What do these women think about women serving in combat?

Unreal, isn't it?

I love the argument that we'd be afraid of shit and blood. Do they think women poop rainbows? Jesus.

Even in that safe, controlled environment, "societal norms" quickly break down re: bodily functions and fluids and sounds.

post they were going to have to adjust the PT standards.

Really? WHY?

They made it all of 3 posts...

I doubt they ever served a day.

Literally, and also works for the WW organization now. He is 100% for this, and says all he ever worried about was being with someone who had his back and had grit, and that he served with many "kickass women." He has also always been very much against DADT, even while he was serving.

And thought that punishing men and women for loving each other was in itself an abominiation. FUCK, they have to fight and perhaps die...let them love who they want for God's sake! Tomorrow might not be there.

I met some women that put me in awe of their military prowess. Their grasp of battlefield strategy taught me many things at 4am in the TOCs ten billion tent fortress.

This was in the 1990s.

You sound like you have a wonderful family!

I never worried about my back, Army Strong really is just that.

Man or women, it is a matter of fact.

or equivalent. I can't believe that anyone who knows any women would say they were too weak.

Or my grandmother. Who bought are like the Tasmanian Devil, even at their ages.

both could pick up two 100lb sacks, one in each hand, and carry them up from the cellar or in from the barn.

life (growing up) have been the women more so then the men. So I get offended by that statement easily. I take it personally right off the bat.

Also, I refuse to equate the word 'strong' only to mean one thing. That is the narrowmindedness of a Freeper imo.

It sounds kind of self-serving for me to say that all of the strongest people I've known have also been women, but my mom at 68 was still whacking redwood tree roots out of her backyard with a pickaxe.

We might be around the same age then. My mom is 66. She wouldn't think about whacking a tree, but is on our local school board and would lay into someone verbally if she smelled BS talk!

My grandmother (her mother) was a state delegate for the Democratic party on more than one occasion.

half the sky.

She can bench press 300.

She also makes gold medal-winning wines and is a world-class chef.

of being labeled combat troops. I hate when anyone is sent into combat but in modern warfare, there really is no barrier to women being accorded the same opportunity as men to function in that role.

I love that woman. I have nothing in common with her other than I own a uterus, but she gives me reason to fight harder...for everything and everyone.

It's only a (huge) plus that she defeated that moronic, teabagging, deadbeat dad, asshole.


As far as women serving in combat...yeah, they've been there forever.

It's one of my favorites of her, and I was glad I was able to find it.

she chuckled and said "Well, I didn't lose them in a barfight"!

She ran against the asshat Walsh. So glad she beat him by a mile.

She is a remakable woman. I envy your meeting her however brief!

She is going to do great things for this country.

it was quite satisfying to work against that asshole Walsh.

As for our little chat, I was just walking out the door of her headquarters

and she thanked me for volunteering. I told her I was glad to work against Walsh

and was only sorry I couldn't vote for her, as my neighborhood had been re-districted

out of her district. She, of course, was lovely and gracious.

I could not agree more.

something that makes our individual lives seem tiny by comparison. We all went through that experience (women and men) from boot camp, through AIT and finally our first and next and last duty stations. It was large and always there in the room; that we had decided to take on the role of maintaining peace at the cost of life. It is so unbelievably disrespectful, imo, to diminish women in that role and cast them aside over age old sexist beliefs. There can be nothing more serious than that duty and to muck it up with Rushisms is grotesque.

I cringe when I see it, the old holdover values that were the same that kept a segregated Army.

We can no longer pretend to be ignorant of these truths - all people are created equal and must be treated fairly under that accord. Pretending one sex can kill better than the other is a horrible throwback, same as pretending one can defend better.

We are the apex predator on this planet and there is a reason for it. No one should deceive themselves into believing either sex is inferior when it comes to killing and protecting.

The sexism in the military needs to GO.

NOW.

And, it is exactly what was said about integrating the ranks re: race, too.

