argument..

You just lost any shred of credibility ( not that I thought you had much when I read the article)...but seriously , nationality of the females we are discussing how?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #183)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:48 PM

222. Name one African-American Infantry General

Oh, okay, Major. Just one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:02 PM

76. Why Do Men

want to be part of this circle of hell? Reading the quoted article and thinking that the military is volunteer at this point, I'm tempted to wonder what's up with anybody, male or female, who puts themselves in this position. Especially since nowadays the wars we're fighting aren't exactly necessary for the country's survival.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:34 PM

160. Thanks, RobinA,

that was my thinking too. Why is all that considered acceptable for men or for anybody? If women are willing to do it, why stop them? And if certain mem don't, well who's to say they're better suited for it than a woman who wants to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:38 PM

106. Aren't there humans with vaginas who care for maimed or burned bodies, and see their patients naked?

I thought it was okay for humans with either vaginas or penises to serve as doctors and nurses in the military.

But humans with vaginas that give birth can clean up maimed fighters and see all the carnage and naked parts of fighters that they want, but they can't fight unless they are a human with a penis.

And if the people with vaginas want to fight where they'd see the same shit they are allowed to clean up and care for, then those peeps with vaginas can only be wanting to fight in combat just for the pay and promotions.

Glad this kind of thinking is on the way to becoming a part of America's "good old days." There isn't a single valid argument against women in combat on this thread.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:18 AM

16. "One can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite

sex."

This guy has clearly never been married.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:19 AM

18. Marriage equals combat?

Return to reality please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:22 AM

22. No, marriage is a pact of mutual respect, support and sacrifice through good times and bad.

From what I've heard from some, it's not anywhere close to the kind of respect, support and sacrifice that people in the same unit feel for each other. A little thing like the shits isn't going to wreck that, no matter who's doing the shitting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:23 AM

23. grunts will learn to deal with it

but it won't be easy. There are a lot of hard-headed numb-skulls in the infantry who won't accept women.

Fuck them.

It's the 21st century. Time to deal with reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:28 AM

31. You've got a service ribbon as your avatar...

....which means I get to ask the question, where in the history of arms has there ever been a successful integration of men and women in an infantry unit.

Name one.

Don't cite the Israeli all female example or the Russian sniper teams they aren't germane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:04 AM

46. if there's never been one before, there will be now

unless you doubt the ability of our servicemen to adapt to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:49 PM

223. Name one integrated US infantry unit

Just one.

name one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:26 AM

27. I don't understand why anybody wants to serve in combat arms...

.. male.. female...gay...tall...short.

I've been there.

Considering the wars of choice that we endlessly choose... why would anybody want to serve in combat arms... to suffer and/or die for NOTHING.

Oh... and save all the "vocation" shit. Our society needs lots of vocations.. it shouldn't need so many grunts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:30 AM

33. Best answer so far....

....thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:49 AM

40. agreed.

I would not want my daughter to enlist. I also don't want my 6 month old son to enlist. Until he is 18 and can do what he wants I will never support it. I also don't have a "love me" wall or anything that will glorify my time in anywhere in my home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:57 PM

83. Because it is glorified.

This is why many feminists disagree that feminism is about "equality". Many do not want to join the patriarchy as full partners in the worship of heirarchy and the 'joy' of domination. Many would prefer complete liberation from these outdated ideas, for everyone. Not just women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:15 PM

89. Well said. Becoming a killer for the state is not "liberation".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #89)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:27 PM

311. Not for you

but women in the military should have the right to make that choice for themselves. No one should make it for them.

And of course they already serve in combat. They just aren't paid or promoted for. Distinctions between combat and non-combat roles have eroded in modern warfare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:44 PM

165. I just have one thing to say in regards to this statement.

Best post of the entire thread. It really could stand own as an OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:24 PM

310. Thank you redqueen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:26 AM

28. Teh wimmens is so fragile and delicate! How will they survive pooping in a bag

and sweating and being nekkid???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:30 AM

32. Again...

....they have to be ready to fight after shitting in a bag. Guess what, some men aren't ready to fight after enduring the hardships of just getting to the objective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:40 AM

37. I don't get your point. If a woman qualifies for combat duty, physically and mentally, what

on God's green earth does pooping in a bag matter? Or losing privacy? Or having to endure unpleasant conditions? Because some MEN wash out, women could never succeed under the same circumstances?

Tell you what, most likely few women will qualify physically for combat/infantry type roles, because they do not have the upper-body strength, it's as simple as that. There are strength differences between men and women, and THAT is the only limiting factor, or should be. Nothing else that this article describes should keep women out. Besides, it's perfectly OK for women to deal with others' piss and shit and blood as nurses and nurses' aides--no one is worried about those delicate flowers when they turn heavy patients to clean up a GI-bleed shit for the fifth time during a shift. Women have been the ones to handle the unpleasant physical tasks of caring for others since the dawn of man. Why should they need protection from unpleasant physical circumstances in combat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:45 AM

38. ^This^

Excellent points made!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:51 AM

42. Cogent answer

But there's an enormous difference between the controlled environment of a hospital and the brutal one of combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:55 AM

43. If qualifying men are allowed to test themselves in combat, it's hard to see how

the rare qualifying woman shouldn't be allowed the same opportunity. I really do think it will not be a common occurrence, but to deny someone an opportunity based upon OTHERS' FEARS for her is ridiculous and unfair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:16 AM

53. Thank you, yours is the perfect answer to many problems I have wrestled with on this.

Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:12 PM - Edit history (1)

But I am still bothered by the physical limitations that are a product of nature.
I am former 11B/C, and aside from the physical standards I have no problem serving with over or under a competent female Soldier.
But there are rigors of combat that most men can't or wont handle. Carrying your downed brother, and your own gear as well as weapon and being prepared to engage and evade simultaneously is a thing not even 25 percent of the male population is capable of. Even very fit and athletic females will strain at that, and these are women that spend long hours and food regimens to attain and keep that level of fitness, something hardly possible in the sandbox on a diet of MREs, and a degraded PT schedule. I was a '60 gunner so lets add 25 plus pounds of dead weight at the end of my arms, another 5-7 for my spare barrel, and LOTS of ammo.. we are starting to talk some serious weight and physical distress. And that is just my standard load out. over 75 lbs, on my back and arms. And to say well we wont have a female grunt fill a MG slot, is not rational or combat effective, if I go down, there has to be someone there to fill the slot, and if the nearest soldier is female, well boom congratulations you are now a Machine gunner.
Strip away all the propaganda and recruitment bullshit, and the layers of feel good nonsense and at its core, a grunt is there to kill people and break things, that is all he is for, and as hard as it is for many to understand, we become strangely comfortable with that, and celebrate it.
When I was in I would have grumbled and bitched, but when told to accept females in my unit I would have had to adapt, improvise and I would overcome and soldier on. But I dont believe I would ever trust that GI Jane would be as able to carry her weight as Joe would.
I think the best way to handle this is quit weighting CIBs Combat MOS time in combat over the necessary, and oft as dangerous work that many females do and excel at. MPs, Medics, many mechanic and trans jobs are in as much of the shit as a armor crewman is going to see, especially in terms of low intensity combat we are now engaged in.
I see women AH64 pilots as a good thing, or as bomber and fighter pilots. I think women should be allowed to attempt Ranger School as it is leadership development course and is a serious leg up to advancement. But I can not agree that Infantry is the right place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:26 AM

55. Thank you....

...I've tried to make this argument over and over again and it falls on deaf ears. My only disagreement with your post is Ranger School, not because I expect any female officer to end up in the Regiment, but because some crusty S'arnt Major will decree that he isn't going to send anymore scroll guys to the school because it's been reduced down to a leadership course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:37 AM

57. Aside from being a "tryout" for the Bats..

The school itself is a very effective and successful leadership development exercise, and as long as the promotion points are there, people will shoot for their scroll. Ranger School graduates take back the knowledge to their units and it is disseminated to the troops, and the prestige attached to the Black(butternut now, I'm old school) Beret, and those that earned it is also a tool in leadership, like rank it is something we program people to respect and heed. Females will need this in their arsenal the same as males, only a DI crest carries as much weight in the eyes of the average GI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:01 PM

60. The Batts....

...put the FNGs through RIP or RASP first before sending them to Benning. The real tryout is under the tutelage of the Spec 4 mafia and RS is treated like a reward for successfully enduring indoctrination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:14 PM

