Women in the combat ZONE?

[montanafan]

You know what one of the biggest differences between men and women in the military is?

Every woman who has served in every war in America's history and put herself in harm's way volunteered to do so.

I get so sick of guys debating whether or not women should be allowed to give their life for their country.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: montanafan
You know what one of the biggest differences between men and women in the military is?

Every woman who has served in every war in America's history and put herself in harm's way volunteered to do so.

I get so sick of guys debating whether or not women should be allowed to give their life for their country.

They are allowed to, if they can pass the requirements.

The military is an organization with a purpose that can't pander to individuals and political corectness. It is a machine that must work perfectly and be able to depend on all its parts. This demands set physical and mental requirments that don't change no matter who or what you are.

This isn't about men and women... this is about how things need to be in the military. It has nothing to do with anyone's sex.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: montanafan
You know what one of the biggest differences between men and women in the military is?

Every woman who has served in every war in America's history and put herself in harm's way volunteered to do so.

I get so sick of guys debating whether or not women should be allowed to give their life for their country.

And your distinction is a moot point with regard to today's military which switched to a professional force in the '70s.

Want to know another distinction between men and women in the military throughout American history? The VAST MAJORITY of deaths were among men, not women. Let's not lose sight of who has borne the burden to date.

 

[montanafan]

The military is an organization with a purpose that can't pander to individuals and political corectness. It is a machine that must work perfectly and be able to depend on all its parts.

That's right, and the military wants, needs, recruits, and utilizes women today more than ever in its history. Today's military is more professional, technologically advanced, and prepared than ever in its history. So what's your problem? It seems to me that you're one of those individuals that wants it to give that all up to pander to your sense of political correctness.

And your distinction is a moot point with regard to today's military which switched to a professional force in the '70s.

See my response above. Very professional.

Want to know another distinction between men and women in the military throughout American history? The VAST MAJORITY of deaths were among men, not women. Let's not lose sight of who has borne the burden to date.

You proved my point with that statement. You're willing to trivialize the ultimate sacrifice made by so many women in the service of their country by making it some kind of contest between men and women. You've completely lost sight of the point of military service.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: montanafan

The military is an organization with a purpose that can't pander to individuals and political corectness. It is a machine that must work perfectly and be able to depend on all its parts.

That's right, and the military wants, needs, recruits, and utilizes women today more than ever in its history. Today's military is more professional, technologically advanced, and prepared than ever in its history. So what's your problem? It seems to me that you're one of those individuals that wants it to give that all up to pander to your sense of political correctness.

Hardly. My sense of so called "political correctness" would impliment a military requirement that is dependent on what is neccesary to perform the job, not dependent on who you are.

You ask what is my problem? My problem is that the military can not afford to mess around. I am going to be entering the Army ROTC program, and when I am out leading men and women in the field I need to know that each can perform on the same level.

There have been threads on here that have said women shouldn't be allowed into the military at all. I have avidly argued against this. In fact, I have even argued against the current military restrictions barring women from taking front line positions. I say if they are up to it, go for it.

I just think that the military needs people who can perform up to a certain standard. I don't care if that person is a man or a women, and neither should the standards.

 

[RaySun2Be]

I just think that the military needs people who can perform up to a certain standard. I don't care if that person is a man or a women, and neither should the standards.

And that is what I believe is a good definition of equality.

 

[AmerDoux]

Question for you guys:

There are different groups of physical fitness standards for men in the military, dependant upon age group. As you age, the fitness requirements are reduced. A man of 40 has a reduced fitness requirement compared to a man of 18.

If the argument is that EVERYONE should be required to be at the same fitness level in order to serve, then shouldn't there be one standard for the men, regardless of age?

 

[ConclamoLudus]

I think if women can handle the same test standards, and I believe most probably can, than they should be fit for wherever they are needed just like men. If a woman isn't going to be able to pull a man out of a foxhole, than she shouldn't be there, if a man can't pull a man out of a foxhole, than he shouldn't be there.

It doesn't HAVE to compromise military readiness and performance, but it can and probably does right now. They need to be evaluated as individuals, not gender groups.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: AmerDoux
Question for you guys:

There are different groups of physical fitness standards for men in the military, dependant upon age group. As you age, the fitness requirements are reduced. A man of 40 has a reduced fitness requirement compared to a man of 18.

If the argument is that EVERYONE should be required to be at the same fitness level in order to serve, then shouldn't there be one standard for the men, regardless of age?

That is different. The older people who would fall under the reduced fitness level are officers. They play a different function than your basic soldier and their experience outweighs the importance of their fitness.

I imagine if you haven't reached a certain rank, or maintained a high level of fitness if you haven't, by a certain age you get discharged.

 

[montanafan]

Yeah, why would we want these kinds of people in our military?

KC

Thumper

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: montanafan
Yeah, why would we want these kinds of people in our military?

KC

Thumper

I never said we didn't.

It is like you are not even reading what I am writing.

 

[UltraQuiet]

You people are confusing the physical fitness tests with the physical ability to do certain jobs. For example, a SEAL would have absolutely no difficulty doing very well on the Navy's PFA and the results of that would show up on his eval or fitrep. However, if that same SEAL could not perform his assigned mission i.e. he falls out on a training swim(s), then he would be required to improve his physical ability or he would be reassigned. I would think that this would also apply in the other branches where similar abilities are needed. I would say that anyone who consistently falls out on forced marches or any other of a multitude of training exercises is upgraded or reassigned. Anyone who can do the training sucessfully, using one standard, should be allowed to serve in that capacity.

The physical fitness tests are designed to test a base level of fitness. They are not designed to be a one size fits all physiscal fitness standard for every job in the DoD. That is why the standards are different for men and women and that is why the standard changes as you get older.

 

[montanafan]

datalink7, I'm sorry for not realizing that you might think I was replying to you when I posted right after you. I have been reading what you've been writing, and though we don't see entirely eye-to-eye on the subject, I don't have any problem with the way you articulate your position. I just get a little angry with those few who don't really have a well thought-out position and just want to belittle the sacrifices and patriotism of others to somehow make themselves feel better.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Serving in the combat zone ,

"Special Operations Forces and Marines had to dig with their bare hands to retrieve from shallow graves the bodies of eight more soldiers from the same unit. Among the dead was Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a Hopi Indian and single mother of two young children."

Why has'nt bushy re-enacted the risk rule?

"Glib talk about "sharing the risk" of war ignores the fact that women face unequal and greater risks. Few women have the strength to cope with physical burdens, including high-tech equipment, which exceed weights carried by Julius Caesar's Roman legionnaires."

You libs just love to flip-flop on issues to suit your own personal needs. You blame Bush for this? Give me a frickin' break. It was your own damned beloved Clinton at the behest of feminist groups and his perception of the polls who allowed this, and now you're whining.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Corn
Ah, it's always heartening to see that some liberals still refuse to accept women as equals............they should just stay home and make babies, right Carby? Risking their lives for country is man's work after all, eh?

And it's always heartening to know that conseravtives are still incapable of seeing anything other than black and white. Men and women are equals, but to suggest that they are the same physically is to have not only your head but your entire body buried in the sand. Men are usually bigger, stronger, and more physically imposing. Women have better coordination, agility, and are less likely to crack under extreme psychological stress. Calling them unequal by some arbitrary standard of strength is absurd. So I fail to see the big deal about keeping them away from situations where they face MORE danger than their male counterparts.

aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I can't take this insanity anymore. Will you guys please make up your mind, and while you're at it please ask NOW, Martha Burke and the rest of those who wanted this type of equality to make their minds up also. You're either equal or you're not, how difficult is that to understand?

 

[Zebo]

You're pretty discussting to compare non-combat roles to combat/combat support ones. BIG DIFFERENCE. Everyone knows this. And everyone knows a woman can't compete with a man physically and they are lowering the standards so they can squeek by. Should we just not talk about it in the effort of equality and put lives on the line?

 

[AndrewR]

That's right, and the military wants, needs, recruits, and utilizes women today more than ever in its history. Today's military is more professional, technologically advanced, and prepared than ever in its history. So what's your problem? It seems to me that you're one of those individuals that wants it to give that all up to pander to your sense of political correctness.

Some of that recruiting has been mandated in the form of quotas. Much of that atmosphere came from the adverse influence of DACOWITS, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Up until Bush came into office, it was primarily composed of academics who had never served in the military and merely sought to increase the roles and representation of women in the military without any consideration for military preparedness or effectiveness. An increase in the number of women in the military was MANDATED in the '70s (and later, I believe) and was not the result of a perceived need for more women.

And your distinction is a moot point with regard to today's military which switched to a professional force in the '70s.

See my response above. Very professional.

Fantastic editing there to take my statement completely out of context. Professional does not mean anything other than volunteer as opposed to conscript.

Want to know another distinction between men and women in the military throughout American history? The VAST MAJORITY of deaths were among men, not women. Let's not lose sight of who has borne the burden to date.

You proved my point with that statement. You're willing to trivialize the ultimate sacrifice made by so many women in the service of their country by making it some kind of contest between men and women. You've completely lost sight of the point of military service.

