US servicewomen challenge combat role ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter Julia_Mae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
Whether a woman can do the job or not isn’t the issue for a combat unit, but cohesiveness is and having women serve in a combat unit will destroy that cohesiveness.

If we allow women to serve in combat infantry units, when the day comes, and it will, for a draft, all women will be required as all men will be, to serve in infantry combat units when assigned. What about the majority of women who could not handle the job of an infantry soldier ?

If this day ever comes, we might as well surrender to the enemy for it will be the mark of having lost all moral values.

Jim
 
Bezant said:
‘We don’t like it’ is irrelevant here. It’s clearly a civil issue.
Click to expand...
It’s the only way they can do it.

As it is, the M16 makes it possible for a woman to carry a rifle and shoot effectively.

If we’re forced back to using weapons that are conducive for hand to hand combat, like M14’s, women could not handle the weight of the weapon effectively.

It’s why women competing in NRA Rifle competitions, use M16’s not M14’s.

Jim
 
ringil said:
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.
Click to expand...
Military Brass will not risk their careers by speaking out against bad political objectives by those who will determine their fate.

I spoke with a retired major who served in the 1st Gulf War. Women over all did a lousy job and sick-bay was overfilled with females too tired to do their jobs. As a result, men had to carry the extra load.

Of course it would’ve been politically incorrect to say anything while he served in active duty, and when he wrote up women for dereliction of duty, the cases were thrown out.

It’s the main reason he retired.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Military Brass will not risk their careers by speaking out against bad political objectives by those who will determine their fate.

I spoke with a retired major who served in the 1st Gulf War. Women over all did a lousy job and sick-bay was overfilled with females too tired to do their jobs. As a result, men had to carry the extra load.

Of course it would’ve been politically incorrect to say anything while he served in active duty, and when he wrote up women for dereliction of duty, the cases were thrown out.

It’s the main reason he retired.

Jim
Click to expand...
So I may be able to trust your post if I know your position on revoking “don’t ask don’t tell”.

I fully agree with this and I consider it an accomplishment in the Obama administration.

I do see a potential difference between accepting gays and accepting women in combat roles.

So your response on that will tell me where you are coming from.
 
jimmy said:
What good would allowing women to serve as ground combat troops serve? They would be inferior troops, and consequently they would bring the quality of the US military down. They should remain in a position in which they can do a job as well as men.

If they expect to be able to be ground troops they should have to pass the fitness test according to the same standard the men have, because otherwise they are just going to be a liability.
Click to expand...
Women need to pass the same physical fitness test that men do to join the fire department…
 
Maybe I’ve passed through a portal into an alternate reality, but I thought this issue was settled since the first Gulf War and that women were already serving in combat roles in the military? What about Jessica Lynch?
 
JimR-OCDS said:
EmperorNapoleon

Well, having trained in Martial Arts, and yes, having spared against women, I can assure you, men pull their punches when sparing a woman.

When you see women fighting in a Mixed Martial Arts ring against men, then we can be convinced of how lethal a woman can be. Until then, it’s a myth.

Jim
Click to expand...
For ince I agree with you lol
 
tomarin said:
Maybe I’ve passed through a portal into an alternate reality, but I thought this issue was settled since the first Gulf War and that women were already serving in combat roles in the military? What about Jessica Lynch?
Click to expand...
She was in a support role, a supply clerk. There are situations where support units are in harms way. There is a difference between what someone does as a member of the infantry (rifleman, mortarman, machine gunner, etc) and what a supply clerk does; as well as, a difference in the likelihood of seeing actual combat.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
It’s the only way they can do it.

As it is, the M16 makes it possible for a woman to carry a rifle and shoot effectively.

If we’re forced back to using weapons that are conducive for hand to hand combat, like M14’s, women could not handle the weight of the weapon effectively.

It’s why women competing in NRA Rifle competitions, use M16’s not M14’s.

Jim
Click to expand...
Again, nobody seems to consider the fact that many women already serve in combat positions they are allegedly ‘unable to do.’

You are proving nothing aside from your personal bias.
 
Bezant said:
Again, nobody seems to consider the fact that many women already serve in combat positions they are allegedly ‘unable to do.’

You are proving nothing aside from your personal bias.
Click to expand...
But they aren’t in the combat positions that are being discussed in the article. They are in support roles. I also posted a link to an article where women were asked to volunteer for the infantry officer course. Two volunteered, neither completed it.
 
bethndanny said:
She was in a support role, a supply clerk. There are situations where support units are in harms way. There is a difference between what someone does as a member of the infantry (rifleman, mortarman, machine gunner, etc) and what a supply clerk does; as well as, a difference in the likelihood of seeing actual combat.
Click to expand...
Well yes, I understand the difference there; I just didn’t know she was a supply clerk, or that women were not permitted to serve in combat. I thought that women military personnel had made the argument successfully long ago that to be promoted to higher rank it was essential to be able to serve in combat.
 
Bezant said:
Again, nobody seems to consider the fact that many women already serve in combat positions they are allegedly ‘unable to do.’

You are proving nothing aside from your personal bias.
Click to expand...
What do you define as a combat position?
 
tomarin said:
I thought that women military personnel had made the argument successfully long ago that to be promoted to higher rank it was essential to be able to serve in combat.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that to be true. There are female Sergeants Major and Master Gunnery Sergeants, and female Generals, in the Marine Corps. All without serving in a combat MOS.
 
tomarin said:
Well yes, I understand the difference there; I just didn’t know she was a supply clerk, or that women were not permitted to serve in combat. I thought that women military personnel had made the argument successfully long ago that to be promoted to higher rank it was essential to be able to serve in combat.
Click to expand...
And with that in mind, they shouldn’t be in the higher ranks of the military. They cant fight in combat so they shouldn’t have higher ranks in the military, and they shouldn’t fight in combat because they are incapable of it. It may be tough to hear, but that is how it should be.
 
bethndanny said:
I don’t believe that to be true. There are female Sergeants Major and Master Gunnery Sergeants, and female Generals, in the Marine Corps. All without serving in a combat MOS.
Click to expand...
I’m not in favor of the idea myself, just trying to remember the arguments that were put forward circa 1991.
 
jimmy said:
And with that in mind, they shouldn’t be in the higher ranks of the military. They cant fight in combat so they shouldn’t have higher ranks in the military, and they shouldn’t fight in combat because they are incapable of it. It may be tough to hear, but that is how it should be.
Click to expand...
That’s fine by me.
 
jimmy said:
And with that in mind, they shouldn’t be in the higher ranks of the military. They cant fight in combat so they shouldn’t have higher ranks in the military, and they shouldn’t fight in combat because they are incapable of it. It may be tough to hear, but that is how it should be.
Click to expand...
I pointed out that they are in the higher ranks; however, I agree with you. If they are not physically and mentally capable of what those men are doing, they shouldn’t be in the same position.

In my husband’s situation, the men at his rank, in his MOS, all needed to fill billets in infantry battalions for their careers. The women were able to skip that step, in some cases filling billets rated for higher ranking Marines. This did not adversely affect their career, but they didn’t have to do the same jobs as their male counterparts in order to advance.
 
jimmy said:
And with that in mind, they shouldn’t be in the higher ranks of the military. They cant fight in combat so they shouldn’t have higher ranks in the military, and they shouldn’t fight in combat because they are incapable of it. It may be tough to hear, but that is how it should be.
Click to expand...
But having elected officials, who are under no requirement to have ever served, in charge of the military and sending it into combat is ok?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top