Thanks for making this thread! I cannot believe some here want to stick to outdated and quite frankly, sexist, ideas on combat and the military!

I was really ticked about a bunch of these posts and one particular OP.

That is how I found your thread.

When she was in Iraq I sent her a card thanking her for her service to America (through anysolder.com). She had posted on Facebook that her worst fear was "being blown up in Iraq". A month later it happened. She was 21 year old.

http://www.iraqwarheroes.com/hartmanj.htm

Hope that's okay:

she was 19

http://carrie-french.webs.com/

A few lines from an English poem in World War 1 :

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

Did you make this an OP?

My relative who was Special Forces also thinks Ryan Smith is an ass.

Title love!

And didn't have sisters or female cousins. He really doesn't seem to know much about women and their sensibilities.

The BVM?

in a closet full of shirtmonsters and boogeymen.

On top of that, I can't help but think this world would be a lot better if grandmas were in allowed to rise to power and be at the negotiating table.

is predicated on an all volunteer military. Place it in the context of universal conscription. How's it sound then?

Although I am against the draft, for everyone.

Why would that change my mind? Are the lives of America's sons worth less than that of our daughters?

at least biologically. A society may suffer massive male casualties in war and recover within a generation. It it looses its women, for any reason, its out of business in a generation.

And, because men can impregnated lots of women, and women can only get preggers about once a year, we have to protect the delicate flower wimmen and let the men go die so the surviving men can impregnate wimmen.

OMFG.



This really smacks of the Lebensborn, you know. For real. EWWWW.

was established to provide male cannon fodder for the Third Reich, not to ensure the survival of Germany. It was the exact opposite of the point I made. As for your comment about the surviving males, prior to the shallow mockery, the answer is yes. It would be interesting if all things were equal, but they aren't. Only fools think otherwise.

Just wow.

all that shocking to you? Is "just wow" a statement of denial or is it an epiphany? I would not wonder about this if you actually rebutted my argument rather than wowing and whistling.

BILLION. B-I-L-L-I-O-N. The earth is overpopulated, in case you hadn't noticed, and the death of millions in other countries doesn't make a dent in that or in those countries repopulating because of this. And here's another reality: Vietnam--58,151. That's how many died in the last war with a draft. Let's imagine that it was 50% female and you get 24,000 women. An appalling figure, but do you really think we couldn't repopulate the U.S. if we lost that many woman of childbearing age? Really?

Which is to say, I have this sneaky suspicion that we could easily repopulate the U.S. even if we drafted and lost a good many young women in a war (heaven forbid we do go to war and have to do that). And you're forgetting other realities. Like the fact that we can now fertilize eggs and keep them on ice. We could repopulate the U.S. by paying women from other countries to carry the fertilized eggs left behind by any men/women we drafted.

All of which means that your argument is outdated and NOT talking reality at all. It's from the previous century when a country could really suffer from the loss of it's young men and women. We'd suffer if there was ever a draft and a war requiring that many young men and women, yes, but not in the same way. All we'd have to do is open our doors to immigrants and we'd be back up to snuff in no time. SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, and a lot of them want to be U.S. citizens. We'd have no problem at all repopulating. I promise you.

certainly diminishes the value of a human life. Doesn't it? It opens the pit to all kinds of violent population reducing adventures.

virtually exterminates the male population of the other side, then emigrates into the territory of the defeated foe and copulates with all the bereft women? In this scenario, the original population is either slaughtered or bred out of existence. But, you are correct, and history is replete with examples of such immigration.

Us and the enemy and all the world involved in one side or the other? No neutral countries? We can get immigrants from plenty of places, not just the "losing" side. Then again, it worked out for Japanese war brides in WWII.

arguments as "stupid" because you disagree with them is not a rebuttal to those arguments, but it is a sign of limited aptitude.

You posted "A society may suffer massive male casualties in war and recover within a generation. It it looses its women, for any reason, its out of business in a generation."

I said that is not true. Yes, asking if you had heard of immigration was snarky, I'm sorry.

