Women in Combat

  • Thread starter Thread starter BioCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BioCatholic

Guest
This keeps popping up and down here and there, and many people are so opposed to women in combat. i for myself, cant seem to understand why? women are police officers, paramedics and firefighters here in the US. and women in every one of those fields have died in the line of duty. 200 female police officers are listed as having been killed in the line of duty:

[officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=2&id=26543](http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=2&id=26543)

and the US fire administration lists several hundred firefighter fatalaties in the last years, of which women number about 35-50. one female EMT died at the trade center in 2001 too.

can i ask what is the difference if a woman is shot by a criminal vs being shot by terrorists? or a woman dying in an industrial fire vs an improvised explosive device (IED)? they are all tragic, but are part of the game if you decide to play.

i cant for the life of me understand why the government wont allow perfectly willing women into combat. For years and years here in the US there have been women tactical SWAT officers and on high-risk warrant execution teams. i know a few women police officers that can and do put serious hurtings on violent criminals.

i dont see this huge hooplah (or any for that matter) to keep women from being SWAT officers or doing dangerous firefighting work. why all of the sudden is it so “reprehensible” to allow women to fight in combat?

women are allowed to vote and enjoy freedoms, but when people start flying planes into buildings and some women want to sign up to kick some terrorist tail like their male counterparts, we dont let them.

the reason i say this is my sister in law keeps talking about pressing the military to put her on the front lines for her next deployment to Iraq. i for one, support her 100%. she would definitely do some serious damage to the insurgents. too bad the government is too self righteous to allow people who actually want to do the dirty work, to do it.

i just cant understand why if women can be tactical SWAT, why they cant be frontline soldiers.
 
I don’t see why women can’t serve, either. However, in opposition to this, I’ve been told that rape and torture of female captives in a war situation is exponentially worse than it is for male captives. I suppose there is some sense in not forcing women to serve due to these possibilities, but I don’t see why they can’t volunteer if they know the risks.
 
Well, in my opinion women shouldn’t be firefighters either, and should only do certain types of work as police officers; so I guess I’m the wrong person to ask. I believe there are some jobs that are not appropriate for women (and some not appropriate for men).
 
Dear Bio,
The reason i say this is my sister in law keeps talking about pressing the military to put her on the front lines for her next deployment to Iraq. i for one, support her 100%. she would definitely do some serious damage to the insurgents. too bad the government is too self righteous to allow people who actually want to do the dirty work, to do it.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe the government is “self righteous” as you may think. My two marine grandsons both served in Iraq, and one just arrived home last month. Unfortunately, the media does not have access to the rigors and evils our servicemen endure there. My family has the inside scoop from them, and believe me, you do not want a woman to even think about going there (triple emphasis!). And trust me, they’re not crybabies, but very semper fi dedicated enlisted men. What else would you expect from a marine?

It is not wise to publish here what they went through, to respect the parents of other sons who are actively serving and keep them from worry. But I will plead for all who read this to beg Our Lord to keep their loved ones safe, and to bring an end this horrible war. I wish I could say more.

Carole
 
I think they should be allowed to serve as long as there is only one physical standard for everyone to pass. None of that separate chart stuff for male and female.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
I think they should be allowed to serve as long as there is only one physical standard for everyone to pass. None of that separate chart stuff for male and female.
Click to expand...
Imagine all the equipment issued to an Infantry company. I invite anyone to try to pick up their share and walk off with it. In combat, anything you have to leave behind jeopardizes your safety and the safety of your unit. Anything extra you can carry enhances your safety and that of your unit.

Similarly, other combat branches require considerable strength – try breaking track and replacing it on an M1 tank, or humping shells for an 8" howitzer.

In most combat jobs, a good big man will beat a good little man any day of the week. And you can’t change that by adopting a sex-normed PT test.
 
First, on this Veteran’s Day, may God continue to bless all our military soliders, sailors, airmen, and marines (and Coast Guard, too) - past and present, for their dedication and loyalty to an ideal that is far greater than him or herself. It is with this that they bring honor to us all.

I have several differing opinions - some for, some against.

While firefighters, police women, etc. serve in society, the risks they face are generally short term (a fire, night of duty, etc.) where an infantry person would be on call 24/7.

Let’s face it, woman can’t write their name in the snow (or now a days sand) very easily and doing so in mixed company would be a challenge. As well as other normal female cycles that occur during the month. Can’t stop the tank because of femine hygiene issues.

Women are serving in combat, but not direct combative roles. Supply soldiers, Helicopter pilots, Medics have dangerous combat related jobs -Basically, they can go back to/have basecamp.

I think this separation is also showing a great respect to being a woman, not a disrespect for being one. I think I read somewhere on the forums (or somewhere) that this is how the feminist role differed in America than in Europe. In Europe they stressed special priviledges (maternity leave, etc.) because they were a women where in America everyone just wanted to be equal. But we are equal - we all just have different roles.

I have no doubt that some women would be awesome combative figures. On the lighter side - could you imagine an entire platoon of PMSers?! :eek: This war would have been over in 30 days 😉
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
I think they should be allowed to serve as long as there is only one physical standard for everyone to pass. None of that separate chart stuff for male and female.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. If a woman is strong enough and willing than by all means its her choice, although I have no idea why any person would make it.
 
