Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

US ends ban on women in frontline combat

98 posts in this topic

The Canadian Forces have allowed women in all roles of the Military since the late 1980s. The number who are in the Combat Arms are small but have proven themselves in Afghanistan that they are capable of sustained Combat Operations. If they are capable of meeting the stadard, or exceeding it. Then why shouldn't they be allowed to fight and die.

This bothers me a lot. They're always talking about equality and equal rights for everyone but I wanted to join the Army since I was 18 and I can't because I'm deaf in my left ear while my right ear is perfect. There are plenty of jobs in the Army that someone like myself can do. So much for equality...

Yes, you can do a number of jobs. However doe to you being deaf in one ear makes you a liability in Combat, every soldier must be capable of being a rifleman. I know people who wear glasses and were denied because there vision was to bad with out there glasses. Its all about being combat effective.

~Thanato

Edited by Thanato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canadian Forces have allowed women in all roles of the Military since the late 1980s. The number who are in the Combat Arms are small but have proven themselves in Afghanistan that they are capable of sustained Combat Operations. If they are capable of meeting the stadard, or exceeding it. Then why shouldn't they be allowed to fight and die.

Your point is great; I would however like to see you or someone address the point that has been made that males respond to women in the same danger by tending to give them special protection, creating a weakness the enemy can exploit.

Oh and I think you chose a great picture; I'd like to find one of that general sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is great; I would however like to see you or someone address the point that has been made that males respond to women in the same danger by tending to give them special protection, creating a weakness the enemy can exploit.

Oh and I think you chose a great picture; I'd like to find one of that general sort.

Well in a combat your worried that either A) You are not going to make it and B) Your buddy isnt going to make it. Thats usually the driving factors to win the fight. Now Canada lost 3 women in Afghanistan An Artillery Captain (First woman to die in a combat role), A Medic, and an Armoured Corporal. Its more shocking in the publics eye when a woman dies because its not expected. We have been trained as a society to expect male military deaths. We now have to retrain society to expect both male and female casualties.

And what picture? My Jimmy Avatar?

~Thanato

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in a combat your worried that either A) You are not going to make it and B) Your buddy isnt going to make it. Thats usually the driving factors to win the fight. Now Canada lost 3 women in Afghanistan An Artillery Captain (First woman to die in a combat role), A Medic, and an Armoured Corporal. Its more shocking in the publics eye when a woman dies because its not expected. We have been trained as a society to expect male military deaths. We now have to retrain society to expect both male and female casualties.

And what picture? My Jimmy Avatar?

I guess that's what its called -- the thing with Mercury in it and the crown. Training society to accept female casualties is going to be a tough one; I would prefer to train society to not accept any casualties.

No, the issue is not really society's reaction, but the weakness created in a platoon when the enemy deliberately targets the women, which will happen, and the men will react inappropriately, or perhaps I should say, less than optimally. This is because men protect women, in this case not as potential mates, but as potential mothers (its all crazy but it is the way men are wired).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's what its called -- the thing with Mercury in it and the crown. Training society to accept female casualties is going to be a tough one; I would prefer to train society to not accept any casualties.

No, the issue is not really society's reaction, but the weakness created in a platoon when the enemy deliberately targets the women, which will happen, and the men will react inappropriately, or perhaps I should say, less than optimally. This is because men protect women, in this case not as potential mates, but as potential mothers (its all crazy but it is the way men are wired).

In full fighting order, head to toe, odds of you noticing who's a woman and who's a man at distance is going to be hard. For a unit, lets say a section, the bond between the soldiers is usually tight no matter if its between male soldiers or female soldiers. They are usually treated the same because of the close bond between them.

As for my capbadge, we call Mercury Jimmy, its a Signals thing. It's the Canadian C&E Branch Cap badge.

~Thanato

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who has served in the military knows that women are the soft target.

Not because they aren't as capable and in many cases almost as strong, but because the men will always go in to save them or to defend them.

How do you screw around with the enemy when they have female combatants?

Go after the women.

Women should not be front line grunts. They put their male counterparts in an untenable position. No man worth his name is going to walk away and leave a woman behind. That's just the fact. And women can argue up and down and around but the basic fact is, they put the men they serve with in danger.

There are many service positions behind the lines that women can fill way better than men.

Ridiculous, and simply untrue. In the Canadian military we allow women in the infantry and this is not an issue,

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have female casualties in war, not being on the front lines does not mean no deaths...

I want to make sure I understand some of the points here....men are unable to control themselves and continue to do their job properly if there is a female who is in danger or harmed therefore women should not be allowed? And this makes sense to anyone?

Women on the front lines will somehow harm the military how exactly? What will a woman do that is so harmful?

And since women cry at movies they will somehow have mental breaks or be unable to cope with seeing bad things? This is such a sexist comment it makes me feel sorry for anyone who would still be so backward to believe it!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky for me that I'm getting too old to be drafted.

What I found strange is that I am 5 foot 6 inches tall, and probably taller and possibly stronger than some men who have already participated in combat. There's a lot of variation in human size and anatomy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news. If they're qualified for the positions there's no reason why they should be banned from them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have nothing against it, will see how it'll work in real world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess the up-side to this, if there is any,

is that a US female soldier held hostage can rest assured that 200 special ops men are after a rescue, uh sex, uh, rescue.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But seriously, I don't know what it is about a man's desire to more protect a female-versus-male.

Maybe it's 'cause our mothers nurtured us far more than our dads, and we thus have some "hard-wired" desire to protect.

I don't know. But I do know that I would be MUCH MORE concerned about a female soldier injury than a males.

But maybe that's just me. I LOVE women. :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a soldier and having been to Afghanistan. I can tell you that I had no more want to protect female soldiers then I did male soldiers. After all they are all soldiers. Sure I was more concerned about specific trades of soldiers because they didnt recieve more combat related training, but for the women who where out with us in the CLPs if they had to they could shoot just as good as the men. If a soldier can do there job then hell let them.

~Thanato

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all another secret communist attempt to weaken the family in the U.S.A. and pave the way for an unstoppable government to control all aspects of your life.

How?

By allowing women to serve in the front lines sets a precedent. Once this is accepted, then women will be included in the draft. Then a draft will be called, which will take away mothers from their families, and create more people that will be dependent on the government to survive. Inch by inch, the enemy within gains a better foothold...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks likes the males posters here who are against women in combat are feeling threatened. LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Obama and the Defense Department's gift to Hillary upon her departure from the State Department. I can't imagine what her legacy will be, beyond the Arab Spring, so this is her conciliation prize.

They're establishing a mindset for 2016, when she can play Joan of Arc. It's hard to imagine a female Commander in Chief, when you can't see them on a white horse at the head of a troop of men.

8416190712_2005605c51_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never witnessed, in any forum, such an initial gang tackle of sexist statements.

Step back for a minute. Women are generally smaller, thereby having quicker reflexes.

Modern war isn't about '300 Spartans', hacking it out on a causeway. It's about reflex. If a woman can take that place, why not?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous, and simply untrue. In the Canadian military we allow women in the infantry and this is not an issue,

Prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky for me that I'm getting too old to be drafted.

What I found strange is that I am 5 foot 6 inches tall, and probably taller and possibly stronger than some men who have already participated in combat. There's a lot of variation in human size and anatomy.

At 5' 6", you're taller than Audie Murphy. Apparently he was 5' 5", 110 lbs.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have nothing against it, will see how it'll work in real world

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never witnessed, in any forum, such an initial gang tackle of sexist statements.

Step back for a minute. Women are generally smaller, thereby having quicker reflexes.

Modern war isn't about '300 Spartans', hacking it out on a causeway. It's about reflex. If a woman can take that place, why not?

More and more the modern soldier needs good education, smarts, reflexes and good sense more than brute strength. Technology is taking over, and using technology requires most of all the ability to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More and more the modern soldier needs good education, smarts, reflexes and good sense more than brute strength. Technology is taking over, and using technology requires most of all the ability to learn.

Brute strength is still needed since an average soldier today carries over 100 pounds of gear. All this technology we keep inventing has weight so unless you are strong enough to carry all of it then it doesn't matter how smart or educated you are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brute strength is still needed since an average soldier today carries over 100 pounds of gear.

You make a good point. I think plenty of women can handle that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make a good point. I think plenty of women can handle that.

I have no doubt there are a few women who could do it but I feel that the vast majority would not be able to do it. We are talking about women carrying 2/3 of there body weight or more for a few miles. I weigh around 210 pounds so carrying 100 pounds of gear would be a little less then half of my body weight I would have to carry. The average weight of women in the US is like 130 pounds I think so carrying 100 pounds of gear would be them carrying about 77% of their body weight. From the women I know most can barely carry a quarter of their weight let alone anywhere from 66% to 77% of their body weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.