61. Spec 4 mafia.. memories... >shudder<

I recognize what you are saying, but completion of the program itself is given high regard. and the small bit of true learning achieved in the phases is necasarrily built on at the regiment. This does not remove the fact that along with many other checks on your list.. Completion and receiving the Scroll is a part of getting keys to the Execitive washroom.
I would leave the standards as high as they are, and I would allow females to at least attempt, of course only after RIP/RASP, and obviously Airborne.
My only fear would be since slots are awarded for attempts not completions, sending a higher percentage of washouts would lessen the amount of scrolls Army wide. I do believe there will be female soldiers that can earn thier scroll, but I believe they should be getting the Tan beanie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:42 PM

80. I'm sorry but your arguments don't really prove the point...

As you say, 25 percent of men can't do what you say they have to do. And so, I assume, those 25 percent don't get to be in combat. Likewise with women. If they can't do it, then they won't get to be in the combat zone. And by the way, you were a '60's gunner? Am I correct in reading that as meaning you were a 1960's gunner? If so, are you sure the weight that soldiers have to carry now are as heavy and hard to handle as those you dealt with? I know nothing about it, but I'd be surprised with all the advances made in weaponry and modern lightweight materials for gear if that dead weight isn't far easier to handle now than when you were in combat. If they are significantly lighter, then your arguments loose a lot of punch. How much weight does a modern soldier haul around (outside of his wounded buddy) as compared to what you had to haul?

Even if the weight is the same, however, those women who can't haul such weights won't be in combat. Just like those who wash out of basic training won't be in the army. On the other hand, a woman who can haul such weights, can prove in the training that she can carry a guy on her shoulders plus gear, etc.--well, you offer no reason at all why she shouldn't be in combat.

My point being, your arguments about weight and such are moot because no one is saying that anyone who isn't qualified to be in combat should be in combat. If it turns out that no women are qualified then there will be no women. If it turns out that there are women qualified, then there will be. Is there any reason why a qualified woman who could carry a wounded man on her shoulders, who could handle a machine gun, etc. should not be in combat? Other than the fact that really, no man or woman should be in the hellish nightmare that is combat period?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moonwalk (Reply #80)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:22 PM

86. I have not once in my post said a female should not be in combat.

just not in specific combat arms, most specific ly light infantry, the field I am most knowledgeable in from my MOS.
A '60 is the M60A1 known as the "pig" it is a so called Light Machine Gun. so called because weighing in at approx 25 lbs empty that is a misnomer to us poor bastards that hump them and the prodigious amount of ammo they require.
The basic load out for a foot soldier has always been about the same going back to Roman times, any time weight is saved in armour or weaponry, it is filled with ammo or provisions. We have been doing the war thing for a long time and the trade off points are well established and written in stone.
I addressed your points on the extreme amount of conditioning required for almost any female to earn her place, and continue to keep it. It is brutally hard for a male to do it for extended periods, 8 years of it wrecked my knees my elbow and right shoulder and I was a stocky and athletic teen, hence my being given the responsibility of primary gunner in a fire team.
In terms of pure math and reason it makes no sense to fundamentally change the structure of our combat arms to merely degrade our effectiveness.
The major argument for a change is the loss of advancement opportunities in the ranks, and i also addressed this. I have seen and actually fought beside female soldiers, many were warriors, many were not JUST LIKE MALES.
I am sure this will be taken wrong, but what the hell, your post shows you really have no idea what we are discussing, At this exact moment females are in combat zones, and have fought in combat, in MOSes that are not the same as the one I come from. They have served with honor, and shame. They have succeeded and failed, they have been wounded and they have died. They are in combat now, almost exactly like males. the difference? they are not being recognized due to an institutional disdain from the established 3 combat arms for the other specialties That is the change that needs to be made, not to lessen our effectiveness at the unit level for a simple gesture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:33 PM

69. Combat comes with combat pay.

If women as a group can't qualify for combat, then women as a group will tend to be paid less.

A micro-explanation for a macro phenomenon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #69)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:39 PM

70. if your in country...

You get combat pay. Dosent matter your job or gender.

But that was part of the hypocrisy of it all, women could be killed in combat, get a purple heart, get a combat action ribbon, and be paid combat pay but not have a chance to serve in a combat mos? If they can make the cut, let them serve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:20 PM

64. Volunteer at a few ultra races or adventure races and get back to me

Totally ridiculous article, as well as incredibly sexist.

I know men who can't handle going camping.

You really should stop doubling down. A very close family member who has been in more combat than most vets on this board, and is paying for his service, stated he thinks this is great, because he knew some "kickass female soldiers I would trust with my life," and anyone who can meet the standards should get in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:57 PM

75. You're equating a Tough Mudder...

...Sparta or the Iron Man to combat?!?

Really?

Why don't you add professional sports as an equivalency?

I'm glad your family member is so positive about 'kickass' females and while I have no doubt that they could meet the minimum male standards, Sergeant Majors, First Sergeants, Platoon Sergeants and Squad Leaders would sneer at contempt at that effort. Oh, and those standards go beyond a PT test.

Another point, if it's ok to let females into CA why not do away with age restrictions also? Afterall, I'm sure there are some 50-something males who are in peak physical condition who can enter the service and serve in a line unit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:51 PM

226. None of those are ultra races -- next

And, I didn't equate any of those with combat. How absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:52 PM

230. I don't see why they shouldn't life age restrictions

If they want to serve and are fit enough, why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:08 PM

251. If some men aren't ready to fight either,

what is your problem with women? And why do you object to pay and promotions for women? You don't think women deserve to be promoted or payed if they earned it? Your arguments remind me of a 10 year old boy who is upset because one of his buddies brought a girl to the club house. Grow up and adapt, for fuck's sake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:47 AM

39. For generations, Americans have been asked to sacrifice their sons to wars....

Now, they want your daughters. All in the name of "equality". In reality, it is all in the name of servitude. The right to die for politicians is not the same as "equality with the sexes". We should not confuse the issue in such a way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:49 AM

41. Yeah, you guys go ahead and laugh about it,

but I'm thinking about my darling granddaughter being DRAFTED to go to war because Rand wants more Popsicle sticks from the Amazon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:58 AM

44. Why would women, or anyone, want to go into combat and kill people?

What's the payoff for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:45 PM

93. I think anyone who truly WANTS to...

...should have their head examined.

However, if a situation arose in which my country was forced to defend itself, I'd like to have the option of volunteering to do so. If I'm physically and mentally qualified to be in combat, I don't think my plumbing should disqualify me.

As it happens, I'm a reasonably successful competition rifle shooter. In terms of marksmanship, I could just about certainly qualify for Sniper School. I have no idea if I could meet the other requirements, but if I could, it would make sense to put me in that role, regardless of gender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #93)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:48 PM

94. The question was, "why would anyone want to kill other peope"?

I'm afraid that becoming a killer for the state is hardly "liberating" no matter what their plumbing and/or skills are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #94)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:52 PM

96. And I repeat: no sane person WANTS to.

Sometimes there's no choice. Mind you, those "sometimes" don't occur nearly as damned often as the powers-that-be like to try to convince us they do...but they do happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:56 PM

97. There is always a "choice" to kill or not.

As a counselor, I ran across guys who beat their wives, parents who beat their kids, but claimed they didn't have a "choice". One's trigger finger doesn't act on its own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #97)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:27 PM

154. Of course.

But there are times when the choice not to fight (and sometimes to kill) can result in greater harm that the opposite choice. The classic example in modern history would be the choice of whether or not to forcibly resist Nazism and Germany's wars of territorial aggression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #44)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:07 PM

334. Tierra

 

Some people view it as defending their country, as it was, actually in WWII and WWI.

Personally, I don't think there's been a justified war in the last 50 years or so, but that's beside the point. No occupation should be closed on the basis of gender, except maybe things like sperm donor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:58 AM

45. If it is acceptable for men to be thrown into these situations, then it is acceptable for women.

Personally, I don't think any human beings should be subjected to this crap without a damn good reason. And a damn good reason is the thing that's been lacking in most of America's wars. That's the real problem.

I know a lot of men who wouldn't be able to take a dump in front of anybody. Fortunately, they're not in the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:08 AM

50. No, it is not and has NEVER been (but for very rare exceptions), world-wide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:21 PM

78. Why? Why is it more acceptable for men than for women?

What is the inherent difference between men and women that makes it more acceptable for men to be put in miserable, dangerous, uncomfortable situations than it is for women?