40.png
ProudArmyWife:
Let’s face it, woman can’t write their name in the snow (or now a days sand) very easily and doing so in mixed company would be a challenge. As well as other normal female cycles that occur during the month. Can’t stop the tank because of femine hygiene issues.
Click to expand...
I agree that’s the biggest issue with it.
 
40.png
siamesecat:
My thoughts exactly. If a woman is strong enough and willing than by all means its her choice, although I have no idea why any person would make it.
Click to expand...
It’s not her choice, you know. The safety and survival of the infantry platoon or company depends on how much weapons, ammo, commo, supplies and so on they can carry. No one has a right to put others in jeopardy – which is what happens when you start putting women into those units.

Remember, for people of military age, the weakest 20% of men are as strong as the strongest 20% of women. And we don’t take the weakest 20% of men into the Army, let alone into combat.
 
vern humphrey:
It’s not her choice, you know. The safety and survival of the infantry platoon or company depends on how much weapons, ammo, commo, supplies and so on they can carry. No one has a right to put others in jeopardy – which is what happens when you start putting women into those units.

Remember, for people of military age, the weakest 20% of men are as strong as the strongest 20% of women. And we don’t take the weakest 20% of men into the Army, let alone into combat.
Click to expand...
That’s why I say if a woman is STRONG enough to meet military standards. There wouldnt be many, but there’d be some stronger than the weakest 20% of men.
 
I may be old fashioned, but I think of women as more caring and nurturing than men. I am not saying weaker, in many ways they are stronger.I know in God’s sight men and women are equal, but I feel that taking the life of a woman one would also be taking the life of those innocent unborn. Only women can have kids.–nicolo
 
That’s why I say if a woman is STRONG enough to meet military standards. There wouldnt be many, but there’d be some stronger than the weakest 20% of men.
Click to expand...
Ok, but it stills gets back to taking the best of the best.

If the best women even makes it in the top 60% of men( I think we are talking in terms of strength here.) wouldnt it be better to just find a man who can do even better?

I agree with what a poster said above, men and women do have different roles, and I think that combat is not one for women…

Thanks
Andrew
 
40.png
siamesecat:
That’s why I say if a woman is STRONG enough to meet military standards. There wouldnt be many, but there’d be some stronger than the weakest 20% of men.
Click to expand...
The problem is, the cut-off for accepting men is well above the 20% level – actually somewhere around 50%.
 
vern humphrey:
Imagine all the equipment issued to an Infantry company. I invite anyone to try to pick up their share and walk off with it. In combat, anything you have to leave behind jeopardizes your safety and the safety of your unit. Anything extra you can carry enhances your safety and that of your unit.

Similarly, other combat branches require considerable strength – try breaking track and replacing it on an M1 tank, or humping shells for an 8" howitzer.

In most combat jobs, a good big man will beat a good little man any day of the week. And you can’t change that by adopting a sex-normed PT test.
Click to expand...
But there are job requirements, they should not have lowered standards just because they are women.

If you have different requirements, then that leads to more arguments about having different requirements based on height, weight, race, etc.
 
It doesn’t really matter to me, I can’t join the military. But from what I hear from some soldiers, you want to make sure that you can count on the person next to you in the foxhole and not have to worry about them. Knowing that women get even worse treatment than men as prisioners, and given that men tend to feel differntly about men than women. Also being in the foxhole is a little different situation than working in a fourty hour a week job. I don’t know if the men will have the same feeling of a unit if women are there, and in not a good effective way. So I don’t know if I’d really like them in combate.

OH and one more point about women being treated differently than men, look at all the coverage for missing people, they are almost all women. When there is critism its all white women, they then put on some black women. If there is any males, they are boys.
 
Well, I don’t know about desert duty, but I’ve heard that women did pretty well as Minuteman missile launch control officers. That is officially a combat job, even thought the two man “combat crew” is located 80 feet below ground and surrounded by tons of concrete. I think those missiles are all decommissioned now, but apparently the women were pretty efficient at WW-III operations.
 
I never believed the standards should be lowered in order to “enable” inclusiveness.

I am a 5’ 3" female and at one time was physically fit. Maybe I could have passed some of the dumbed-down tests to be a soldier, police officer, firefighter, etc. However, many of the men I deal with on a daily basis - at work, at home, among friends - I could never haul them out of the sticks if they were knocked out.

Bottom line is that any person - man or woman, incapable of taking an average sized man and carrying him “x” number of feet through rough terrain, while under fire, has no business in the field of combat.
 
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.
 
40.png
forthright:
I don’t see why women can’t serve, either.
Click to expand...
Women can serve. I know because I served with many of them in the U.S. Army. Women, however, cannot be part of the combat arms, and for very good reasons. Almost all women lack the strength and endurance for such tasks, even after rigorous training. As a result, women could not pass through the elite halls of combat training without the standards being changed, which has already happened in non-combat arms specialties.

Those few women who could pass the muster would be detrimental to the morale of the male majority with whom they would serve.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top