If the US were to loss a substantial amount of our female population in a war effort, the biological reproductive capacity could easily be replaced by immigrants into the US. Not only by women of child bearing health but also by children to prevent immediate loss of the effect of the lost biological capacity.

I am not speaking in such terms to be cold toward the loss of life and the easy replacement of those lost, but the post I originally referred to began with the statement that biologically speaking the quoted text was the case so I ignored all societal and cultural issues in my two replies.

You're points were well taken.

Why should men be the only ones forced to serve?

but, should the need arise, men should be the only ones sacrificed in large numbers.

I'm trying to think of a reason. Nothing comes to mind.

expendable. Women and children aren't. Such thinking on the subject has made me very unpopular with people who otherwise agree with me about most things. It is, of course, only an opinion informed by personal experience. I would not posit it as fact.

Ok.

So when is the last time the United States engaged in a war in which the sum total of the primary gender used to fight in the war was consumed to the point it threatened the survival of the total population of the US?

(The correct answer is: never)

Keep in mind the military comprises far less than 1 million Americans, and that will not change with this policy change.

During WWI, France had a male population of about 20 million. Of these 9 million were mobilized and 6 million were casualties. Of these more than 1 million were killed. Germany, Russia, Austria and Romania sustained similar, or in the case of Austria, even higher casualty rates as a proportion of their military age male populations. The French were the quickest to recover their former population. It probably had something to do with the wine. Germany, Japan and Russia suffered even worse military and civilian casualties in WWII. The closest we have come to this was during The Civil War. Of a total male population of approximately 15 million, 1.5 million were killed or wounded. None of this even begins to address wars of smaller scale but higher relative casualty rates.

Russia has ended up with a ratio of 1.06, in favor of Women. not a survival threat. (In the over-60 age group, the ratio is worse but the war is only one factor)

If it comes to the point of threatening the US in that manner, it won't matter, because the war will be nuclear, and staying home will be no defense against it.

...then there's no keeping women out draft or no. If the South invades the North or vice versa with assault weapons blazing on both sides, women will be armed, fighting and dying. No way you're going to avoid the results by keeping women from being drafted. This, again, is not a realistic example if you're arguing against drafting women.

It's no less wrong when it's the military is enslaving folks.

I've noticed some here at DU actually supporting the enslavement of women by the military.

conscripts and volunteers. It was impossible to tell which when you bagged and tagged one.

Maybe you should start an OP about it?

Oh wait...you did...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022254796

to sacrifice their lives for wars rich & powerful men start either.

so at least this will universally not be fair

...then just have to get pregnant. I don't know if or when we'll ever draft again (drones and such are making such less likely for the next war), but if we do, women evading it by getting pregnant will have to be addressed.

We could have daycare foxholes and bunkers for infants and toddlers. We might even give them uniforms and tiny weapons.

...from fighting. Duh.

I mean, if you're going to try and pretend that drafting women will lead to such an absurdity--which I'm sure you don't for a second believe--then let's be "realistic" as you keep saying people are not being. Realistically, you can't have babies distracting your soldiers from fighting.

So. Duh. It ain't going to go that way. Seems to me that you are getting less and less realistic. Are you ready to take yourself to task for that the way you've been taking everyone else to task for it?

Is due to ALL its people. If it fails, it will be for the same reason...

God bless these heroic women. And all the people who see a greater good than simply self.

and expertly for years, proving they are equal to the task. Young women should be required to sign for selective service right along side their male counterparts. I can't believe this "male only" tradition has lasted this long..

If it escaped your notice, and you actually disagree, then just say so.

No longer responding to you, since I just saw your hidden OP and your profile.

he just got locked out of this thread as well!

He has another OP started already...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240210703

A draft will face enough opposition as it is. Drafting women will only make that opposition worse. That may be a good thing for the people, but not likely something the PTB wants.

She was captured, abused. Would do it again. Handled herself as well as could be expected of ANY human regardless of gender.

