US servicewomen challenge combat role ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter Julia_Mae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bezant said:
My understanding is that service in the US Millitary is voluntary for everyone.
It sounds arbitrary at best, to be honest.
Click to expand...
What is arbitrary in pointing out that a society which values sending women into combat is a society that is out of whack?

Ishii
 
I wouldn’t doubt that some women are good combat troops. But it would be interesting to see a poll of women in the military to see if they agree that they should become combat troops. Are you sure that these women would generally like this idea?
I think too that there would be serious problems if they were made combat troops on an equal basis. Nor, do I think the U.S. armed forces should be socially engineered too to suit people’s ideology.
 
There are very very few women who can match the physical strength of the average male combat soldier. Placing women in front line combat roles puts the lives of others at greater risk, plain and simple.
Not to mention the hygiene issues of being out in the field for weeks at a time without a shower, and therefor the special accommodations that would have to be made for women in combat roles.
Also the distraction that women spending many long hours in foxholes with men creates. It is an all-around ugly can of worms, and overall it puts everyone’s lives at far greater risk.
It is a very bad idea, for so many overriding reasons. A terrible idea.
 
acarlson said:
As a woman, I will say this: if a woman can match up to the same intense standards as a man, she should be allowed to fight alongside them. Denying a capable woman the chance is wrong, but we shouldn’t try to change – lower – the standards just so women CAN fight combat roles.
Click to expand...
If is the big question;) do you honestly think females are physically stronger than men? there are numerous facts that prove them not to be.Sorry to say women are literally in another league in the sports world, they simply can not compete with men.In hand to hand combat women do not have much of a chance.Do you have any combat experience? how about you volunteer;) I am a veteran, fourteen years of service.Women have different types of qualities that are of benefit to the armed forces.Sorry, the flat fact is women can not match up to the same intense standards as men, why do you think they have different boot camps?
 
Bezant said:
My understanding is that service in the US Millitary is voluntary for everyone.

It sounds arbitrary at best, to be honest.
Click to expand...
Hi Bezant. Sometimes service in the U.S. military is voluntary; at other times a draft is imposed. The draft history in the United States extends back to the Revolutionary War. During this war, people who were drafted were allowed to hire a substitute to fight in their stead - if they could afford to do so.
The Vietnam War is probably the example of a draft situation in the U.S. that most readily comes to mind for most people. There were draft exemptions allowed in this war as well.
I wonder if part of the concern about the role of Women in the military might, at some (perhaps subconscious) level, be related to fear that women might be less likely to put up with a draft?
If enough people who are draft age decide that they don’t support the program, it can be a bit difficult getting a military adventure off of the ground.
Of course the hypothesis is my own. I have not seen studies of differing attitudes towards the draft in relation to gender.
May God bless all men and women who take time to care for others. Amen.
 
ishii said:
What is arbitrary in pointing out that a society which values sending women into combat is a society that is out of whack?

Ishii
Click to expand...
According to whom? If women can perform the same as men, why should they be exempted? The only real argument I see is that they are not as capable, which can be empirically tested.
 
I guess I wouldn’t see anything morally wrong with women serving in combat positions in the military. I mean, as far as I am aware, the Church does not condemn it. However, it does seem a little strange to me why a woman would want to be involved in combat. I guess it just doesn’t fit the gender stereotypes that I’m used to. 😛
 
Holly3278 said:
I guess I wouldn’t see anything morally wrong with women serving in combat positions in the military. I mean, as far as I am aware, the Church does not condemn it. However, it does seem a little strange to me why a woman would want to be involved in combat. I guess it just doesn’t fit the gender stereotypes that I’m used to. 😛
Click to expand...
Agreed. If you’re talking about jobs such as fighter pilots (they can use pilotless planes such as drones) in bombing missions or launching missiles, then it doesn’t matter what the strength is as those jobs require smart people not muscles. With infantry, marines, that which involves hand to hand fighting, you need the strongest and while there are women who are physically strong enough to do this, most women wouldn’t be able to. When a nation is required to send men 40 or older, women and child soldiers to the front line as Japan was prepared to do if the war had continued into 1946 (Germany was already using old men Volksturm and Hitler Youth late in the war) or use a kamikaze airforce, then they’ve lost the war because most of the best soldiers have been killed.
 
