RE: Women in combat

RE: Women in combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Women in combat (1/23/2013 11:14:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonlightmaddnes Well finally. I would not want to go into combat but I am sure there are women who do. Very few men want to go into combat.

BamaD -> RE: Women in combat (1/23/2013 11:15:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 This is a good idea IF we take women out of the combat zones if they are PMSing. The reason is that it will keep the US from being charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Otherwise I am all for it. Don't kid yourself. A few good women during PMS could save us years of warfare. (It's a joke, people.) LOL

BamaD -> RE: Women in combat (1/23/2013 11:22:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen News reports indicate Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defence, is lifting the ban on women in most combat roles in the US military. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/panetta-opens-combat-roles-women Will this cause the end of western civilization or usher in a new golden age? Neither. I think that this is a poorly thought out idea. Sure, it looks good on paper, but so do three-somes and communism. Why precisely, if we are going to put troops into combat, should one gender be excluded from those roles and the danger associated with it? By and large, women are just not built for it. If they get shot at, or are in a position to get shot at, they deserve all the rights and privileges of anybody else who gets shot at. That said, there are certain aspects of ground combat that simply should be kept restricted to men. The average combat rucksack is what. . . 80 pounds? How long is a five foot three woman going to be able to carry it? We will just put her in the medics corps! Great. How many women medics at five three, will it take to move a 185 pound male with an 80 pound rucksack out of the field of fire? http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/08/hey-whats-it-like-to-be-in-a-rifle-platoon-these-days.html#comments I will give you a woman's responses to being in battle: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal Put them on tanks! Great. Can they lift the ammo? Change and fix the track? How many women will it take compared to how many men? The Army already did this, back in 1979. They made a much larger than normal 105 and 155 (towed, not SP) crew of much larger than normal women and, after a considerable amount of PT, got them to actually lay, load, and fire the gun. Course, what the herstorians will never mention is that one of the guns was the lightest available, and the other much easier than an SPG, that they had considerable trouble with the 155, that it was all set up by men, and that the ammo was ported and broken down by men. What that was supposed to prove frankly eludes me. That women will believe anything if it fits the pravda? That some women will? That senior men in the Army have no balls? That Jiminy Peanut was a dickhead? All of the above? The study is here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA078769 http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-women-infantry-officers-course-101512/ It is not the danger that is the problem. It is the muscles needed that are the problem. As a feminist, this has been hard to deal with, but, guys can handle bigger loads. And our current Army demands that. Careful your entire post consisted of facts and logic with no off the wall comments, what are you trying to do here?

BamaD -> RE: Women in combat (1/23/2013 11:25:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne I am a veteran and was trained in shooting an M-60. This was back in the 80s though. If Israel has female combat soldiers, so can the USA. I was a comm rat anyway so not only did I have to carry a 80 pound knapsack, I had to make sure I can lift 75 pound radios. I weight trained myself to keep fit. I also was the only female comm rat. The other females in my company were medics or paperpushers. Do we face the manpower shortage that forced that step by Israel. Of course not. The Russians in WWII did it when they started running out of men,

jlf1961 -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 1:55:41 AM)
As it stands now, only four countries have female combat troops.

Focus50 -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 3:33:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen News reports indicate Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defence, is lifting the ban on women in most combat roles in the US military. Will this cause the end of western civilization or usher in a new golden age? Utterly against the women being put in harm's way - always have been, always will be...! Errrm, golden age of what? Focus.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 4:40:19 AM)
FR, Women don't lack testosterone to build muscle. They don't - in general - have as much of it in their blood stream as males. That makes it easier for men to build muscle - size and strength. That's simple anatomy. On the other hand, I have seen Rey Mysterio, Jr. beat the Big Show, "proving" a smaller, weaker, but faster person can defeat a larger, stronger, but slower opponent. [8D]

blacksword404 -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 5:57:29 AM)
That's an interesting read. I'll highlight some parts of her story. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen. By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females. http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal Of course that was her experience. Other women might not get the same health problems she did. I think we will look back on this and see that this was not the wisest thing to do. Mistake though it might be I think it still has to be done. As long as the standard for all is the same and not lowered one bit, I'll take a wait and see attitude.