She has testified at least once in favor of women filling combat roles, before the Congress. Expertise I would think carries significant weight.

that the general was anything less than an outstanding soldier in the finest tradition of the armed forces of the United States. I also have combat experience and expertise in the matter. I respectfully disagree with her position. Women not serving directly in combat arms is a strongly, and I suppose inflexible point of view for me.

It'd be nice if we lived in a world where there was no need to.

....it's a duty anyone has the right to assume.

She joined the Woman Marines in 1942. A 30 year old single woman, she would have been proud to serve wherever they put her. She worked in military offices in DC and in the new Pentagon building in 1943. In those days, the role of women was usually to free the men to fight, but she went through basic and served honorably. She always believed women should serve in combat. She met my dad (also a Marine) at a ceremony at Arilington Cemetery. They rest together there today.

Semper Fi, in more ways than one.

Thanks for posting this, says it all, imo.

this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022251759

is that it is important to protest war but respect the soldier. And these female soldiers deserve as much respect as any male soldier.

From the beginning women have served

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Sampson

And when we first hear of such "Washer Women" it was already a long established tradition. Some suspect as far back as Roman times. It was a position within the Army, just like Sergeant, Corporal, Sutter (Replaced by The Post Exchange), or Sapper (In the US Army now called a Combat Engineer).

Each "Platoon" of 20 men were assigned one washer woman. Yes, she wash their clothes, but did other things for the men, including taking water to them when they were in Combat. This was such a strong tradition that Congress had to pass a law expressly abolishing the position in the 1880s, when the Army wanted to upgrade how the troops were feed, and no one wanted to send women to school.

Now, technically each rank of four men prepared their own meals, but it appears that while that was how the men's food ration was assigned to them, and if the washer women were detached elsewhere they had to cook their own meals, when the washer women were with their platoon it was customary for the Washer Woman to prepare the meals for the Platoon (and often all of the Washer Women of a company would prepared the meals for the whole company together). For this additional service the men paid a small fee to the Washer Woman (often part of their food rations).

Congress abolished the position of "Washer Woman" in the 1880s, Congress was comfortable with sending ENLISTED MEN to schools to learn to cook, but NOT women thus the position of Washer Woman was replaced by Army Cooks AND a decision to pay enlisted ranks more if they were married (Mostly due to the fact married enlistees were less likely to desert).

Side Note: Some people think that the "Washer Women" were "Camp Followers" that was NOT true, "Washer Women" were INSIDE the Camp, "Camp Followers" were outside the camp and thus outside Military authority. In regular Army units, the Washer Woman was generally the Platoon's Sergent's wife, and he was NOT sharing. In long established units, the Washer Women of the Company were often the First Sergeant's' Daughters or Daughters-in-law. In newly raised units who was the washer woman was more diverse but they had a role within the Military organization and that role was understood by the Enlisted men and their Officers (Washer woman was a position held by women tied in with the enlisted ranks NOT the Officers, Officer's wives had duties related to their husband's command, but unlike the Washer Women were NOT paid for those duties).

You see this confusion often when people write about women in the pre 1880 Armies. Wikipedia in its web site on Molly Pitcher repeats that mistake. It calls Molly Pitcher a "Camp Follower" and she was not, she was a "Washer woman" she lived INSIDE the Camp, she did NOT follow the camp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Pitcher

I'm well aware combat support services pre industrial era were a family affair. Even more so in the British army.

What I wonder is how many men will want to, not because they can't or won't see them as equals but how many won't want to see them maimed, in pieces, bullet riddled. It's a concern worth addressing.

He just got out of the marines. His argument against women in combat is that he wouldn't want to deal with their bloody tampons?! I so wanted to reply if that were the case he'd better not ever get married and/or have daughters. Or that if the sight of menstrual blood was too much for him, then it's a good thing he got out.

You should have told him that until mom's placenta kicked in, menstrual fluid is what he fed on.

Don't forget Rhonda Cornum...POW in Gulf One.

One of the smartest senior leaders I've ever met. Very cool under even extreme pressure.