- Messages
- 5
- Reactions
- 2
That's an accurate statement. I always tell people if you want to screw up a good cohesive platoon throw a female in it. Just being honest.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
WOMEN NOW ALLOWED IN COMBAT ROLES
- Thread Starter taylor
- Start date
That's an accurate statement. I always tell people if you want to screw up a good cohesive platoon throw a female in it. Just being honest.
i see that a couple of my points have been stated by others already but im going to say them anyway.
a women should not be in a combat role for these reasons:
historically men have been the defenders of women, as men we have been conditioned over thousands of years to take that role to heart and feverishly perform that role. (as stated above) many countries in the recent past allowed female in infantry and other primarily combat roles, those countries no longer allow this. the reason was not that they could not physically or mentally hack it any less than a man but because the man performed his role as the protector as he has been bred to do. thus causing himself to be killed by taking any risk to save the damsel in distress.
another problem that has come up which is not recently found nor can we track how far this problem goes back because it has been going on for that long. women get raped by soldiers. its not their fault by any means but its fact. when you put men in situations that require them to be cold to the world and deprive them of sexual needs at the same time they tend to seek sexual contact without caring whether they are hurting others. lets say that this created a situation where rape is reduced for the sake of argument. then there would be cases of loving relationships being build and many may be good in every way. others would be bad, anyone who has been in any number of relationships can tell you that very few are good relationships. it would cause jealousy and animosity between soldiers (male and female) when relationships go sour. what do you think would happen when you walk in and see your battle buddy clearing your chicks panties? thats the last thing you would want happening the night before mobilization.
women have power over men. lets face it, you wear the pants around here but she pick 'em out, ask your wife or girlfriend. a woman could cause a male leader to make a poor decision in a combat situation, it has happened. another reason why countries that allowed women in combat roles no longer do. this happened on different levels and in several different situations. just by stating her desire to do something contrary (to the leader of what ever organization type she is in) to what needs to be done, she can change what the group does. "i don't think its a good idea for me to go first", "maybe i should stay here with you" i think you see where im going here. it doesnt even have to be in a sexual or attractive manner. many time we as men follow the desires of women just because it feel good to have her attention. of course this would generally be a mistake made by a less disciplined leader, who probably shouldnt be in that role.
now in history there were roles women played in combat. most have been in support but i have no doubt you can find some prime examples of how women can do just as well as men in combat. even Sun'Tsu employed female operatives. they were not soldiers per say but an incredible unit of warriors. as a demonstration of his skills as a military organizer, trainer and tactician he trained a Chinese lord's concubines as soldiers and demonstrated their ability to act as a unit and demonstrate skills as a swordsmen, spear men and archers. there were even legends of them being used for covert operations to kill certain people posing as prostitutes or captured women. another example would be viking women, who would carry arms and supplies onto a battle field as well as guard the rear flank. now guarding the rear flank was not a tactic necessary to prevent enemies from attacking at that point (but did come in handy from time to time) it was to keep the viking men from running away. much like the Russians would do in WWII. because vikings would bring their wives and children to their theater of war, it was seen as abandoning their families to the enemy by running away and the women would kill them as a form of justice for doing that to them, cowardice was not tolerated. then there were spartan women, the most cruel of all women. telling them things like "come home with your shield or honor it" being a phrase that meant win the battle or die trying. a spartan that did not return with his shield (because he dropped it to run away faster or was captured) would be shunned by the society and his wife and would no longer bare his children. now a little known fact about spartans is that the society was 100% homosexual and women were married young so if your wife would not bare your children you name died. they were a huge propaganda and motivation source for soldiers to the point of requiring success or death. then of course our own American women who literally ran and maintained our country during WWII while the men were off at war. without them the cold war would have gotten real cold when the Russians nuked us. without the strong infrastructure they maintained and the high quality of manufacturing they performed we would not have been able to support the technology boom we undertook after the war and would not have been able to keep up with the soviets. which to me shows that a women does not have to fight on any battle field to make a difference in war. the support from women in war times has always been beneficial without her being part of a combat unit.
now if you were to make units made up of only women there may not be much of a problem with this. another way would be to have only big butch women mixed with the men. this way there would be no physical attraction and she would likely kick any dudes *** for trying to rape her, with the plus of not being interested in men herself. also i got tired of proof reading this long *** post so please be forgiving of mistakes.
a women should not be in a combat role for these reasons:
historically men have been the defenders of women, as men we have been conditioned over thousands of years to take that role to heart and feverishly perform that role. (as stated above) many countries in the recent past allowed female in infantry and other primarily combat roles, those countries no longer allow this. the reason was not that they could not physically or mentally hack it any less than a man but because the man performed his role as the protector as he has been bred to do. thus causing himself to be killed by taking any risk to save the damsel in distress.