snowguru said:
Agreed. If you’re talking about jobs such as fighter pilots (they can use pilotless planes such as drones) in bombing missions or launching missiles, then it doesn’t matter what the strength is as those jobs require smart people not muscles. With infantry, marines, that which involves hand to hand fighting, you need the strongest and while there are women who are physically strong enough to do this, most women wouldn’t be able to. When a nation is required to send men 40 or older, women and child soldiers to the front line as Japan was prepared to do if the war had continued into 1946 (Germany was already using old men Volksturm and Hitler Youth late in the war) or use a kamikaze airforce, then they’ve lost the war because most of the best soldiers have been killed.
Click to expand...
Is it too politically incorrect to picture someday a soldier in a shallow ditch somewhere awaiting a night attack with a couple of overt homosexuals on one side of him in the ditch and a couple of women on the other side of him, taking the occasion to text his younger brother advising him to NEVER join the service?
 
ishii said:
What is arbitrary in pointing out that a society which values sending women into combat is a society that is out of whack?

Ishii
Click to expand...
You haven’t proven that such is the case. All you’ve said is, ‘We don’t like it.’
 
Nigel7 said:
There are very very few women who can match the physical strength of the average male combat soldier. Placing women in front line combat roles puts the lives of others at greater risk, plain and simple.
Not to mention the hygiene issues of being out in the field for weeks at a time without a shower, and therefor the special accommodations that would have to be made for women in combat roles.
Also the distraction that women spending many long hours in foxholes with men creates. It is an all-around ugly can of worms, and overall it puts everyone’s lives at far greater risk.
It is a very bad idea, for so many overriding reasons. A terrible idea.
Click to expand...
What no one seems to be much bothered about is that such situations are already happening.
 
Combat in military doesnt really have much hand to hand combat, its all weapons mostly. However, you still have to be conditioned to withstand tough situations. I think that requires both an extreme amount of mental toughness as well as physical.

With that said, I train brazilian jiu jitsu and have seen a 6’4" 260 lb. athletic woman who is also a black belt world champ get destroyed by a 5’6" 150 lb man.

The mats dont lie and always brings out the truth. Hopefully it wont take actual combat and lots of dying to realize this.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Is it too politically incorrect to picture someday a soldier in a shallow ditch somewhere awaiting a night attack with a couple of overt homosexuals on one side of him in the ditch and a couple of women on the other side of him, taking the occasion to text his younger brother advising him to NEVER join the service?
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
CrimsonThorn, you are right there isn’t a lot of hand to hand combat coming up, but it does happen. A recent Navy Cross recipient earned it, in part, due to his hand to hand combat abilities. He was loading his weapon when he saw the barrel of a gun coming around the corner of the building. He pulled the gun, and holder of the gun, forward, and a hand to hand combat situation ensued. The Marine prevailed, due to his strength. 👍

Here is another article on the subject. washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/25/few-female-marines-step-forward-for-infantry//?page=2 Seems not many women actually want to do it, even fewer are capable.
 
Holly3278 said:
I guess I wouldn’t see anything morally wrong with women serving in combat positions in the military. I mean, as far as I am aware, the Church does not condemn it. However, it does seem a little strange to me why a woman would want to be involved in combat. I guess it just doesn’t fit the gender stereotypes that I’m used to. 😛
Click to expand...
US military officers need combat experience in order to further their careers. Without it, they can only progress so far. This is why they want to be able to get combat experience.
 
I’m not a military man, thus I trust the brass to do what makes sense.

These are pretty smart cookies.

The US military is the finest in the world. And I say this as someone who is not an American Exceptionalist.
 
You can trust the brass to do what is good for their careers.

No one said they were especially dumb but until the proverbial dung is in the rotating blades the pentagon stays full of self-serving careerist.

US military is so good a bunch of Taliban is going to win in 12 months and add this longest of American wars to its growing list of non-wins.
 
stevegravy;10072293 said:
US military is so good a bunch of Taliban is going to win in 12 months and add this longest of American wars to its growing list of non-wins.
Click to expand...

Well this is true for the Russians, the British, French, Aussies etc.

We don’t do well with the type of guerrilla warfare.

It happened in Viet-Nam.

Is it really even possible for a modern army to “win” these types of conflicts?

I don’t know.

I read books about war. That’s all the knowledge I have. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top