The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 81

Thread: Women in combat?

  1. #61
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,695

    Default

    You want to use Israel for a model?

    I'm good with that, but let's model all of her values and ethics, shall we?
    EX: How many Israelis are on entitilements?
    What is the crime rate?
    Illiteracy rates?
    How many are unemployed?

    And so on.................


    I find it telling, all of us who have actually been in a fight say NO women, and those in favor..........well..........


    Also, wasn't that long ago the progressives were screaming "NO WAR!!!"

    Now.......they want to send women..............I would like to quote Andrew Dice Clay here, but that wouldn't fly!!!
    Stan b & Elvis

  2. #62
    Senior Member luvalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    central ohio
    Posts
    1,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Glavich View Post
    Males and females span all ranks. 2nd if we all want to be equal then the physical requirements should be the same but they are not, less push ups, less pulls ups, longer time to run the same distance, etc. The Military is not equal on physical requirements.
    Equal is equal, and same is same. I am on-board with equal and same both in this instance. Seriously. 15 years ago I broke my ankle in a tumble down rickety stairs, and I told the petite flower EMT that started to take me off the ledge that she needed to let Bubba take the lead on that maneuver! I am also practical. If it's combat and it's inexpedient or disruptive to have a woman in particular ranks, well, if anything should be expedient it is war. Big whoop if the women who are otherwise qualified aren't practical for any reason.

    But why have a policy that automatically says nope, never, don't try, ever--there may be 1 woman in 500 or 1000 that is ready, willing, and fully able to be trained to go if called... And so what? In the long run, that may only be twenty or fifty or a hundred women... But that's 20 or 50 or 100 people that might serve well and long and move up the ranks to be that one in several million that can truly lead in combat and beyond. If the woman can do it, if she as a woman fits into that mission, if maybe she has a special talent for that type of combat--well, why not?

    In many a war there has always been the one woman in the battle somewhere that made a difference (or wound up dead, like most of the men). Why not let her avoid the silly fake mustache and taping down the boobs?

    I hardly think theinfantry is going to be suddenly over-run...
    --Greta Ode
    willing slave to the whims of
    Kerrybrooks Magical Atticus MH
    Coastalight Kiowa Ravenhawk MH

  3. #63
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvalab View Post
    Equal is equal, and same is same. I am on-board with equal and same both in this instance. Seriously. 15 years ago I broke my ankle in a tumble down rickety stairs, and I told the petite flower EMT that started to take me off the ledge that she needed to let Bubba take the lead on that maneuver! I am also practical. If it's combat and it's inexpedient or disruptive to have a woman in particular ranks, well, if anything should be expedient it is war. Big whoop if the women who are otherwise qualified aren't practical for any reason.

    But why have a policy that automatically says nope, never, don't try, ever--there may be 1 woman in 500 or 1000 that is ready, willing, and fully able to be trained to go if called... And so what? In the long run, that may only be twenty or fifty or a hundred women... But that's 20 or 50 or 100 people that might serve well and long and move up the ranks to be that one in several million that can truly lead in combat and beyond. If the woman can do it, if she as a woman fits into that mission, if maybe she has a special talent for that type of combat--well, why not?

    In many a war there has always been the one woman in the battle somewhere that made a difference (or wound up dead, like most of the men). Why not let her avoid the silly fake mustache and taping down the boobs?

    I hardly think theinfantry is going to be suddenly over-run...
    I like silly mustaches and......wait........never mind!
    Stan b & Elvis

  4. #64
    Senior Member Brian Cockfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvalab View Post
    Equal is equal, and same is same. I am on-board with equal and same both in this instance. Seriously. 15 years ago I broke my ankle in a tumble down rickety stairs, and I told the petite flower EMT that started to take me off the ledge that she needed to let Bubba take the lead on that maneuver! I am also practical. If it's combat and it's inexpedient or disruptive to have a woman in particular ranks, well, if anything should be expedient it is war. Big whoop if the women who are otherwise qualified aren't practical for any reason.

    But why have a policy that automatically says nope, never, don't try, ever--there may be 1 woman in 500 or 1000 that is ready, willing, and fully able to be trained to go if called... And so what? In the long run, that may only be twenty or fifty or a hundred women... But that's 20 or 50 or 100 people that might serve well and long and move up the ranks to be that one in several million that can truly lead in combat and beyond. If the woman can do it, if she as a woman fits into that mission, if maybe she has a special talent for that type of combat--well, why not?

    In many a war there has always been the one woman in the battle somewhere that made a difference (or wound up dead, like most of the men). Why not let her avoid the silly fake mustache and taping down the boobs?