Aylee -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 6:16:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen News reports indicate Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defence, is lifting the ban on women in most combat roles in the US military. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/panetta-opens-combat-roles-women Will this cause the end of western civilization or usher in a new golden age? Neither. I think that this is a poorly thought out idea. Sure, it looks good on paper, but so do three-somes and communism. Why precisely, if we are going to put troops into combat, should one gender be excluded from those roles and the danger associated with it? By and large, women are just not built for it. If they get shot at, or are in a position to get shot at, they deserve all the rights and privileges of anybody else who gets shot at. That said, there are certain aspects of ground combat that simply should be kept restricted to men. The average combat rucksack is what. . . 80 pounds? How long is a five foot three woman going to be able to carry it? We will just put her in the medics corps! Great. How many women medics at five three, will it take to move a 185 pound male with an 80 pound rucksack out of the field of fire? http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/08/hey-whats-it-like-to-be-in-a-rifle-platoon-these-days.html#comments I will give you a woman's responses to being in battle: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal Put them on tanks! Great. Can they lift the ammo? Change and fix the track? How many women will it take compared to how many men? The Army already did this, back in 1979. They made a much larger than normal 105 and 155 (towed, not SP) crew of much larger than normal women and, after a considerable amount of PT, got them to actually lay, load, and fire the gun. Course, what the herstorians will never mention is that one of the guns was the lightest available, and the other much easier than an SPG, that they had considerable trouble with the 155, that it was all set up by men, and that the ammo was ported and broken down by men. What that was supposed to prove frankly eludes me. That women will believe anything if it fits the pravda? That some women will? That senior men in the Army have no balls? That Jiminy Peanut was a dickhead? All of the above? The study is here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA078769 http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-women-infantry-officers-course-101512/ It is not the danger that is the problem. It is the muscles needed that are the problem. As a feminist, this has been hard to deal with, but, guys can handle bigger loads. And our current Army demands that. Careful your entire post consisted of facts and logic with no off the wall comments, what are you trying to do here? It seems that I want a degree in "cretinism." Go figure.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 6:26:10 AM)
None of which changes the fact that our current Army already puts women into situations where they are being shot at, and shooting back... but the man next to them can get recognition of being in combat, the woman just gets shot at. quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen News reports indicate Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defence, is lifting the ban on women in most combat roles in the US military. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/panetta-opens-combat-roles-women Will this cause the end of western civilization or usher in a new golden age? Neither. I think that this is a poorly thought out idea. Sure, it looks good on paper, but so do three-somes and communism. Why precisely, if we are going to put troops into combat, should one gender be excluded from those roles and the danger associated with it? By and large, women are just not built for it. If they get shot at, or are in a position to get shot at, they deserve all the rights and privileges of anybody else who gets shot at. That said, there are certain aspects of ground combat that simply should be kept restricted to men. The average combat rucksack is what. . . 80 pounds? How long is a five foot three woman going to be able to carry it? We will just put her in the medics corps! Great. How many women medics at five three, will it take to move a 185 pound male with an 80 pound rucksack out of the field of fire? http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/08/hey-whats-it-like-to-be-in-a-rifle-platoon-these-days.html#comments I will give you a woman's responses to being in battle: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal Put them on tanks! Great. Can they lift the ammo? Change and fix the track? How many women will it take compared to how many men? The Army already did this, back in 1979. They made a much larger than normal 105 and 155 (towed, not SP) crew of much larger than normal women and, after a considerable amount of PT, got them to actually lay, load, and fire the gun. Course, what the herstorians will never mention is that one of the guns was the lightest available, and the other much easier than an SPG, that they had considerable trouble with the 155, that it was all set up by men, and that the ammo was ported and broken down by men. What that was supposed to prove frankly eludes me. That women will believe anything if it fits the pravda? That some women will? That senior men in the Army have no balls? That Jiminy Peanut was a dickhead? All of the above? The study is here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA078769 http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-women-infantry-officers-course-101512/ It is not the danger that is the problem. It is the muscles needed that are the problem. As a feminist, this has been hard to deal with, but, guys can handle bigger loads. And our current Army demands that.

PeonForHer -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 6:37:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee It seems that I want a degree in "cretinism." Go figure. Your reply to my post was just a brainless insult, Aylee - it was as though you couldn't even be bothered to read it, never mind think about it. I called it as I saw it.