another problem that has come up which is not recently found nor can we track how far this problem goes back because it has been going on for that long. women get raped by soldiers. its not their fault by any means but its fact. when you put men in situations that require them to be cold to the world and deprive them of sexual needs at the same time they tend to seek sexual contact without caring whether they are hurting others. lets say that this created a situation where rape is reduced for the sake of argument. then there would be cases of loving relationships being build and many may be good in every way. others would be bad, anyone who has been in any number of relationships can tell you that very few are good relationships. it would cause jealousy and animosity between soldiers (male and female) when relationships go sour. what do you think would happen when you walk in and see your battle buddy clearing your chicks panties? thats the last thing you would want happening the night before mobilization.
women have power over men. lets face it, you wear the pants around here but she pick 'em out, ask your wife or girlfriend. a woman could cause a male leader to make a poor decision in a combat situation, it has happened. another reason why countries that allowed women in combat roles no longer do. this happened on different levels and in several different situations. just by stating her desire to do something contrary (to the leader of what ever organization type she is in) to what needs to be done, she can change what the group does. "i don't think its a good idea for me to go first", "maybe i should stay here with you" i think you see where im going here. it doesnt even have to be in a sexual or attractive manner. many time we as men follow the desires of women just because it feel good to have her attention. of course this would generally be a mistake made by a less disciplined leader, who probably shouldnt be in that role.
now in history there were roles women played in combat. most have been in support but i have no doubt you can find some prime examples of how women can do just as well as men in combat. even Sun'Tsu employed female operatives. they were not soldiers per say but an incredible unit of warriors. as a demonstration of his skills as a military organizer, trainer and tactician he trained a Chinese lord's concubines as soldiers and demonstrated their ability to act as a unit and demonstrate skills as a swordsmen, spear men and archers. there were even legends of them being used for covert operations to kill certain people posing as prostitutes or captured women. another example would be viking women, who would carry arms and supplies onto a battle field as well as guard the rear flank. now guarding the rear flank was not a tactic necessary to prevent enemies from attacking at that point (but did come in handy from time to time) it was to keep the viking men from running away. much like the Russians would do in WWII. because vikings would bring their wives and children to their theater of war, it was seen as abandoning their families to the enemy by running away and the women would kill them as a form of justice for doing that to them, cowardice was not tolerated. then there were spartan women, the most cruel of all women. telling them things like "come home with your shield or honor it" being a phrase that meant win the battle or die trying. a spartan that did not return with his shield (because he dropped it to run away faster or was captured) would be shunned by the society and his wife and would no longer bare his children. now a little known fact about spartans is that the society was 100% homosexual and women were married young so if your wife would not bare your children you name died. they were a huge propaganda and motivation source for soldiers to the point of requiring success or death. then of course our own American women who literally ran and maintained our country during WWII while the men were off at war. without them the cold war would have gotten real cold when the Russians nuked us. without the strong infrastructure they maintained and the high quality of manufacturing they performed we would not have been able to support the technology boom we undertook after the war and would not have been able to keep up with the soviets. which to me shows that a women does not have to fight on any battle field to make a difference in war. the support from women in war times has always been beneficial without her being part of a combat unit.
now if you were to make units made up of only women there may not be much of a problem with this. another way would be to have only big butch women mixed with the men. this way there would be no physical attraction and she would likely kick any dudes *** for trying to rape her, with the plus of not being interested in men herself. also i got tired of proof reading this long *** post so please be forgiving of mistakes.
- Messages
- 575
- Reactions
- 388
May God have mercy on our souls.
- Messages
- 5,060
- Reactions
- 8,945
That's absolutely an issue but its also an issue with shore duty billets if they don't have equal roles. Navy nukes and especially the submariners were furious because the females got the shore duty and instructor assigments. There wern't any shore duty billets left for men. At one time, the rotation for nuke submarine equipment operators was 8 years sea duty and 2 years shore duty and the females were taking the shore duty spots.
- Messages
- 2,159
- Reactions
- 3,410
I'm against women being in combat with the one exception. With modern technology women can be transformed into more male-like physiology. This is very common with bodybuilding and women who are in very demanding athletics. A good majority of female bodybuilders take a wide array of male hormones and testosterone boosting supplements to give them the energy and power they need to build the muscle mass which would not be possible on the physiological scale for a woman, as testosterone is one of the key factors in building mass. Even the female sex drive is driven by her testosterone levels, which if depleted, usually results in a woman's loss of desire for sexual activiity. They have done studies showing the more a woman trains in physical stressful activities, the more muscle mass she builds and the increase in her testosterone, the more she biogically becomes male. Her estrogen levels will also go down.