My statement was made in response to an inequally useless statement of fact that all women who served volunteered. So what? You were the one implying that women somehow have moral superiority because they volunteered while men were "forced to die" for their country. Who first started making this some kind of contest between men and women?

The problem with women in the military, plainly and simply stated, is that there are double standards. Here are some more figures from the Air Force:

Enlisted percentage in weight management program:
Males 1.9%
Females 3.3%

Officers percentage in weight management program:
Males 0.7%
Females 1.8%

Maybe because female physical standards are lower? Just guessing.

 

[montanafan]

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree about the quality and preparedness of our military. I think they've been doing an awfully good job since the number of women included has increased. Apparently something makes you think otherwise. Have you watched any news in the last couple of months?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: montanafan
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree about the quality and preparedness of our military. I think they've been doing an awfully good job since the number of women included has increased. Apparently something makes you think otherwise. Have you watched any news in the last couple of months?

Given that he has a better first hand perspective than me (and I would presume you, unless you are in the military right now), I think he has at least something to base his assessment on. Also, he hasnt said that the quality and prepareness of our military is bad, but that there are double standards in place in regards to certain aspects. You can make a double standard for physical training and other bureaucratically governed aspects of the military, but in combat the opfor isnt going to spot you anything, no matter what sex you are.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: montanafan
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree about the quality and preparedness of our military. I think they've been doing an awfully good job since the number of women included has increased. Apparently something makes you think otherwise. Have you watched any news in the last couple of months?

Would you care to share your experience in the military and on what basis you make your assumptions about the performance of women in the military and the application of various standards to their performance? Have you read any books regarding women in the military, or do you know anything about the history of DACOWITS? Are you serving in uniform right now?

On what exactly are you basing your opinions regarding women in the military? Is it just conjecture and sensational reports regarding PFC Jessica Lynch?

 

[jackschmittusa]

I did a hitch in the Navy long before women were allowed to serve aboard ships. I would like to share some of my observations. When I was aboard a destroyer tender, we off-loaded ammo before going to the yards once, then loaded ammo when we got out. We had 100's of men handling ammo for 2 weeks each time. It may have only taken 1 dropped round to take out the whole ship. This was very strenous work. I doubt that I ever met a WAVE who I would have trusted to do the work we did safely. Even the smaller guys worked beyond what they may have thought their abilities were; not only for the safety of their shipmates but so as not to be labled a "non-hacker". I've been through firefighting training that was physically daunting, pushed to the limit by instructors who wanted to weed out anyone not up to the task. I doubt that civilian firefighters trained like we did. There were many more examples of incredably hard physical labor where everyone was expected to carry the load. I can't think it good for moral if some of your shipmates would be excused from all of this because they were lightweights. Before my youngest son went into the Navy, I told him how hard some of the things would be in bootcamp, drilling with your piece (rifle), the obsticle course, the punishment drills ("happy hour"), etc.. Guess what? The women train with the men now. No obsticle course, no rifle drills (they don't even issue them rifles anymore), no punishment drills, no real competition between companies now (they're not even divided into companies, battalions, and regiments anymore).
A man used to work for me who was in the Marine Corp Reserve. He was in a comm unit that was trained for amphibous landings under fire. They were basically supposed to come ashore, run up a hill, lugging all of their comm gear, set up antennas, radios, etc.. They had 1 woman in their outfit. Every time the did the actual combat training in the summer, the woman covienently had her period and was excused from the exercise. This really pissed off the rest of her unit who had to carry her gear as well as their own. Plus, no one had any idea how well she might perform in actual combat conditions.
Also, I am a big guy and I want to know that any shipmates nearby can carry me out harm's way should the need arise.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Corn
Ah, it's always heartening to see that some liberals still refuse to accept women as equals............they should just stay home and make babies, right Carby? Risking their lives for country is man's work after all, eh?

And it's always heartening to know that conseravtives are still incapable of seeing anything other than black and white. Men and women are equals, but to suggest that they are the same physically is to have not only your head but your entire body buried in the sand. Men are usually bigger, stronger, and more physically imposing. Women have better coordination, agility, and are less likely to crack under extreme psychological stress. Calling them unequal by some arbitrary standard of strength is absurd. So I fail to see the big deal about keeping them away from situations where they face MORE danger than their male counterparts.

Make anyone that is on the front lines pass equal tests regardless of gender, then they wouldn't be in MORE danger, they would be equally trained. You think rape is worse than torture? I can think of far worse things to do a human being besides rape them, male or female. Plastic shredders come to mind for some reason...