96 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

CRYSiiSx2, on 27 January 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

No, women shouldn't be anywhere near the enemy.  I dated a girl who was raped.  I didn't know at first but then I knew it was a nightmare that you cannot wake up from.  It's horrible.  I cant even listen to the news now.  A woman being raped for months until it kills her?  Is that what we want?  I believe in Woman"s rights trust me.  I guess I'm just asking, please, dont go to it.

qq
Sounds like you don't want a military at all, someone might get raped.

[ninjadude]

I'm amazed at the number of posters who can't seem to understand the difference between Women integrated into the military (done for a very long time now) and Women in combat (done by many nations - and now finally the US).

[Render]

ninjadude, on 28 January 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

Women in combat (done by many nations - and now finally the US).

So many Americans don't seem to realise how far behind they truly are. About 20-30 years compared to many countries.

[Render]

Yes, But Can Women Pull the Trigger?

Quote

Will women be as good at killing as men? Will Marines fire teams become less tough if a woman is alongside? How about co-ed Navy SEALS going after Bin Laden-style terrorists?
These arguments against putting women in harm's way were swept away Thursday as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced he is a opening the doors to women to serve in 230,000 frontline combat positions, as well as possibly elite special forces units.

But some critics say Panetta's decision will only cause trouble for troops abroad. Aside from size and strength differences, some say women don't have what it takes to deal with the psychological stresses of combat.

Browne said a problem could occur with men who feel they have to protect women during a firefight or other dangerous situations, and that men in the same unit may compete for the attention of a female, whether or not she's interested.

In recent years, however, Canada and Australia have opened all close arms combat jobs to women – although their numbers are few.

"Can women kill? Women have been in combat for a long time, sometimes unofficially," Campbell said. "Women are flying combat aircraft and ships where they have to kill, serving as gunners in tanks since the early 1990s. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that women are less likely to pull the trigger than men."
Campbell said the decision to lift the combat ban for women was done after consulting generals on the policy.

http://news.discover...ger-1301251.htm

Americans have to learn that the world doesn't end when women get more rights. There is no hidden apocalyptic agenda in equality. Many countries have been offering places for women in every aspect of the army..all those classic examples of "women aren't up to the kill" "men are gonna want to protect them" "parents don't want their daughter to sign up" "women will be raped" have not offered any proof. Why would the American army be any different.

[Kafkaesque]

Jinxdom, on 26 January 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

As long as they don't use a lower requirement for women then I'm for it. The standard should be the same for everybody not different because of gender.

I completely agree. It's not sexist for a woman to have to have the same requirements as a man.

Physically there is an inequality between most men and most women. It's not sexist to say that. I'm not saying women are dumber than men.

I'm just stating the differences between our bodies. Do I believe that a woman should be able to fight for her country? Damn right I do.

But let's face it:

The requirements in the military save lives; you'll need all the agility, strength, speed, and endurance you can get on the field.

[Dan'O]

I have always been a fan. So to speak.

The original Amazons.
Boudica
Joan of Arc
Lyudmila Pavlichenko

This really is the exception and not the rule though. I am not against it but I think the current male physical fitness tests should be the basic bar. Are they? I don't think so but I have not checked in awhile.

[Kafkaesque]

Dan, on 28 January 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

I have always been a fan. So to speak.

The original Amazons.
Boudica
Joan of Arc
Lyudmila Pavlichenko

This really is the exception and not the rule though. I am not against it but I think the current male physical fitness tests should be the basic bar. Are they? I don't think so but I have not checked in awhile.

There have definitely been some fierce female warriors throughout history, my friend, there is no doubt about it.

• http://www.military....fitness-program
  
• http://www.military....al-fitness-test
  
• http://www.military....ng-fitness-test
  
• http://www.military....al-fitness-test

[Beckys_Mom]

The article reads, that a few of them called it unconstitutional to ban women from the front lines.. Does anyone agree it is?

[Order66]

Beckys_Mom, on 28 January 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

The article reads, that a few of them called it unconstitutional to ban women from the front lines.. Does anyone agree it is?

If it were laid out in the constitution, the provision would just be outdated, like the 2nd amendement.

Edited by Order66, 28 January 2013 - 11:36 AM.

[Thanato]

Eonwe, on 28 January 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

There have definitely been some fierce female warriors throughout history, my friend, there is no doubt about it.

• http://www.military....fitness-program
  
• http://www.military....al-fitness-test
  
• http://www.military....ng-fitness-test
  
• http://www.military....al-fitness-test

Those fitness standards mean nothing when you get into actually training. If a Woman can't keep up and do the job then she should be removed, just like any man who cant keep up and do the job. However the number of women ho try for the Infantry, usually can keep up and do the job.

~Thanato

[Frank Merton]

Do I overlook something but is most of the opposition to women being in fighting situations coming from men?

[Zaphod222]

Render, on 28 January 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

Americans have to learn that the world doesn't end when women get more rights. There is no hidden apocalyptic agenda in equality. Many countries have been offering places for women in every aspect of the army..all those classic examples of "women aren't up to the kill" "men are gonna want to protect them" "parents don't want their daughter to sign up" "women will be raped" have not offered any proof. Why would the American army be any different.

Now go and tell all those niceties to the Taliban.

[The Silver Thong]

Is this like the police and fire deparpment being forced to fill a quota with not under qualified but less phyicaly able to do the job.

Edited by The Silver Thong, 04 February 2013 - 04:56 AM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Order66, on 28 January 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

If it were laid out in the constitution, the provision would just be outdated, like the 2nd amendement.

So it should be protected like the 2nd amendment ?

[AsteroidX]

Quote

The article reads, that a few of them called it unconstitutional to ban women from the front lines.. Does anyone agree it is?

The Constitution makes no reference to this one way or the other. The closest thing to it is in the description of the well regulated militia clause which is to include every able bodied MAN of a particular State. It doesnt exclude women from the well regulated militia it just doesnt consider them as "mandatory" participants. Certainly there was many fine women that participated in the Revolutionary War and every war since in many capacities.

As for the front line troops its a reasonable response to the dynamic battlefields we find ourselves in today that every member of the military should have the advanced infantry style training that could save there life when they find themselves under fire. Thats what the push for women trained as front line is really about and it was stated as that when it was proposed.