Basically, I believe a woman who is willing to become more biologically like a male, through taking male hormone pills, testosterone increases as well as mandated birth control, should be allowed to serve in combat roles. This will effectively change her biology to be more manlike, she will then make a more effective soldier and be able to fulfill her desires of serving in combat, which was denied to her simply because she was born as a female.
If you have seen female bodybuilders, you can certainly attest that these women have strength, power and endurance beyond even your average athletic male. However, many do not realize the essential supplementation that is required to achieve these results, as it is not easily in achieved in nature.
Basically, I believe a woman who is willing to become more biologically like a male, through taking male hormone pills, testosterone increases as well as mandated birth control, should be allowed to serve in combat roles. This will effectively change her biology to be more manlike, she will then make a more effective soldier and be able to fulfill her desires of serving in combat, which was denied to her simply because she was born as a female.
If you have seen female bodybuilders, you can certainly attest that these women have strength, power and endurance beyond even your average athletic male. However, many do not realize the essential supplementation that is required to achieve these results, as it is not easily in achieved in nature.
- Messages
- 2,656
- Reactions
- 888
That's true. No new women nuke trainees were accepted into the nuclear field by either the very late 70s or the very early 80s. There were just a few hangers on, mostly E7s, by the time I started my class in the summer of '84. All had taken choice instructor billets upon graduation, forcing the guys to take longer and longer sea rotations. By the mid 80s it was back down to something like 5 years sea duty and 3 years shore duty. When I got out in late '91 it was back down to 3 and 3. Supposedly. I spent my first 2 years in school and the next 6 at sea.
Keith
- Messages
- 1,837
- Reactions
- 4,348
I am glad all you dads with daughters out there will be willing to take your daughters to sign up for selective service. It will be next put it on your calendar is coming.
- Messages
- 230
- Reactions
- 159
I have no problem with it but they should have to sign up for Selective service (draft) like the rest of us then.
- Messages
- 1,086
- Reactions
- 710
Well then, if everyone has to sign up for selective service, the everyone may as well do a minimum 2 year stint in the service. At least then the fear of weapons would go down immensely. Not to mention, then every able bodied adult would have the necessary base firearms safety skills. It may help with the mentality in this country too.
But that would probably infringe too much. But I've thought this since high school.
But that would probably infringe too much. But I've thought this since high school.
- Messages
- 3,924
- Reactions
- 2,827
While I wish I could have served (believe me, I tried many times...medical issues), I am entirely against conscription.
- Messages
- 488
- Reactions
- 254
The real issue I see are the physical limitations. Can most women drag a wounded soldier who weighs 250lbs with all his gear to safety? If the answer is yes, I say let them in, but if they can't drag me to safety, I wouldn't want to serve with them.
- Messages
- 574
- Reactions
- 220
Good, you named 2 women. Out of history. I can think of a couple more, but lets try this from the other side.....
George S. Patton
H. Norman Schwartzkof
"Blackjack" Pershing
John A. Lejuene
Dan Daly
Lewis "Chesty" Puller
I just tripled your list in no time, and could continue doing it. Just because your 2 names could do it, doesn't mean most others could.
I'm not terribly worried about it, though. I'm not in anymore, and most of the guys I knew that were still in got the F out after DADT was repealed. They couldn't stand the liberal BS that came with that. The touchy-feely "you have to have feelings, and be nice to everyone". So I don't worry about their safety. MAT is going to skyrocket, that's just a fact. Not to mention the cleanliness issue that arises in FOB's and COP's where there are NO shower facilities and so more assets will be required to fly them back to the rear to keep from being disgusting. Plus, they already dropped those two fools that tried to go through IOC, so at least there won't be any female officers that grunts will have to contend with.
- Messages
- 32
- Reactions
- 23
As a woman, I think it is a terrible idea for our country. I can see it for a tiny nation such as Israel where they need every able bodied person to defend the nation but until that happens here and we have a shortage of able-bodied men, I think it is a terrible idea. I don't buy for one minute that women are as strong as men and I don't even like women to be police officers. I don't feel one bit safe having a women come to my rescue. I want a guy coming to my rescue even if he is short and not imposing. I never did buy into the whole womens movement though. If we ever have the draft again it would only be a natural next step to include women and there are precious few women who would be down with that. Sick of this politically correct society we live in.
- Messages
- 1,086
- Reactions
- 710
There are very few things in movies that mirror real life. That being said, you know that scene, where the wet behind the ears hot shot kid steps up to the quiet grizzled old NCO? Yeah, that part's real. Not everyone needs to run that O course in 5 minutes, but they need to have done so at some point.
Civilian firearms experience has very little to do with the military, hell, civilian experience in general has very little to do with the military. It is a different world, where being there and doing that job for a long period of time, makes your experience valuable to pass on.