Do you think men are just psychologically stronger and impervious to humiliation? Because there are some alarming statistics on veterans' suicide that would, I think, prove you wrong.

Do you think men are more expendable than women?

Do you think women get their periods and go out of their minds?

What's your real opinion on this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:06 AM

48. I don't have to read it; i agree with your premise. I find the decision extremely disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:08 AM

49. First of all, we should stop having so damned many wars.

Second of all, women have been having to nurse men for generations, and that often included wiping their butts. Moms do it for babies all the time. Women understand bodily functions.

Third, haven't Israeli women been in combat with men for ...well forever?

Fourth...the biggest problem concerning the team work is SOME men wanting to be in pissing contests with women, regardless of the circumstances. They become like repubs yelling foolishness against democrats without wanting to hear a reasoned argument or see anything but their own narrow point of view. Bullies.

I wish NOBODY had to serve in combat, and women take a huge risk if that is what they want to do. I sure as hell wouldn't. But war is hell, and last I heard, hell is an equal opportunity operation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:09 AM

51. I think you mean: STARTING WARS. Invading here, drone-bombing there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:11 AM

52. All you "women in combat" supporters: What about women in the NFL/NHL/NBA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:37 AM

58. That's entertainment. I don't care if women are in any of those.

Any more than I care who stars in a movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:45 AM

59. If they can handle it, why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:15 PM

62. why not?

my little league baseball team had girls on it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:24 PM

65. There are women who definitely could be in all of those

Especially the NFL and NBA.

It also isn't an equality issue, now is it? Women are now on subs, and that has always been taboo. Women have qualified as SEALs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:09 PM

98. no female has attended BUD/S.

So no, no woman has qualified as a SEAL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:25 PM

103. Name one woman who has been accepted to BUD/S

Just one.

I'll give you the answer: none.

There has been one woman who has "earned" a long tab (Green Beret to those who don't know) and I won't mention her because she has a Google search on her name and is vindictive about persuing any slight as to the nature of her "award."

Suffice to say she is legend (and not the good kind) in the teams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #103)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:03 AM

329. She is most definately a hinderance to her cause.

As often are the people that seek things for thier own personal reasons, as opposed to the good of the service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:31 PM

68. Why not?

But of course the corollary is why not men in the WNBA? A benchwarmer NBA player could own the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:00 PM

84. I don't think any of these women gave a hoot about the NFL...

One of the most decorated Soviet tank commanders of WW2 was a female who volunteered after her husband was killed in the opening days of Barbarossa. Two female snipers, Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Lyudmila Pavlichenko killed over 300 Germans between them (a much higher body count that any poster on this board we may safely presume). Women crewed the majority of the anti-aircraft batteries employed in Stalingrad. Close to 250,.000 women fought (fought) for the Soviets.

I don't think any of these highly effective combat soldiers who all happened to be female women gave a hoot about the NFL... or any other games, as they were more intersted in fighting, killing and dying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #84)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:41 PM

270. Did the Russians use women for general infantry?

Their female snipers are indeed legendary. But they fought in cities where they didn't have to carry an infantryman's load, on foot, over terrain, and fight hand-to-hand with enemy men. A city sniper and a grunt are two different set of requirements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #270)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:07 PM

288. The IDF does. Israel hasn't relaxed its standards - they simply have women who can fulfill them.

So they are allowed into those units.

Or is an Israeli female soldier somehow different than an American female soldier?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #270)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:20 PM

296. There were Soviet women infantry.

It wasn't common, but they were there. Also Soviet women partisan fighters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #270)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:02 AM

322. You conveniently left out the highly decorated tank commander, the crews manning the AA defenses....

You conveniently left out the highly decorated tank commander (more than one, you know), the crews manning the AA defenses in both Stalingrad and the siege of Leningrad, the women manning the front line defenses in fron of Moscow in the winter of 1941, etc...

Let's not allow dogma and sexism to force logical fallacies into our conversations and in stand in the way of critical thought

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #322)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:12 AM

324. I mentioned the AA female crews.

I do not doubt women's courage or commitment.

I do doubt their physical strength. Sometime combat depends upon raw muscle power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:18 PM

63. If Ryan Smith is so easily traumatized by women in combat...

...maybe he's too delicate a flower to be a Marine grunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:26 PM

66. The funny part is I used to have a far-RW coworker who was ex-army

He was with that NATO force in Bosnia(?), and he had no problems whatsoever sharing unisex shower stalls with the Dutch female soldiers, lolz...I always thought 90% of his stories and anecdotes were bullshit anyway, so maybe this was, as well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:29 PM

67. Your entire premise is that women are too precious to be subject to the indignities of combat.

Man or woman, if you buy the ticket, you take the ride.

Your op is the essential distillation of the patriarchy. The fact that combat sucks is no reason to abandon equality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:41 PM

71. After reading the whole article, I am struck by the lack of any reasonable perspective found there.

 

First of all, I don't think that combat is anything that anyone should ever be subjected to, that should be self evident.

But the entire content of the opinion expressed in this waste of bytes is about unpleasant things that are so far down the list from ground combat, that to even mention them is farcical. The very idea that communal nudity and bodily functions under really nasty conditions is in any way comparable to the reality of the literal hell that is ground combat makes me doubt that the author has ever been exposed to that man-made hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:44 PM

72. the real reality of combat is that it only makes up about 2% of what you do in a war

the rest of the time is preparing, eating, sleeping, watching, waiting, cleaning, being bored.

Being bored comprising approximately 50% of time at war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:48 PM

73. I'm sorry, but in what fucking world do you and this douche live in?

In those roles, men are able to get promotions more quickly and to move up the chain. Women are essentially locked out when they are denied the opportunity to serve along side men.

I'm also a vet who tried for a combat position when I was in the Army. I was adamantly denied and never given the opportunity. During AIT at Ft. Sam Houston, we had to pull a "wounded" soldier from a tank. All of us in our squad had to take turns. For the women, it was harder than the men because we don't have the upper body strength.

Yes, harder...but not impossible. Each of us women did it. We were not about to let the men think they were better than us in this regard. For us women (and I served at a time when sexual harrassment was an accepted reality by all ranks) we had to work harder than the men just to be treated equal. That's the way it was at every assignment I had.

(on a side note: Sexual harrassment and rape are as serious as ever in todays military. We've still got a long fight for equality)

Oh, and about relieving yourself in front of the opposite sex...I've done it more than once and it wouldn't bother me to do it again. It's just a bodily function. If you had ever had given birth to a baby, you would know that modesty is something you lose pretty quickly no matter how many people (both men and women) are in the room with you.

Not only that, women bivouac, too. All of us (men and women together) spent plenty of time in the field in less than clean circumstances. I'm being polite here, too.

If you and this douche think women can't handle combat or close quartered together you both are seriously brain-damaged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cynatnite (Reply #73)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:48 PM

111. Well you know how embarrassed we men get any time we even think of your lady-parts.

 

And bodily functions? Well, even the thought is enough to shrivel us to shameful proportions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #111)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:23 PM

199. Women poop? THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:39 PM

79. Where the fuck is Un-Rec when you need it.

G/I/G/O

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:50 PM

82. Of course, we delicate flowers can't handle being firefighters or cops, either.

Give me a fucking break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:08 PM

85. Sound and fury signifying...nothing. Like letting women be doctors or astronauts...

...police in patrol cars who might get into a gunfights, or politicians, the proof is in the pudding. You open up combat to them and see if they can do it. If they can't qualify because they can't match the minimal body strength requirements for such, then they won't be in combat. If they CAN qualify, they will be.

And that will be that. Like men, some women who qualify will be awesome at it, and some not. But gender will have no more to do with whether they can do that job they're qualified to do than it did for women going into space. Where they have to shit into a bag and live in very close and immodest quarters with men. Not the same as facing combat, I know, but in every war that ever was, women have been in combat zones. They've seen the horrors of those zones--and often been fighters in those zones. So saying that women will face such-and-such horrors in such-and-such zones proves nothing--except that we should stop making war and creating such horrors for any man, woman or child to have to experience.

In the end, all your arguments against women in combat mean nothing and prove nothing. All that proves whether women should or should not be in combat is putting them into combat an seeing how they, and the men they fight beside, do. Same as with allowing openly gay men and women in the military. You can predict all kinds of things and reasons why they shouldn't be allowed, but the only proof of whether it will be okay or not is allowing it and seeing what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moonwalk (Reply #85)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:42 PM

87. your idea is great except..

When you are wrong, people die.
The military is not a place for societal experiments and in the combat arms, you know where the metal meets the meat? It should be doubly so.

Answer me this, what does the infantry have to gain by allowing women in to its ranks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #87)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:42 PM

109. Figuring out better ways to do their jobs.

Ways in which fewer people get killed, men as well as women. If upper body strength is the primary objection, then figure out a way to overcome that limitation. Be creative. It's what got us to the Moon. I think American ingenuity can find a way to deal with women in the infantry, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #109)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:02 PM

118. or..

Don't fix what aint broke.. attack the entrenched menatality that a CIB = promotion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #87)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:16 PM

138. Same exact argument was used against integrating the Armed Forces.

And is wrong for the same reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #138)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:01 AM

328. No it wasn't

Again, we want to cut military spending,but institute a program that necessitates more spending, with no benefit to the Army and Marine line units.
Its a simple question. What is the benefit to our combat effectiveness as a whole and to the infantry in particular?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #87)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:28 PM

337. SQUEE

 

What does it gain? How do you know some women wouldn't be better soldiers than some men, and save someone's life who would otherwise die.

And it treats people according to their individual abilities, not as stereotypes. Let me repeat that - it treats people according to their individual abilities, not as stereotypes.

I got plenty of that stereotyping crap when I was growing up - women couldn't be engineers or scientists because they weren't capable of doing math or understanding science, so good luck getting into engineering school. I remember when CalTech didn't admit women as undergraduates. (Thankfully MIT accepted me, so piss on you, CalTech.)

Women couldn't be astronauts because horrors they'd have to pee in front of men and vice versa, plus well they just weren't up to it physically and gosh you know what happens when men and women are isolated together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RILib (Reply #337)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:32 PM

338. So, the FACT, that we are biologicly different is stereotyping

I am no longer in and truly have no agenda, or real dog in this fight, but I do know biology, and physical standards are the only bar to women serving in SOME of the combat arms.
Everyone is fixated on the 3 combat fields and not on a change in the overall view of what is necessary to be a leader, and that is the only criteria we should be concerned with for promotion. This is the other point I have tried to make repeatedly in these threads.. Instead everyone is fixated on the idea you need to mess with and change the most effective fighting force ever assembled and with no promise of gain and only of being damaging to its effectiveness.

Fact is the mission is the only thing that is important, and there is zero benefit to the INFANTRY, the only field I have addressed or having working knowledge of. none, only potential harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:58 PM

88. Any person who thinks women cant serve in combat due to the bodily

Functions of others, has never spent the night working in thr ER of a hospital. In the operating room you will see some of the most vile stuff on the planet. And most often ( in fact just about everytime I have been there) the entire OR staff are women with the exception of 1 or 2 male doctors. In fact I have never seen work like catheters, bed pans, cleaning, prepping etc. done by anyone but a woman. Are we now saying women are unfit to serve as nurses and OR staff?

Trust me..... every nurse on the night shft of your local hospital has seen a bowel release from both men and women.

Bottom line...... if the qualify fairly the should serve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:22 PM

90. Wow.

You really stirred something up with this thread

I can't really comment on the subject being discussed here, for my opinion would be an uninformed one, but I have to admire your courage for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:30 PM

91. Combat is about killing the enemy and not getting killed yourself.

There are some basic facts:

Men have greater upper body strength than women.

Men can carry heavier loads.

Soldiers often have to carry a heavy load of gear.

Men can carry more gear and ammo than women can.

Running out of ammo in combat is a bad thing.

Sometimes combat becomes hand-to-hand. In such combat the weaker soldier will usually die.

An infantry unit with women in it will not be able to carry as much gear & ammo, and will be weaker if the combat gets personal. They will have reduced effectiveness in combat.

Reduced combat effectiveness in combat is a very bad thing.

However, if we are talking about other combat roles, such as pilots then there is no signifigant biological differences that I know of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #91)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:37 PM

105. Female advantages

You didn't mention any of the female advantages.

They endure hypothermia better.
They perform better mentally after long periods of sleep deprevation
They consume less food and water.
They have higher pain tolerances
They are lighter and smaller which would have helped in those vehicles loaded with 25 marines intended for 15. You can put more in a helicopter too.

The standards are fairly disconnected, directly, from the actual tasks a soldier will have to do. The requirements for men were created by measuring men and then determining what standards would leave enough from a population to fill the necessary positions. It is not uncommon in wars for armies to lower their standards as the demands for more soldiers increases. If there is a problem, it is that much of the equipment was designed with men in mind, and hasn't been optimized for women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #105)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:48 PM

110. +100 and esp. the points in your last paragraph. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #105)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:57 PM

115. Because they aren't germane

Throw a 100 lb ruck on your back with full body armor, weapon, ammo, water and maybe a base plate or mortar tube and see how these attributes fade.

Let's throw in an NBC suit, mask and booties in there while we're at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:14 PM

136. lololol of course tehy are

And, women already carry all of that into the field. Ridiculous. You should be ashamed of this argument against integrating combat positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #136)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:19 PM

143. Name one woman who carries...

...a base plate and mortar tube into combat.

One.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #143)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:52 PM

171. You mean the one designed for men?

Design one for women and they will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #171)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:53 PM

278. You don't undertand a thing about mortars and engineering.

The requirements for a base plate aren't set by the gender of who carries it. The requirements are determined by the size of the shell that you want to throw at the enemy. To throw an 81mm shell at the enemy takes a tube of certain size and base plate of a certain mass. Decrease the mass and you have to throw a smaller shell.

So to satisfy your sense of equality you want us to shoot smaller shells at an enemy. I am sure future enemies will appreciate that we are using smaller shells so that women can be there too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #278)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:02 PM

285. I've seen more than a few LARGE women who were perfectly capable of carrying anything a man

could carry. Are you saying those women shouldn't have a chance at combat roles if they can meet the physical demands?

Do you think the IDF and other country's who allow women in combat roles have relaxed their standards? (in fact I know they haven't but carry on with your misconceptions if that's the case you're making)

I noticed Barack Obama had 2 Secret Service women guarding him as he walked the parade route. Are you saying those two women didn't have to prove themselves capable of taking down ANY size man or woman before they were allowed to walk that detail?

What exactly are you saying cuz it doesn't sound good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #278)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:06 PM

286. I am an engineer

And I know a tremendous amount about how weapons are engineered. There are specific requirements based upon "one man lift" and "two man" lifts. There are also "two person lifts" which are lower. It is very common that weapons are limited by the man-machine interface. It defines what weapons can be made and what can't. An awful lot of weapons are designed specifically around men, not women. (so are fighter jets by the by. Women can typically handle higher g's, but we continue to design them around men).

Oh, and I was involved in an effort to design lower mass base plate. We were successful too, but it was really too physically large to be hauled around.

We design weapons around men. If we designed them around women, many men would have a hard time using them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #143)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:16 PM

258. lolololololololol

Like all the men can do that.

I am quite sure many women can, and will, now that they will be allowed to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:48 PM

167. Then throw them in water

Then throw them in the deep end of 60 water, and see who comes out the other end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #105)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:08 PM

130. They also have much better stamina

Better balance, better ability to handle certain complex multitask (there is a reason Churchill insisted on female codebreakers -- he was before his time on this).

LOVE all of the slags against our female warriors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #130)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:13 PM

135. In what sense do they have better stamina?

Relative to combat operations.

And codebreakers as far as multi-tasking is yet another false equivalency.

They are better at language arts, which is why MI has a lot of females in the 98 CMF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #135)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:51 PM

228. They have better stamina -- peer-reviewed studies

NEXT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #130)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:46 PM

271. Women have better fine muscle coordination.

They are better at noticing details. That makes them excellent snipers, as long as they don't have to carry a large load.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #105)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:24 PM

151. Put 25 women in hand to hand against 25 guys.

Only a Holllywood movie maker thinks the women would live. Loading out 25 signifigantly weaker people is not a way to win a battle.

There is a reason why professional footballs teams are all male. Sorry, but we are NOT all created the same.

Women do indeed have advantages that suit them for some combat roles. In WWII Russia make great use of women snipers, anti-aircraft gunners, and (IIRC) pilots. But they didn't use them for general purpose infantry. The snipers were used mostly in cities, where they didn't have to carry a lot of stuff, run accross terrain or physically fight Germans.

The requirements were determined by who lived and died in real world combat.