Restraint4TGs -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 7:05:59 AM)
For three years I had a submissive female partner. She was 31 when I met her, overweight, kinda slow on the run, and didn't present a formidable look. Underneath it all she was a black belt in some Okinawan martial art that I have trouble pronouncing that did not emphasize points scored or anything remotely regarding fair fighting. It emphasized killing. She was almost supernaturally aware of her surroundings, blinding fast in hand to hand, and no matter what kind of restraints I put her in she never lost her balance. On the range she could beat most of my old infantry company with her AR15. She wasn't perfect; when I asked her to throw me a baseball once the throw was so laughable I almost doubled over. At least, until she balled up her fists and ran towards me. Then I did the sensible thing and ran for my life. Raw strength doesn't matter nearly as much as drive. Also few of our forces use rucksacks any more. Ammunition and weapons weigh the same but body armor and gear weigh less as the person gets smaller. Smaller people are also harder to hit. We had a lot of underpowered infantrymen that had trouble humping a 60 or carrying a prick 77 all day. We just had to give them jobs they could do well given their body size and build. If you have some sort of idea that every infantryman can carry any other in a firemans carry WITH armor and gear you're dreaming. I couldn't do that when I was in and I was 6' and 175 pounds. Welcome to the real world.

graceadieu -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 9:03:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne I am a veteran and was trained in shooting an M-60. This was back in the 80s though. If Israel has female combat soldiers, so can the USA. I was a comm rat anyway so not only did I have to carry a 80 pound knapsack, I had to make sure I can lift 75 pound radios. I weight trained myself to keep fit. I also was the only female comm rat. The other females in my company were medics or paperpushers. Do we face the manpower shortage that forced that step by Israel. Of course not. The Russians in WWII did it when they started running out of men, I know that manpower shortage is why the Navy decided to allow women to serve on submarines last year. They hadn't been able to get enough men to volunteer to be submarine officers for a while, and when they asked female cadets if they were interested, a lot were. I'm not sure how much that played into the Army's decision, but considering that they had to hire mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan to fulfill their personnel needs, I'm guessing that they felt like they could use some extra hands in the infantry.

graceadieu -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 9:08:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Put them on tanks! Great. Can they lift the ammo? Change and fix the track? How many women will it take compared to how many men? The Army already has female mechanics that go out and work on tanks. Presumably they can do those things.

kalikshama -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 9:15:05 AM)
When I was in the military there were some men I could out lift, run, and shoot. Having no desire to be in combat, I had joined the Air Force. People of both genders should be physically capable of doing the jobs to which they are assigned.

kalikshama -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 9:16:14 AM)
quote: Is anyone prepared for the day when a woman is taken prisoner by an enemy force ? I say this policy is PC and not a good for all involved. What's your point? Are you taking the position that women get raped and men don't?

Notsweet -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 9:19:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Is anyone prepared for the day when a woman is taken prisoner by an enemy force ? I say this policy is PC and not a good for all involved. What's your point? Are you taking the position that women get raped and men don't? This has already happened. If I can find citation, I'll come back and put it on. Jessica Lynch. She was raped. For some reason, my cut and paste isn't working, but there was one more recently, too. She was a flight surgeon, as I recall. Was not a rape, but a sexual assault while she was prisoner.

graceadieu -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 9:36:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Utterly against the women being put in harm's way - always have been, always will be...! Errrm, golden age of what? Focus. Half of active duty servicewomen see combat as it is, so that ship has sailed. Hell, a female buddy of mine got injured in combat in Persian Gulf, 20 years ago. Now she's an emergency responder, and risks her life to protect the public on a regular basis. I think people should have the freedom to choose the risks they're willing to take in their life. My younger cousin is a firefighter, and yes, I always feel like I want to protect and stop him whenever he's going off to fight some giant forest fire that's already killed a bunch of people. But it's his choice to take that risk, and his right to do so. It would be wrong of me to try to stop him. And I think it's similarly wrong to prevent women from choosing to take more risk in the service of their country.

LizDeluxe -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 10:55:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Will this cause the end of western civilization or usher in a new golden age? I guess the correct answer is the latter since the former began in November 2008.

ShaharThorne -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 11:28:20 AM)
Peon, I am old...45. Got out due to medical reasons. One of my best friends served in the Gulf War. She was Navy Reserve. Got disabled when a missile was loaded improperly and rolled over on her, damaging a leg. She had to wear a brace until her death last year. I had to endure proving myself to be like a man. I suffered from endometiritis from 14 until I was 26 and had surgery. Infertility is common in the military IMO. If they had the Depo shot like they do now, I would of taken it. I found my old battalion 'yearbook' the other day. Now I am enduring grey hairs and a stomach. I will not show it to my daughter because she will want to join and I refuse to expose her to the possibility of death if she went for a job that takes her to a combat zone.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875