Now I have no clue if you were in the service or not, so I mean no offense, but I am broken, and can no longer do that job, so I have a blue ID card and a pension. The other guys can carry on without me. If I could, I would gladly be there, but in combat, I would be a liability now, an everyone is in combat over there.
Civilian firearms experience has very little to do with the military, hell, civilian experience in general has very little to do with the military. It is a different world, where being there and doing that job for a long period of time, makes your experience valuable to pass on.
Now I have no clue if you were in the service or not, so I mean no offense, but I am broken, and can no longer do that job, so I have a blue ID card and a pension. The other guys can carry on without me. If I could, I would gladly be there, but in combat, I would be a liability now, an everyone is in combat over there.
The hypocrisy is that women have been in combat positions for quite some time. The women guarding checkpoints, convoys, flying helicopters, etc were already in combat. To now say that they're "allowed" in combat is disingenuous.
That said, I think the physical fitness standards for a role should be established and should not be downgraded to allow women, and less fit men, into the more strenuous roles. This isn't discriminatory, it's basing the needs of the mission over the needs of the politically correct.
That said, I think the physical fitness standards for a role should be established and should not be downgraded to allow women, and less fit men, into the more strenuous roles. This isn't discriminatory, it's basing the needs of the mission over the needs of the politically correct.
- Messages
- 187
- Reactions
- 69
After being in the military 18 years I can say that women are a huge distraction in a testosterone filled environment..
- Messages
- 9,533
- Reactions
- 5,069
Just another drop down the tubes as a nation
I suppose it will be better for patriots in a revolution, however
I suppose it will be better for patriots in a revolution, however
- Messages
- 2,538
- Reactions
- 632
- Messages
- 1,352
- Reactions
- 775
As a retired GI, with Combat Arms, Combat Support and Combat Service Support experience, it will be a nightmare.
Logistics along will cause problems, but that can be overcome. The greatest issues I see are those that I saw in 32nd SigCom. The commander at that time (79-80) was unable to rely on 15% or so of his command at any one time because they were in various stages of pregnancy/abortion or recovery.... Now, these were signal types, not combat types, so were not real "front line" troops, but those of you who know where/when signal types go understand that "front line" doesn't mean much. Of course, this was before the days where the federal government was forbidden from paying for abortions, I don't know if AD types can get free abortions still....that might have made a difference. I know of one young soldier who used it as a way to avoid going out on field problems (to the tune of four in an 18 month period of time).
Hopefully, the Army of today is better prepared for this than when I retired. (Of course, I also remember when they changed from WACs to just GI's)...
Logistics along will cause problems, but that can be overcome. The greatest issues I see are those that I saw in 32nd SigCom. The commander at that time (79-80) was unable to rely on 15% or so of his command at any one time because they were in various stages of pregnancy/abortion or recovery.... Now, these were signal types, not combat types, so were not real "front line" troops, but those of you who know where/when signal types go understand that "front line" doesn't mean much. Of course, this was before the days where the federal government was forbidden from paying for abortions, I don't know if AD types can get free abortions still....that might have made a difference. I know of one young soldier who used it as a way to avoid going out on field problems (to the tune of four in an 18 month period of time).
Hopefully, the Army of today is better prepared for this than when I retired. (Of course, I also remember when they changed from WACs to just GI's)...
- Messages
- 1,117
- Reactions
- 597
And yet somehow they reproduced..
Just messing w ya, heck of a post. I enjoy reading fellow students of history. With that knowledge it's easy to see where this country is going. An example "We don't have a spending problem" spoken by the fella who's apparently never read the report from his own deficit commission. Or the Simpson Bowles plan. Or asked his Senate to pass a single budget. Who wants the power to raise the debt limit to be his alone. But I digress...
Ya beat me to my intended post.. Yep, requiring them to meet the same standards is the fair solution, won't happen tho. I was once paired with a burly Union Journeyman Carpenter named Bubba, (birth name was Barbara and she didn't know what a duplex nail was intended for) physically she'd do fine in a mixed gender unit and it would take a REALLY horny guy to punch her pregnancy ticket out of theater. I once read that 40% (too hung over to fact check) of female soldiers in theater get pregnant, natural urges or because it sucks being there, both?
Yeah my oldest sister, pretty, straight arrow type, graduated HS early, later became preachers wife etc. got raped in the Air Force. She used an old and dubious knee condition for the medical reason to get out cause she knew that senior rank rapists rarely get punished. The mil is NOT the place for pretty, naive types. It might be fine for the 'Bubbas' but from experience I can tell you that 'Bubbas' still have that manipulative, drama gene in em.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
.308 bullets wide range of bullet weights and brands
- Started by coltemp
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