In addition to raw strength, which is STILL important in combat;
Men's blood clots faster
Men's minds have better ability to compartmentalize.
Men run faster
Men are naturally more violent.

Women have important skills that can be used in combat, just not as general infantry or other places were raw strength is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #151)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:51 PM

170. In what context?

Stick them at high altitudes, in a very cold wind and rain for 4 hours, then start the battle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #151)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:18 PM

260. I don't think you know a lot about modern warfare

This isn't the Roman legion. They don't even issue bayonets or train them in that and other "hand to hand combat" stuff like they used to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #260)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:48 PM

273. Actually, in the infantry they do.

That was his criteria. That doesn't mean women aren't perfectly capable of either, however.
Some have demonstrated it quite capably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #105)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:32 AM

317. If we can recall, the US Army was actually lowering their standards during the height of the second


Iraq war. After the first 2 years, they were having difficulty filling spots to fight Bush's ridiculous war. In fact the situation is still so bad, this is one reason why we have the same forces being deployed over and over again.

I wonder what soldiers and their families who have unfairly been on multiple deployments think about expanding the population of qualified applicants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:38 PM

92. This is essentially the same thing I said in another thread about this yesterday

Maybe the chicken hawks out there will stop and think a little bit more before they are eager for their next war. If a war isn't good enough to send your daughters to die in along side of your sons, then maybe it isn't worth fighting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:52 PM

95. There are lots of jobs that are dirty and unpleasant.

That does not mean that a woman who wants to do that job should be banned from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:20 PM

100. Combat arms are not a Mike Rowe special

The physical demands on a light infantryman, whether 11B or 0311 or truly staggering at times,

The icky parts, they will be overcome with training, conditioning and over time acceptance. There is still the fact, men and womens bodies are different. This is just nature. All the cries for fairness and equality do not change the fact that the median male has greater physical strength and stamina than the median female. Combat requires far more than a median specimen for victory. And that is what the military is for, its only true purpose.. To fucking kill people for political policy. Right or wrong as those political considerations are, it does not remove the fact that military action is the the most unforgiving of Go/No-Go tests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #100)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:24 PM

101. Isn't much of combat these days things like flying drones by remote control?

And your post could equally be an argument for banning women from being firefighters or cops. There are plenty of women who can outperform plenty of men in all of these jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #101)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:40 PM

107. I dunno ask the guys humping rucks in the mountains in Afghanistan if thats modern combat...

The Firefighter cop argument is not really an equal assessment, the extended periods of action and often degraded PT necessary in a combat area degrades physical fitness, again bringing people closer to the median than they would be doing constant PT back in CONUS.
You have to realize, in most infantry line units, being a minimum on the PT standard is considered a massive failure, my last battalion had a 275 minimum PT standard before you were put in remedial PT. We had to pass the minimum PT in M17 gas mask, and a medium ruck sack. And that was just standard, we spent 2-3 hours doing PT, the rest was all the other dreary stuff a grunt gets to do while in cantonment. There was no room or time for an extreme diet, or intensive physical training. I bring this up, because yes there are female athletes out on the edges of the bell curve that could earn their way in to a unit based on initial physical ability. I have a doubt many of them could maintain that standard through the first 3 months of a deployment.
I believe females should be allowed in combat and combat support roles, I have stated earlier, or in another thread I have seen exceptional female soldiers, MPs, mechanics, and even truck drivers. all of them face the possibility of enemy action, the MP and Drivers even more so in certain areas of our current conflict. But engaging in combat and being rewarded and recognized for it, is not the same as being in combat arms.
I actually support breaking the stranglehold the 3 combat arms and thier fascination with MOS have on military thought and procedure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:12 PM

99. 150 years ago this summer,

The U.S. Army finally decided to put black people in uniform, but nobody was comfortable showering or pooping in front of them, so we stuck them off by themselves and gave them mundane or dangerous details. Through WWII, nobody thought black men were smart enough to fly an airplane, but the Tuskegee Airmen proved otherwise.

Likewise, until recently, there was the terrifying idea you might end up sitting on a gay man's lap in combat, even though in practice there were other things to think about... like getting shot at.

I think this decision is on par with Truman's integration of combat units after the war, and the repeal of DADT. I'm not opposed to opening the Selective Service Act registration to women, either. If a woman can grab a pack and stop a bullet like a man, why the fuck not? Because it offends your outdated sense of misogyny and sexism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #99)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:24 PM

102. +1. Many here seem to think it unladylike, but I support the women's right to choose (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:30 PM

104. Its already being done, in Israel without ANY deleterious effect on troops for the past 13 yrs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Women

In 2000, the Equality amendment to the Military Service law stated that the right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men. Women have taken part in Israel’s military before and since the founding of the state in 1948. Women started to enter combat support and light combat roles in a few areas, including the Artillery Corps, infantry units and armored divisions. A few platoons named Karakal were formed for men and women to serve together in light infantry. By 2000 Karakal became a full-fledged battalion.

So there's successful precedent.

If women want to serve and can pass the tests, I say let them serve.

FYI, I'm too old and my daughter's too young so there's that in answer to why not enlist or send my own daughters. Besides, my kids know how I feel about joining the military in any capacity which makes it doubtful that mine will be the test cases for this in the US.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #104)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:42 PM

108. I have some friends who are serving in the IDF

I'll ask them and see what they say.

Wiki is often not your friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:54 PM

113. Yes I know. I'm aware Wiki is often slammed as a source

I simply used it as the most convenient easy source for the FACT that women are already in a major, globally recognized military force in combat units. And have been for a decade + so there's precedent that can be called upon here.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:41 PM

163. you're saying women's participation has harmed the Israeli military?

you're saying?

seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #163)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:16 PM

194. His "friends" opinion will matter more than any facts I'm guessing...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:52 PM

112. Desegregation will ruin morale!

Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your white comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of another race.

The 20th century called; it wants its tropes back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:55 PM

114. Women are already in combat.

The change in the rule is just making it official.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #114)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:59 PM

116. Women do not serve in Combat Arms units

Incidental combat as a truck driver, MP or other Combat Support (CS) or Combat Service Support (CSS) is not germane to the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:03 PM

121. Well, thems the breaks.

It's the rule now, and all the whining won't change it. They might get expanded opportunities now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #121)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:05 PM

123. It's the decree from the outgoing SECDEF

Congress will have something to say about it soon.

You know what I hope, that they say sure, all women between 18 - 26 must register for the draft just like men.

Thems the breaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #123)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:06 PM

127. I believe women should have to register for the draft same as men (although I dont want ANY draft)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #123)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:11 PM

132. Sure, why not?

Seems like a few delicate flowers here at DU who claim to be seasoned warriors could use all the help they could get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #121)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:16 PM

139. They will get paid more, get promotions faster, and also

Get the appropriate decorations. All of which they should already be getting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:05 PM

125. She is right -- women are already in combat

They just don't get paid for it, earn the same decorations, nor get the same promotion-track.

It is interesting watching you and others in this thread put down our female warriors. I am glad the, literally, wounded warrior in my own immediate family disagrees with you and others, and would proudly be in a foxhole with a woman watching his back.

It is telling so many on DU would not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #125)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:07 PM

128. Read above

.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #128)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:52 PM

232. I don't need to read your wrong answer again

JFC once was enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #125)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:13 PM

134. I'd love for someone here to go up to Tammy Duckworth and tell her she's not a "real" combat soldier

I'd help sweep up the pieces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #125)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:46 PM

293. Pay is based on location

If your in the designated theater of operations you get the hazard pay and danger pay. No matter your job or sex. Promotions for the majority of the services is not predicated on combat arms but the number of deployments, and grading out against your peer group. Most of the infantry positions have the highest grade out numbers for promotion. So it is equal to all who just go over in any job capacity. As for decorations that is a very touchy subject to a lot of people who serve. The people who truly deserve those awards do not receive them, secondly anyone in it as a ribbon hunt is an asshole will get you killed no matter what the sex is. Those people suck. I am torn personally by this, after just recently retiring after 22yrs it will not affect me, but the service I love will be. What way I am not sure. I served with a lot of very good and honorable females. If they make the same cut then they made the cut, what I fear is that someone will not like the numbers and then lower the standard and that will degrade combat readiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:10 PM

131. We should protect all young people from battle....

time to send the old war-mongering men instead of children.
I think we'd see a lot fewer wars if the old men had to be on the battlefields.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:11 PM

133. They said the same exact thing about integrating the military

It is just so damned obvious what those against women being allowed to OFFICIALLY be in combat have as their agenda. Same arguments were used for keeping Blacks in REMF positions.