    I hardly think theinfantry is going to be suddenly over-run...
    The reason for saying "nope" is that this is real life. It's combat where lives are at stake. If the progressives want to conduct a social experiment, try it in the NFL or Olympic sports. There isn't a single professional sport or Olympic event where males and females are competing against one another. There's a reason why. (and these are games) Combat is a much different animal. Mark my words, for those of you who think this is acceptable, this is not going to turn out well.
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."--George Orwell.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Jason Glavich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    woodbridge,VA
    Posts
    1,943

    Default

    It is interesting here are a few articles about the Marines trying this before it was ven handed down.
    http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-c...ining-1.193228
    http://www.businessinsider.com/women...in-days-2013-1

    And then here is the Commandant saying the jobs may stay closed because he will not lower the requirements.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ombat/1873753/
    My Father,My Friend,My teacher,and now My Angel~ 04/21/1956-03/21/2011 You will always be missed. I hope to learn half of the stuff you knew.

    ~Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted~

  6. #66
    Senior Member Jason Glavich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    woodbridge,VA
    Posts
    1,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Cockfield View Post
    The reason for saying "nope" is that this is real life. It's combat where lives are at stake. If the progressives want to conduct a social experiment, try it in the NFL or Olympic sports. There isn't a single professional sport or Olympic event where males and females are competing against one another. There's a reason why. (and these are games) Combat is a much different animal. Mark my words, for those of you who think this is acceptable, this is not going to turn out well.
    They have done numerous studies on how a male reacts to a fellow male being shot or injured, and how different it is when a male witnesses a female being shot or injured, it changes the focus and how they react.
    My Father,My Friend,My teacher,and now My Angel~ 04/21/1956-03/21/2011 You will always be missed. I hope to learn half of the stuff you knew.

    ~Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted~

  7. #67
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Glavich View Post
    They have done numerous studies on how a male reacts to a fellow male being shot or injured, and how different it is when a male witnesses a female being shot or injured, it changes the focus and how they react.
    How about if a female is taken hostage and used as a shield?????

    You leftys that want women in war that you hate


    do know we have a different view of women here in our culture than is held under Sharia law, right???
    Last edited by road kill; 01-31-2013 at 07:46 AM.
    Stan b & Elvis

  8. #68
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    How about if a female is taken hostage and used as a shield?????

    You leftys that want women in war that you hate


    we have a different view of women here in our culture than is held under Sharia law, right???

    I'm not sure shield is the proper term for what most of those savages would do with a female POW...
    Bill Davis

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Cockfield View Post
    The reason for saying "nope" is that this is real life. It's combat where lives are at stake. If the progressives want to conduct a social experiment, try it in the NFL or Olympic sports. There isn't a single professional sport or Olympic event where males and females are competing against one another. There's a reason why. (and these are games) Combat is a much different animal. Mark my words, for those of you who think this is acceptable, this is not going to turn out well.
    How right you are.
    If we ask young men to go into harms way and put their life on the line, we should ensure them the best possible chance of survival.

    This isnt some namby pamby little league scenario where we wont keep score in order to avoid hurting Johnny or Mary's feelings.
    This is life or death and they do keep score..... in body counts. There are situations where the average Johnnys superior strength to the average Mary could extricate a comrade in arms from a life threatening situation.

    If we want to have a stupid ridiculous social experiment and pretend that Johnny and Mary are the same, outside of the fact that one sits down to pee while the other stands up, then lets not extend that ridiculous experiment to life or death situations.
    That premise is ridiculous, lets not prove the social experimenters wrong with the blood of our soldiers

  10. #70
    Senior Member GoldenSail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    109

    Default

    My understanding is that women have been in combat for quite some time now, but they haven't been getting paid for it like the men because of the restriction. They also say the battlefield is more fluid these days making it important that all people be trained and ready for combat.

    Everyone here seems to focus on the supposed weaknesses they see, but no one has bothered to mention the strength that women can bring.

    Direct Combat
    The Army and DoD definitions of “direct combat” offer another instance of contradictory interpretation.
    The Army policy includes “a substantial risk of capture” as being definitional while the DoD does not.
    The DoD defines direct combat as taking “place well forward on the battlefield while locating and closing
    with the enemy” while the Army policy omits the phrase “well forward on the battlefield” but adds that
    combat occurs “while repelling the enemy’s assault by fire, close combat, or counterattack.” It is
    unclear exactly what “repelling the enemy” might include. Further, the nature of combat missions
    aren’t spatially discernible, as the phrases “well forward” and “closing the enemy” might suggest. The
    confusing language in the two policies reveals the difficulty of establishing a definitive line between
    combat and non‐combat particularly in actual practice.

