Women in Combat

[Darrel]

BlindSheep:

Well, I’m 5’10" and strong enough to carry an average-sized guy. I’m also a nursing mother who would prefer not to be drafted and forced to abandon my children. The fact is, it’s only a short slide down the slope from women *allowed *in combat to women required to be in combat. Look at what happened to the “choice” to be a stay-home mom. Blurring the lines between the sexes doesn’t liberate women; it does the opposite.

Very True,

Why are we so afraid to just say that women are not designed to be in combat? Women have a level of dignity equal to that of men. The dignity of women is not tarnished by keeping them off the front line any more then it is by keeping them out of the priesthood.

We have a whole slew of female Saints in the Church despite the fact that we have no women in the priesthood. Being a cop is much different then being in combat. I weigh 240 lbs. how many women can drag me up the stairs wearing a full pack after I get shot? War is like math, there are bullets bombs and artillery. If we mixed every platoon right now it is certain that the average number of body bags filled per day would increase.

It would be a death sentence for both men and women on the front lines. Does this mean that we discriminate against women? Not in the slightest. You can’t mix politics with combat, because combat does not discriminate. Just imagine if we had 400 female POW’s in Vietnam. Just imagine two thousand women storming the beaches on D-Day. Talk about a nightmare.

I think that women can actually do combat if we needed them too. This fact is historically proven; just take Joan of Arc as an example. Looking at the last two Popes it is pretty clear that both masculinity and femininity are “gifts” to be upheld in there individually dignified vocations.

When I imagine 1200 female marines storming through the streets of Falusia doing house to house combat. The idea of upholding the gift of femininity seems lost somehow. Women and their dignity have already been attacked and demeaned by modern feminists ideology. Lets not incorperate that line of thinking into the combat zone. In that case we wouldn’t just kill the dignity of women, instead we would just literally kill women.

-D

 

[vern_humphrey]

mjdonnelly:

But there are job requirements, they should not have lowered standards just because they are women.

The problem is ground combat is open-ended. There is no point at which added capability will not confir an advantage.

Or to put it another way, it is impossible to carry all the weapons, ammunition, communications equipment, supplies and so on that you really need. So if you have smaller soldiers you are even worse off.

mjdonnelly:

If you have different requirements, then that leads to more arguments about having different requirements based on height, weight, race, etc.

Actually we do – albeit not for race. We have special PT and marksmanship standards for Infantry, for example. For another, your height and weight are typed on your Efficiency Report – and fat people don’t get promoted.

 

[mjdonnelly]

vern humphrey:

The problem is ground combat is open-ended. There is no point at which added capability will not confir an advantage.

I’m just referring to minimum ability. 3 mile jog, full combat load with time requirement for example. (just picked 3 for no particular reason)
vern humphrey:

Actually we do – albeit not for race. We have special PT and marksmanship standards for Infantry, for example. For another, your height and weight are typed on your Efficiency Report – and fat people don’t get promoted.

I’m aware of the remarks on evaluations. I’m saying that an argument could be made for changing physical requirements for someone who is shorter because, proportionally, that load they carry would be more. I knew officers who went to the Annapolis, football players, especially the linemen, had problems passing the height/weight standards. They could do all the other physical requirements, but because of their build there were some issues. Even though they were still in top shape and able to do their jobs.

 

[Pentecost2005]

BioCatholic:

why all of the sudden is it so “reprehensible” to allow women to fight in combat?

First of all, the expression is “all of A sudden.” No specific “sudden” is being idenfitied.

Second, are you under the impression that repugnance at the idea of women in combat is somehow new? You think there were women in the trenches at Verdun? At Concord and Lexington we had Minute Men – but no Minute Women.

Third, are you a man? If you heard a noise in the middle of the night and you thought you might have robbers in the house, would you expect your wife to go investigate? If not, why not?

Chivalry is truly dead.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mjdonnelly:

I’m aware of the remarks on evaluations. I’m saying that an argument could be made for changing physical requirements for someone who is shorter because, proportionally, that load they carry would be more.

So in combat, that shorter person would only climb low hills, carry lighter loads, and when they ran out ammunition they could just shout “Bang! Bang!” and the enemy would be honor-bound to fall down dead?

When the batteries gave out on their radios and they had no spares, the laws of physics would be changed to allow them to transmit without batteries?

mjdonnelly:

I knew officers who went to the Annapolis, football players, especially the linemen, had problems passing the height/weight standards. They could do all the other physical requirements, but because of their build there were some issues. Even though they were still in top shape and able to do their jobs.

I have known men who could not do their jobs, even though they played sports. The payoff is in combat, not at a desk, nor on a playing field.