The same things were said about women on subs, too. They are now serving on subs. And female pilots.

It degrades all the women who have served and do serve, and get paid less money, have a slower promotion-track, and receive different decorations.

Thank God the wounded warrior in my family has said he would serve his foxhole with anyone, as long as they have his back as well as grit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #133)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:16 PM

140. That was an issue of racism

And the men of Tuskeegee proved that wrong.

And again, is this all about the bucks?

And if it is then it's about officer pay and promotions and nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #140)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:21 PM

147. And it's still about discrimination

Prejudice, bigotry and paternalism is still placing blinders on many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #140)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:40 PM

162. are you denigrating the push for equal pay?

it would really round out the misogyny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #162)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:40 PM

211. Yes, he is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #140)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:40 PM

210. It is exactly the same thing

Which you know.

In the military, promotion is everything. You know that, especially if you are Career. And, why should someone get less money because they are black, female, etc.?

You are really showing your ass in this thread. It really is amusing to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #133)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:20 PM

144. See #112 :-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:21 PM

145. If we think PTSD is a problem now, wait until women start getting shredded in the field.

I know of not one single combat (and there is a huge difference between combat vets and non-combat) vet who thinks this is not dog-fucking crazy.

I shudder to recall the guys who checked out crying for their Mother.

One has to wonder how much real psychological research/testing has gone into this.

One also has to wonder how many replies on this thread were from people with hard combat experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DollarBillHines (Reply #145)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:25 PM

152. Tom, PTSD doesn't discriminate based on gender; nor does death or dismemberment.

The combat vets I know think all war is pretty fucked up, but they served in WWI & II.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:23 PM

148. I read the article ...

and as much of the thread as I could stand. I'm still wondering why the person posting the OP thinks it's okay for men to experience the horrors of war; but not equally patriotic women?

It comes down to a belief that women need/desire protections that men don't. And if, he can't see that that mindset is, sexist, well nothing anyone writes will change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:23 PM

149. Maybe we should ask Tammy Duckworth what she thinks about the OP




Or these women on The Wall:

CAPT Eleanor Grace Alexander, USA
(Panel 31E Line 8)

2LT Pamela Dorothy Donovan, USA
(Panel 53W Line 43)

2LT Carol Ann Drazba, USA
(Panel 05E Line 46)

LTC Annie Ruth Graham, USA
(Panel 48W Line 12)

2LT Elizabeth Ann Jones, USA
(Panel 05E Line 47)

CAPT Mary Therese Klinker, USAF
(Panel 01W Line 122)

1LT Sharon Ann Lane, USA
(Panel 23W Line 112)

1LT Hedwig Diane Orlowski, USA
(Panel 31E Line 15)


Or Jessica Lynch and Lori Piestewa.




Or all the WWII female military members who were killed, and who were imprisoned for many years (and often died in) in POW camps, the thousands who received Purple Hearts and other BATTLEFIELD decorations. Like Cpt. Annie Fox.




What an absolutely shameful OP.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #149)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:28 PM

155. I appreciate the service of these women

But none of them were Combat Arms. You could make the case for female member of the OSS or the CIA, but those who've served in that capacity are, again, not Combat Arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #155)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:38 PM

208. They were all in combat

They weren't PAID or allowed to have combat MOSes because of the sexism allowed by the military, and shown by many posters in this thread. They were, and are, however, IN COMBAT.

Man, you really don't like this at all. It is to see how women bleeding and dying for this country aren't equal in your eyes to the men who have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #208)


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #213)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:43 PM

215. No, you are wrong 100%

Which you know.

Very interesting you keep saying we think it's all about pay. So obvious!

So, I'm now a nut because I believe in equal pay and equal opportunity for all races and genders.

Badge of honor to have you put me on ignore. But, without the V for Valor, since I'm female.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #215)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:58 PM

243. that's a pretty weak excuse for ignore

almost makes me feel sorry for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #243)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:58 PM

282. I wonder what kind of nut I am?

I hope a walnut or a hazelnut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #282)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:57 PM

301. an Obamanut, of course

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #301)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:03 AM

312. hahahahaha

I love that smilie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #213)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:17 PM

259. So, you are complaining that women might want to get pay and promotions

for going through the same combat as men. That it outright discrimination. What makes you so special that you should get paid but a woman should not (in your mind)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #149)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:17 PM

195. She says women are already serving in combat

They just aren't being paid or promoted for it. The fact is distinction between combat and non-combat positions have eroded in modern warfare. The OP must know this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #195)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:38 PM

209. Thank you -- exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #149)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:02 PM

308. Thank You

hundreds of replies and not one who gets that women are already there....just not getting the "official" title. Tammy Duckworth Thank You !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:24 PM

150. This is going to sound a bit sexist...

...but every Marine infantry battalion commander is salivating at the prospect of being able to have female staff officers. Y'see, not every infantry officer can be a platoon leader or company commander - jobs where you get to command groups of men in battle - and they all hate it. I can almost guarantee that any woman who graduates infantry officer basic course will find herself in battalion headquarters pushing paper and the male she replaces will be sent to a line company.

And really, this isn't a bad thing. In the Army her promotion path would be assistant S-3 as a lieutenant, battalion S-3 as a captain, brigade S-3 or assistant division G-3 as a major, division G-3 as a lieutenant colonel, corps G-3, J-3 (this is an officer who works with more than one service of the US military) or C-3 (these guys work with allied forces) officer...within 30 years we could see female four-star generals because of this. Yes, we would have four-stars who "never spent a night in a foxhole..." but we have that now, and the current officer evaluation report has nowhere to list the enemy soldiers you killed.

The reason I don't want female enlisted grunts is because of the way they make grunts. The Army uses COHORT units. Those units are formed at Fort Benning, trained, sent to field units, serve and discharged as a team, and they've done it that way for decades. Most women cannot pass infantry school, so if you build a COHORT with ten women in it and they all fail, your outfit starts life understrength - and understrength infantry companies die quick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:32 PM

157. I don't think anyone belongs in the hell of combat.

But there should be no barrier to women or men who want to take on the job. I have no problem with my daughters or sons serving in the military in combat, if that is what they want to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:33 PM

159. Filed Under: "Things you will NEVER read in the US Military Recruiters brochures and websites". ~nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:37 PM

161. What are you so afraid of?

All these need to do is establish standards for strength and physical fitness. If people pass, they qualify. If not, they don't. Are men afraid that the accident of birth won't be enough to qualify? I don't suppose they're afraid that some women will be found to be stronger and faster than men, just as many are smarter?

Here's a tip for hiding what's between your legs when you pee. Turn around. And if you're still conflicted, see a shrink. I can assure you that the women in combat could care less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:43 PM

164. Looking at the suicide and PTSD rates, I don't think men can handle it either.

War seems really bad for humanity in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:49 PM

168. This crap has already been disproved as women in other countries have been serving in combat

(as well as in the U.S. albeit unrecognized as such until today) ie Canada, Germany, Israel, Norway, New Zealand. The author of this POS is saying American women are 'less than' the women in other countries and that, imo, is utterly wrong as well as disgustingly misogynistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:54 PM

173. As of this post, 1943 views, 172 replies and only 3 recs. Hmmmm....

....shouldn't that ratio be telling you something?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:54 PM

174. Fortunately, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #174)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:06 PM

184. So is yours.

Again, it ain't a done deal, it was decree by SECDEF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:54 PM

175. Women can handle all of that as easily as men.

Not that ANYONE wants those conditions, not that any of that was easy. I know several career military women who would do as well as the men in those situations. They aren't naive about battle conditions. They are well informed and as prepared as men to endure such conditions.

If you want to talk about societal norms, those examples violate the behavioral norms for straight men in peace time too, but war has its own set of rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:08 PM

187. as far as I can tell

women deal with more poop, more piss, more blood then men in every single corner of this world.
Men are not dealing with most of the children or old folk diapers, women are.
Nurses are cleaning up the injured everywhere.

If women had been in the situation, the skin conditions would have been treated earlier.

If you want to argue that war is no place for women....tell that to the millions of women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Women have always put up with war and very possibly the worst degradations possible in war since not even American troops have been innocent of raping the local populace although I would agree it is not our SOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:10 PM

189. The reality is women are already serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Which was a strong part of the lawsuits which brought this change on.