    The Increasing Presence of Women in Combat Roles
    The changing nature of warfare as well as military necessity has increasingly placed women in combat
    roles. Despite the ambiguities in policy, military commanders are assigning women where they need
    them. The time is long overdue for policy to catch up with practice.

    The Battlefield Environment
    The absence of a clear line between enemy and friendly territory produces a situation where both
    women and men are always exposed to the possibility of combat, necessitating every soldier to be
    combat‐ready.
    - In late 2003 the Army revised its basic training protocol to prepare soldiers to irregular warfare.
    It was decided that all servicemembers would undergo combat training, including more
    weapons training, learning to protect against bombs and grenades and learning to fight in urban
    areas where enemies where indistinguishable from civilians. Recognizing that “women were
    working alongside war fighters, taking hostile fire – even in the role of designated support
    forces,” no gender distinction was made on who would receive combat training.13
    - Beginning in 2005, the U.S. Army began placing women in Forward Support Companies (FSCs),
    which provide maintenance and support services to direct ground combat battalions, including
    infantry, armor and Special Forces. The Army recognizes this assignment will place women in
    combat situations, yet maintains that it is in compliance with the 1994 DoD policy.
    - In May of 2005, an amendment was proposed which would remove all women from FSCs –
    which would have closed 21,925 positions currently open to servicewomen.14 The amendment
    was opposed, suggesting an increasing level of recognition of the need for women in
    occupations and units regardless of their proximity to combat.
    - Women also participate in raids and ride on convoys where the exposure to Improvised
    Explosive Devices (IEDs) is constant.

    Lioness Teams
    Beginning in 2003, the U.S. Army established all‐female (Lioness) teams specifically to accompany allmale
    Marine combat units into insurgent‐infested areas of Ramadi, Iraq.
    - Lioness teams originated from the military’s need for servicewomen to be present during home
    raids, at checkpoints, or any place where “Iraqi women’s honor” could be threatened by the
    presence of and/or contact with male troops.
    - Women soldiers were primarily used in these instances to search Iraqi women for weapons or
    explosives. They also served as a “calming presence” for the women and children.
    - Lioness teams routinely engaged in combat by nature of their missions and should be
    recognized and awarded as having done so. Mission success is clearly dependent on women
    filling these combat roles.

    Female Engagement Teams (FETs)
    FETs are crucial to the U.S. military’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan and are attached to
    either infantry units for combat missions or, in the case of Marine FETs, to male maneuver units.
    - In July of 2009 the Marine Corps officially began training FETs; there are now several teams run
    intermittently in southern Afghanistan and as of November 2009, all international and Afghan
    security forces were directed to establish FETs of their own.15
    - In March 2010, the Marines trained forty women for the first full‐time Female Engagement
    Teams, deployed to Helmand province in April 2010.- The FET women practice “reflexive fire” as well as getting in and out of armored personnel
    carriers while under fire. The tasks of their mission ‐ “calming,” interacting and building
    relationships with Afghan women ‐ require that they go outside the wire, into hot zones.
    - FETs are attached to combat units, not assigned. This bureaucratic sidestep allows the military
    access to servicewomen’s labor in combat situations without having to acknowledge them as
    combatants.

    Women on Submarines
    The number of talented women earning degrees in engineering and science prompted the U.S. Navy to
    lift the ban barring women from serving on submarines. For the first time, women are in the chain of
    command of a strategic first‐strike nuclear defense asset, attesting to their competency in positions
    essential to national security.
    - Allowing women on submarines is an issue that had been considered and rejected several times
    since 1993. In February 2010 Defense Secretary Robert Gates notified Congress that the Navy
    intended to allow women officers on submarines.
    - 24 women officers are being integrated on guide‐missile attack (SSGNs) and ballistic‐missile
    (SSBNs) submarines. Allowing women to serve on submarines will provide them the opportunity
    for both forward deployed strike and strategic deterrent operational experience.
    Link.

    I have read other responses on other forums and unlike this one there are men and women in the military who support the move. One woman in particular who was physically fit and could out-do many of the young men in her unit. And I daresay, a physically fit woman who volunteers to fight for her country is going to be far more useful than an out of shape young man who is unwillingly drafted.

    It is also interesting to me that the similar arguments were made against racial integration and then don't ask don't tell.

    Thankfully, we don't live in this world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

    And check out this 111 lb woman. I think women can do more than people give credit for.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tNThxHc4YE

    At the end of the day anyone who is willing to fight for our country, male, female, black, white, gay or straight has my respect! It's a tough job and I wouldn't want to do it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •