|
| Thread: US women now to go into combat |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted January 23, 2013 10:36 PM |
|
|
US women now to go into combat
The Obama administration has lifted the ban on women in combat.
Currently the height, weight, and physical requirements of men and women in the military are different. Do you think women should be required to do the same number of pull-up, and sit up as men and run the three miles as fast as men or should the double standards that currently exist remain in place?
The current plan is to allow women to "seek" the combat positions. Men don't have the choice on assignment. Should that double standard exist?
Clicky
____________
Revelation
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 23, 2013 11:01 PM |
|
|
Ok first. About dang time. Second..no I honestly don't think there should be a double standard. Equalize the standard. Men should also have a choice as to if to go to combat or not. Except if the draft is brought back, and then women should be treated equal and be sent to combat. Seriously, a woman can be just as fierce as a guy..if not sometimes more so, in combat.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 23, 2013 11:10 PM |
|
|
Fierce until the noise of first bullets around her head, then will run even faster. Amazons are a myth.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 12:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Fierce until the noise of first bullets around her head, then will run even faster. Amazons are a myth.
*laughs until I almost pass out* Ok..if you think so. I know some women that could break you in half *chuckles*
____________
Message received.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 12:23 AM |
|
|
Surely they could, I don't deny. Except that I am not a trained and tough commando, and this is what they will have to deal with. This is like saying regular Mercedes should compete in F1 races because it looks fierce.
No lady can beat Chuck Norris, period. 
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 12:33 AM |
|
|
I don't think most women want to beat up at 72 year old man.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 12:39 AM |
|
|
If feminist think war jobs are based on sex discrimination, then let's wait their reaction when first american female decapitations then mangled and tortured nude bodies will be exposed on the net.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 05:04 AM |
|
|
I definitely think there needs to be a double standard. Women are on average inferior fighters to men by a very large margin. It's just anti-pragmatic to make it mandatory for women in the military to have to always serve in the same combat roles as men. The consequences of this go deeper than the most obvious consequence of having a less effective fighting force. If you force a universal standard on women I guarantee that you'll severely devastate the annual recruitment numbers of women, which would be a very bad thing because a large portion of the US military is female and there are an increasingly huge number of very important non-combat roles to be filled. Relying just on male recruits would make things extremely tight and/or unmanageable. Admin would be forced to appeal to Washington for tons of more (costly) benefits to try to bring people in, which would be insanely difficult at a time period where the US military is undergoing austerity and deduction.
It doesn't seem very relevant in our current decade, but you also need to consider the sexual consequences of having a fighting force filled with women, and I'm not talking about relations among the friendly soldiers. I'm talking about what happens when hundreds of thousands of female soldiers are issued mandatory combat assignments and thousands upon thousands of them end up in POW camps. Use your imagination. Granted, men can get abused too, but we all know where the odds are overwhelmingly stacked. US soldiers being taken prisoner is rare these days, but that's because we're not fighting anybody worth half a damn. If you conceive of a more serious war, you're inevitability looking at having a lot of dead and captured soldiers. This factor would be all-the-more relevant with less developed nations that rely far more heavily on their ground force for protection. The long-term consequences would be severe.
No, just leave it that women that want to fight should have to pro-actively seek the position - fully knowing the implications - instead of being randomly assigned it, and needless to say, the measures used for determining combat readiness need to be identical. So the women that do end up in combat positions would compose of the far high end from the median for their gender.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 05:30 AM |
|
|
Exactly, comparing the right to vote with the right to fight in combat is ludicrous. Men and women are quite equal when it comes to the ability to drop a ballot, while they are extremely different when it comes to combat attributes, such as physical strength, endurance, body composition i.e. body fat/lean muscle distribution and bone density, and psychological capacities for aggression. You have to look at this problem as a cost-vs-benefit analysis. To appease the political correctness machine and let women into combat would drastically reduce the military war fighting abilities. It has nothing to do with gender discrimination from the early 20th century, it has to do with simple facts and statistics. And equalizing the physical standards in the military for both genders would harm women more than help them, since the fact is that women are not physically capable of the same standards that men are. Sure, there are some bulked up women out there who could match up (Mythical affirms they can break me in half, I agree), but they are by far and away the exception, not the rule. So matching standards would mean a drastic reduction in the female force since more women would be failing physical standards or being medically discharged after numerous stress injuries. Not to mention that in a civilized society, men are raised to protect women. Now some of America’s elite warrior units will train men to be indifferent to women’s screams? That’s what passes for "progress" in a progressive military.
It’s not primarily about individual capability but military necessity. Anything that detracts from the military mission to win wars and bring troops back alive is not worth it, no matter how fashionable.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 05:45 AM |
|
|
@Salamandre: Even if women were still allowed in the military regardless of whether they could perform as well as men, you would still have a large reduction in female recruits. Most US women joining the military aren't interested in growing a mullet and joining the A-Team. A lot of them are sassy college girls drawn in for the benefits. A universal standard would be very,very bad for quota, which is a very, very big deal in the minds of people that matter.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 05:48 AM |
|
|
Cool, just dont let any women drive a tank or become a commanding officer for Pilots.
We all know how "Good" women are in coordinating stuff...
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 05:51 AM |
|
|
|
There is then to consider US specific wars: they are mostly vs islamists. Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered. Muslims are often not intimidated by females, be they soldiers or whatever.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 05:56 AM |
|
|
Now hold on here. I never said all standards for all positions should be universal. So back up a minute. What I said is, if a woman wants to pursue a combat role, they should be able to .. and the standard should be the same for both men and women who want to seek that role. Nor did I say that they should be forced into that role, neither should men. For those seeking to go into combat, sex simply should not be a consideration. THEY should choose to go into it (both men and women), and be aware of the consequences.
Having women able and willing to fight does not lessen a military, it adds to it. Especially if the women WANT to be there. Women are not as fragile as you think. In fact they are able to tolerate pain more effectively then males.
Now I don't think that women are as physically strong as guys..that is true. For the most part (there are of course exceptions to every rule). When it comes to pain tolerance, however, they are actually better. Size is also not everything in a fight (especially when you know..guns are factored in).
Alice (a woman I know) is 6'3" tall, and has been called an Amazon. She is terrified (as are most sane people) of Jaime..5'5" tall. Who I have seen take down a professional MALE boxer in a bar fight, and have him crying like a baby. It happened way to fast for me to tell you WHAT or HOW she did it, but he was tapping out before I could say "Don't mess with her."
____________
Message received.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 06:00 AM |
|
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 06:04 AM |
|
|
@Mytical: The military is an all-volunteer force, however once they join up, men should be forced into whatever position they are assigned. It would be impossible for the military to function if everybody got the exact role & location that they wanted. I think being female should qualify as an exception for the reasons that I previously gave. Unless they explicitly state otherwise, I don't think it makes sense to mandatorily assign them to combat.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 06:30 AM |
|
|
Because women says ok
1.) Gay
2.) Ordination of women
3.) Jane
You can expect 250,000 female soldiers. So USA is weak state. Kill men and women, but no children.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 06:33 AM |
|
|
Both make crappy fighters so what's the problem?
____________
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 06:39 AM |
|
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 08:13 AM |
|
|
All double standards are idiotic to begin with. They're just there because the military wants cheap labour from women. Now why the support positions have to have physicals, I have no idea. Just open the supporting jobs to normal civilians and voila!, no need for doubles.
I don't really see the point in the excluding of civilians from so many areas, even areas where they employ subcontractors. Talk about idiotic.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted January 24, 2013 09:58 AM |
|
|
this'll certainly make any remake of full-metal jacket interesting.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
|
|