The concepts of war and and the "frontline" have evolved and our military is being forced to both acknowledge that evolution and to change along with it. The idea that women being kept to a separate class of the military fosters the belief in the military that women are not equal. Which feeds idiotic ideas such as the author of your article harbors. Remove the separation and let everyone start out on an even playing field and a great deal of the male animosity toward women serving in the military will also be removed.

Canada is offering to help the US make the change as seamless as possible. Since they've had women serving in combat since 1989, I'm pretty sure they've figured out how to get soldiers to defecate in bags in front of each other years ago. After all, how much harder can it be to crap in front of another solider than to have to hold another soldier's guts in trying keep them alive until a medevac can get there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:16 PM

193. What I am getting from "allowing" women in combat rolls, is

 

they are running out of reasonably decent male recruits. Our wars are dragging out for far too long and in far too many places. People are starting to wake up. Too much money is going towards shifting to killing people with high tech for the same reason. So, women in combat rolls is just a distraction.

I have a much better idea. Stop the wars. Fire the bu$h installed generals. Use the money saved to rebuild the infrastructure in THIS country for a change. That would also fix the artificially induced and prolonged "recession".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #193)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:21 PM

197. They are in fact turning away qualified men for specious reasons...

...one young man I recently talked to was rejected because the size of his tattoo was too large.

Add to that the insult that the services are going through a Reduction In Force (RIF) and you can see why the insult of this decree is so wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #197)


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #197)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:31 PM

202. specious? Does that mean you are afraid

you can't compete with women?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #197)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:35 PM

203. So, it's insulting to let women have an equal shot of jobs

And, since there's a RIF, the mens gets first dibs on the higher-paying jobs than the wimmens.





Are you a time traveler from "Mad Men"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #203)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:36 PM

205. "welcome to ignore"

in 1 . . 2. . . 3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #205)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:53 PM

234. hahaha -- he just said that!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #203)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:36 PM

206. Do you know anything about military pay structure?

Or promotion schedules?

I refuse to debate buffoonery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #206)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:54 PM

235. Yes, I'm from a military family

NEXT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #203)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:37 PM

207. I don't think he realizes how insulting he has been....

if there is a god...please let aviation pro come back as a poor woman in a poor country with someone like him as her father

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #207)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:41 PM

212. I think maybe he does

And thinks he's right.

I agree with your wish!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #212)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:45 PM

218. his attitude is probably already costing him

can't get far with that attitude at least not for long.
Doesn't he sound like he's been passed over and is holding a grudge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #218)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:54 PM

238. My relative read this thread and just texted me that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #238)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:56 PM

242. DU needs a time out corner

for situations like this....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #197)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:48 PM

221. Consider yourself alerted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #221)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:52 PM

231. Probably happened earlier today

Still don't see the thread pulled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #197)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:03 PM

246. LOL

That's why he said he was turned away?

LOL....wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #197)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:47 PM

298. I am on the fence about the women in combat decree. But taking away jobs from men....

is not, and should not be, a reason to deny someone else a job. I remember when that argument was made against women being allowed to work in road construction, in law, in just about any job besides a traditional woman's job (secretary, guidance counselor, teacher, nurse). It's a ludicrous argument that is basically saying the man is more important than the woman. Him having a job is more important than her having a job.

Whoever is more qualified should have the job. That can mean a woman instead of a man gets the job.

However, I am perplexed why any woman would want to do combat duty. Or why any man would, for that matter, but esp. a woman.

But apparently some women want to do that. So...I'm on the fence about that. I'm from an older generation, so maybe I see things differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:25 PM

200. I think its Great!

 

Since everyone would be equal in the eyes of the military think of how much money they could save! The could get rid of separate housing for females, separate bathroom and shower facilities, separate uniforms, basically anything that would distinguish them as being anything other than a soldier. It would be the perfect world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ehanson005 (Reply #200)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:41 PM

269. Your post is satire, sarcasm?

It's often hard to tell and often misconstrued.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Reply #269)


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:35 PM

204. Don't other militaries use women in combat?

Like the Israelis? All men and women in Israel serve, and the West Bank and Gaza are their combat zone. What about some of the Nato countries with mandatory service?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #204)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:47 PM

219. Yes, I posted a link to the Israeli law that decrees women can serve in combat roles since 2000

The response?

Wikipedia isn't a good source for that FACT... so now he's checking with his IDF buddies.



No other military has combat positions open to women other than Isreal (and now the US) as far as I can tell from my (limited) research.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #219)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:50 PM

224. thanks

what a character this guy is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #219)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:50 PM

225. Australia, Norway, New Zealand and Canada

all allow women in combat positions....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #225)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:54 PM

237. New Zealand is congratulation us

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #225)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:56 PM

241. Thanks. I only remembered Israel so zeroed in on that

(and in my defense I'm also trying to help my daughter with homework AND cook dinner while duking it out on DU too so sorta distracted but still us wimmins have to multi-task - another job that may simply be too hard for our "Pro" to comprehend....)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #219)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:55 PM

240. That wasn't :germane"

Nothing that disproves his OP is!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #240)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:05 PM

247. I saw that and had a bit of a chuckle (again)

I'm honestly astounded at his posts. Its such an antiquidated answer. Furthermore, he purports to be in the military (or was in the military) and isn't aware of other countries' combat gender equality?

Uh huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #247)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:07 PM

250. willful ignorance explains a lot

and he is certainly willful and ignorant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #247)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:11 PM

255. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:44 PM

217. Dysentery, body sores, pooping in MRE bags, skin peeling off their feet...

Those conditions are more than horrible. Men shouldn't have to put up with them, neither should women. However, I don't see why women should be exempt and men not.

I don't think we should have war at all. But, it's the reality we have to deal with and until the day comes when we have no troops in war, women should have the same opportunities as men, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:48 PM

220. Congratulations, you've reposted the dumbest distraction of the day.

 

And double kudos to you for doubling down on the dumb by trying to defend this idiocy.

Is it actually painful to go through life with this kind of developmental challenge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #220)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:51 PM

227. Too bad

Think it's idiocy? How much time do you have in a Combat Arms unit?

Answer: none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #227)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:54 PM

236. I would laugh in your face, but your anonymous blathering precludes it.

 

On edit: And just like the dimwit that wrote this POS, you expose just how stunted you are when you try make this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #227)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:01 PM

244. Many people in this thread have combat experience

and your dismiss their arguments as "wrong" without further discussion because you can't counter them. The people with far more combat experience than you have made the decision. You're going to have to suck up and deal with it or find a new career.

Oh, that's right. You can't read what I wrong because you put me on ignore and ran away from a fight with a women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #244)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:06 PM

249. You've made the most important point in this thread....

the decision has been made by people with a lot more intelligence and military experience than our DU whiner.
If he doesn't like it, he can whine and suck his thumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #244)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:19 PM

261. My favorite is how he makes it sound like Panetta did it on a whim or something.

It was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I seriously doubt Congress is going to say "boo" about this. It's going to be *crickets* from the OP when life goes on with women in combat.

"Panetta made the decision “upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” a senior defense official said Wednesday, an assertion that stunned female veteran activists who said they assumed that the brass was still uneasy about opening the most physically arduous positions to women. The Army and the Marines, which make up the bulk of the military’s ground combat force, will present plans to open most jobs to women by May 15."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-to-remove-ban-on-women-in-combat/2013/01/23/6cba86f6-659e-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html

It's a done-deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #261)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:39 PM

265. The Navy Chief said in 2007 he wanted this to happen

That was still under Bush, and from the branch that has been very unfriendly to female sailors over the years in many ways (Tailhook, kicking out the most women for POSSIBLY being lesbians, not allowing women on subs until this year, complaining about women and the Equator ceremony, etc.).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #265)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:59 PM

283. Bwahaha!

So pwned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #261)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:06 PM

306. Does congress have anything to say about this?

The OP seems to think so. But ending Don't Ask Don't tell and integrating the military were done by executive order. I don't think this falls to congress. The Constitution makes the President commander in Chief after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #306)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:06 AM

314. no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #244)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:20 PM

262. He doesn't want you in his clubhouse.

Didn't you read his crayon written sign? "No girlz allowd"

I have seen 10 year olds who are more mature in their mentality than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #262)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:23 PM

263. he's been a member for years

I guess he's become unhinged over this slight to his slight manhood

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #263)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:40 PM

266. This OP and subsequent posts have been something else

Never have I seen such doubling down and PUTTING YOU ON IGNORE BECAUSE YOU PWNED ME in a thread before.

