JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
My daughters and i think, that if the women are able to meet the "exact same standards" set for men, why not allow them.

History has shown, that women can be very effective warriors.
 
My daughters and i think, that if the women are able to meet the "exact same standards" set for men, why not allow them.
History has shown, that women can be very effective warriors.

Absolutely true. As a veteran who was negatively affected by double standards in duty assignments, I think we have been short-changing ourselves by not allowing women in combat. As long as the standards are the same (physically) then it will not be an issue.
 
As long as they are held to the same standard I don't seen any issues. With the types of wars that we are fighting and likely will continue to fight that line has been blurred and there are plenty of women in today's military that have been in combat. The only difference now is they will be put into combat knowingly.
 
Countries that used to allow women in combat don't anymore for the simple reason, a wounded woman out on the battlefield will immediately cause every male to run to her assistance, which ends up causing multiple deaths. Theres a reason why men assume this protective role it has to do directly with thousands of years of our cultures developing into a great civilization. Every answer I read above me shows the typical liberal all is one, blended, homogenous unisexual bs that has permeated our educational system. OH those beautiful Isreali women posing with rifles? Isreal no longer allows women in actual combat they learned after the reasons I posted above, there kept far from front line except nurses or doctors.
 
How long ago were you in combat? If you believe women have not been out kicking doors, I have a bridge to show you. Liberal/Conservative has nothing to do with war. There is a job to get done, and everyone pitches in to get it done.
 
Physical standards are different between the sexes, and until males get used to females in their combat units - there might be the urge to be the knight in OD (or Desert Tan) armor for a fallen damsel - but as males get used to it, I think they will start to see them as just another uniform, another comrade in arms when bullets are flying. Then again - I worry about how many soldiers might wind up dead or having limbs amputated because a female soldier under different physical fitness standards couldn't extricate a fallen male. It happens now, yes, but it *might* happen more with women.

During my short time at Ft. Leonard Wood as an MP recruit, I was shocked to see just how low the standards were for women - in a job that once upon a time said "No" to any male who wasn't at least 6' tall. There was more than one woman in my unit who were less than 5 feet tall. Most were scrawny gals. MP's - even the lady versions - were being transitioned to more of a combat role back then ('02) and less of a stateside on-post LE role. Those tiny gals with 24 inch waists could barely fit their canteen, a rifle pouch, and a pistol holster on their LBE. They had issues carrying their duffel full of newly issued gear from the quartermaster. They were NOTHING like our female drill sergeants (we had 2 female drill sergeants and 2 male drill sergeants, women were housed in the same barracks, but in separate rooms). I would NOT want those women in combat. These gals likely didn't make good MP's - they would've made fine support staff, but I wouldn't want them in my unit, and I sure wouldn't want to wind up being their commander and then later explaining to their loved ones that they're dead because they couldn't physically hack the job and got themselves killed.

I still know kids who are joining up, or thinking about joining up, for College Fund or GI Bill money without considering going to war (derpity derp derp, yes) - combat arms typically throw more bonus money at recruits, and I can see these recruits looking at the money and signing up for a job they're not suited for because of the cash and college money.

Minimum size requirements and equal PT standards for the sexes for combat roles and I am all for it. Politically correct motives are usually wrong.

I wonder how many rabid "equal rights for women" activists are going to run out and sign up as an infantry trooper now that they can? My guess is not many.
 
Well, I agree with equal rights, but also equal standards. If a person can't carry their equipment, it's time to bust *** to build some muscle, otherwise get kicked out of boot camp. Regardless of gender, or whichever factor.
 
I don't support this at all, unless the physical requirements are unchanged and exactly the same for skirts.

I'm sure that the feel good guys running the show will decide that it's discriminatory - and will lower the standards for men wanting to join but who can't make it now. Don't worry ;)
 
And that is my exception...The physical standards are so much lower. If they can go toe to toe with a male, in the physical, and stamina department, Then they can have the combat MOS. But that's not how it will work. Hell, I'm 37, and my body is broken, and I can still out walk/pack/ just plain GO further, longer and faster than my wife, who is 23 and in fantastic shape. There is a mentality that drives me that does not drive her.

Women have been in combat through this whole thing. They get sent on convoys and patrols and clearing missions, they have to, the Afghan's may be offended if a male has to check a female for a weapon. It's happened a long time.

Oh well, is what it is. All I can say, they had better be ready for what full combat arms entails.
 
:drink:

Did you post just to tell us that? ;)

Nah, I really felt that it is a good example of the difficulties to overcome. I got hurt April 22, and only MEDEVAC'd after a neurosurgeon got a hold of me and was concerned about spinal cord damage. That was June 12th.












All my guys already told me I was the man :cool:
 
A few months ago there was a picture going around the net of a group of infantry men carrying 200 pound packs at 10,000 feet in Afghanistan. It is tough work.
 
My daughters and i think, that if the women are able to meet the "exact same standards" set for men, why not allow them.

History has shown, that women can be very effective warriors.

My daughters and i also feel this way about women firefighters, LEO's, etc...

They "must meet the same standards", set for males, or they should not be allowed to perform in that capacity.

Simply putting women into roles for "politically correct" reasons, when they have a lower standard then men, is wrong and it endangers the lives of not only the woman, but others as well.

But, if women can meet the "exact same standards" set for males, they are every bit as capable to perform the job and should be allowed to do so.
 
Women in the military cause drama. In infantry units there will be women who end up sleeping with someone else. Then comes the drama associated with that. Then teams have to be split up. If the female is moved, she files charges of bias for moving her because she was a woman. Not to mention her new team thinks of her as a drama whore who causes trouble. If the male is moved the old team thinks the woman is a drama whore who caused the team to be split. Not to mention, having had women attached to my combat teams before they simply cannot, with very limited, exceptions, keep up the same physical standards as men. Men and women are different. Women in infantry units is only going to cause problems.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top