Too many of us know too much about the military for this to fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #262)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:04 PM

305. and better at arguing a point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #227)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:11 PM

256. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:02 PM

245. Wall Street Journal: Women Shouldn’t Be In Combat Because Men Poop

From Zack Beauchamp's response to Ryan Smith's WSJ opinion piece...

Smith’s scatological suppositions don’t stand up to scrutiny. As most know, irregular warfare against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan blurred the lines between “combat” and “non-combat” roles, meaning that female soldiers have been fighting in combat in practice for roughly a decade. 292,000 American women served in combat zones during in these two wars, 152 of whom were killed in action. There is no evidence that these women’s bravery damaged “unit cohesion” or in any other fashion worsened the ability of soldiers to do their jobs.

The evidence from foreign militaries suggest the same. Several American allies in Afghanistan allowed women to serve in “frontline roles,” and found that it had no effect on the performance of the unit in question. Israel’s Caracal Batallion, the country’s famous mixed gender combat unit, has performed admirably in combat situations.

If Smith and the Journal were interested in gender problems inside the military, they’d be better served focusing on the growing threat of sexual assault inside the ranks rather than attempting to restrict women’s freedom to choose their career path. One third of military women have been sexually assaulted, roughly twice the civilian figure.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/24/1490151/wall-street-journal-op-ed-women-cant-be-in-combat-because-men-poop/



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #245)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:27 PM

307. Some of the comments on FB about that article are absolutely hilarious.

They are hilarious because they sum up the article in this OP with comments like:
"Our brave servicemembers aren't afraid of the terrorists but are afraid of the vajajay. Seems legit."

That about sums it up. Thanks for the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:06 PM

248. Ever since Bush Jr. I would no longer encourage anyone to enlist. Period.

Fortunately my son and daughter are now in their mid-30s and the point is moot, but right after 9-11-2001 when we citizens did not know if our country was going to be bombed, invaded or what, and had yet to realize our real enemy was in Washington, DC, they both seriously considered enlistment. I was so proud of them and so afraid for them, and so relieved when they both decided to wait and see.

So my son and daughter are, thank the gods, alive and well.

Male -- female -- disposable to the Republicans. The only reason I would be remotely "in favor" of women in combat situations is that they already are and they might as well get credit for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:08 PM

252. My favorite "argument" against women in combat, as shown in this thread

Just because women are in combat doesn't mean they are in combat because they aren't in official combat roles. So, there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #252)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:10 PM

254. its like global warming isn't real because look how cold it is today

or we can't have any regulations against assault weapons because the definition includes a bayonet mount or..
the young children are willfully seducing the innocent priests.

All pitiful excuses for not doing the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #254)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:13 PM

257. I know, right?

The doubling down is confounding!

The putting on Ignore people he can't refute is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:09 PM

253. Here's the thing...

There is an honor that comes with taking on the burden of walking into hell so that others will be spared it. It isn't right to deny that honor to a willing person. What's so special about a penis that it should provide the exclusive right to risk death and pain? The answer is: nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #253)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:02 PM

284. It isn't the penis, it is the muscles.

War isn't fair. Not the least little bit fair. War is about winning the war and nothing else. Even modern combat often comes down to muscle power, even with all of our technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #284)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:27 PM

291. Yet in 2007, the Navy Chief was all for this

I guess he's a dumbass with no military experience, too, huh?

Too many combat vets are for this, including one I know and love who can't walk upright. This is 2013, not the Roman Legion. Not the Pacific Campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #291)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:49 PM

294. The U.S. has been very fortunate in the wars we have fought since WWII.

We have had the advantage of great industrial might and technology to replace much of the muscle power. Many make the mistake of thinking that we will always be able to use our machines. There are many ways that we could lose that advantage and find ourselves having to march people with 100 lbs of gear on their backs for several days and then fight. The basics of war haven't changed since organized war began. The winner is the side that holds the territory with boots on the ground. Usually they have had to kick the other side out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #294)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:15 AM

325. the "winner" in every single case, is the side that denies the opposition the ability to wage war

Then it's on you that you're not aware of the paradigm shift of combat that happened over the course of the 20th century, a shift recognized and defined in its infancy by Von Clausewitz.



"The winner is the side that holds the territory with boots on the ground."

And the paradigm shift counters that-- The "winner" in every case, is the side that denies the opposition the ability to wage efficient and effective war, regardless of whether than denial comes via the mechanism of intimidation through terrorism, strategic bombing, nuclear attacks, or even diminishing popular support. A strong and established military presence is merely on mechanism, but certainly not the only mechanism.

(J. Albert- A History of Combat and Culture; P. Kennedy, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers; On War, C. von Clausewitz)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #284)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:42 PM

297. I've met some terribly bemuscled women in my life.

Pretty sure they could rip a new asshole into at least 90% of the men they meet. There is no reason, none, to deny them the honor of front-line service.

Besides which, most weapons of modern war have nothing to do with how much muscle the trigger-puller can bring to bear, beyond a certain threshold. That threshold is well within reach of fit women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #297)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:05 AM

323. some years ago

 

I worked with a woman who made most men look like shrimps (think one of the Williams sisters.) She was also an avid tennis player in an area where playing tennis was a big thing. We loved to see her smash sexist guys into the dust in games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:07 PM

287. I"m pro choice, and pro choice doesn't just cover abortion...

If a woman wants to be a combat soldier, then it is her choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:09 PM

289. Oh no, having to relieve oneself in front of the opposite sex!

Mercy me! (imagine clutching a strand of pearls here) Having to prove we all piss and shit is just too much!

The problem with the OP is that he's thinking like an infantryman. Most wars now are wars of occupation to secure natural resources and trade routes. There is no march to conquer territory. There's only "the front" wherever one happens to be at any time as a resentful populace wants you to leave, dead or alive. Men and women are both there and it's high time women were recognized and paid accordingly.

That's the reality of combat today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #289)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:28 PM

292. Exactly -- they don't even issue bayonets anymore

Nor teach them all the mano a mano stuff. For the reasons you just stated. That isn't what "wins" anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:02 PM

304. Read the article, and women who qualify and can hack it

Go for it ladies. You know well not every male qualifies either. I am betting even less women will qualify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:42 AM

315. Oh My God!!! Women could NEVER handle taking a dump in front of a guy!!!

- said by some guy who's never seen what goes on in a delivery room.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:31 AM

316. hey genius, women in much of the world often give birth with little help

could you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:29 AM

318. I really feel for his delicate sensibilities. Not.

 

Jim Webb redux.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:39 AM

320. A question for guys

 

I've never been in a men's room, but I had the idea that there were not enclosures around urinals, right? If so, what has this guy been doing in civilian life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:34 AM

321. I don't believe

that anyone has a place in the hell of combat.

It's as dehumanizing to men as it is to women; gender isn't an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:32 AM

326. What your Marine went through . . .

What your Marine went through is pretty awful. It's fair to say most women would not want any part of those experiences; however, it is also fair to say that most men would be equally adverse to being Marines (since that kind of ordeal is what it takes to be one). To just assume, without real evidence, that women, in general, don't have what it takes to be Marines in combat is completely unfair. After all, how many men could withstand the terrors and agony of giving birth? Women can be pretty damn tough.

The Marine Corps should give women in combat a chance, they'll soon see what excellent combat troops some women can become.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:18 AM

330. Bill Press discussed this story on his show today w/Tammy Duckworth

She thought perhaps the infantryman who wrote the letter wasn't qualified to handle his position. She also said she had to relieve herself on more than one occasion, in front of men. It was no big deal to any of them.

Perhaps she has a point. If you're a trained killer and still have pee pee & poo poo issues,then maybe you're not as tough as you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:32 AM

331. Holy cow...I wonder if the men in Israel know about this?! How could they subject their wimmenfolk

to this??

Very, very sad. I am enlightened now. Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:09 PM

333. DO YOU EVEN LIFT BRO? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:16 PM

335. This is SUCH BULLSHIT. Here's why -

The implication of this article is that women who have volunteered to put their lives on the line would be any more put out than male soldiers by fucking dirt. Or bodily functions. Or discomfort.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:24 PM

336. A better approach would be to avoid sending *any* soldiers

into combat except as a last resort.

On the other hand, when it is truly necessary to fight to protect our homes, families, and communities, women are not likely to hang back like delicate flowers.

The combat circumstances he describes occurred because of imperial military adventurism in distant lands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread