Allow Women in US Combat Units??

Status
Not open for further replies.
I support them to service our country for whatever reason is, but I think it is better if women are in the non-combat only...
 
how come?
:)
Quick summary:

1. Most women aren't physically able to carry out ground combat missions.

2. What to do about pregnant women in combat?

3. To some of our enemies' cultures, using women in combat is evidence of our country's weakness.

4. The purpose of the military is not equal opportunity employment but to accomplish military combat objectives.

5. The military is already faced with the problem of deployed parents not providing for childcare of their dependents; adding combat destinations will make deploying both parents or single custodial parents even more difficult.

6. Yes, women are presently subject to sexual assaults--do we want to increase those opportunities, especially at the hands of the enemy?


Just a quick sampler of my reasons.

Some of my opinions are a result of research, some from my personal experience of seven years active duty in the Navy and 17 years of service in the Naval Reserve, and some from conversing with other service members.
 
Women are raped out of the military also.....I'm sure that women in the military are very physically fit and in most cases, can hold their own with an attacker.
Don't be so sure about that. Military women aren't Amazons or martial arts experts. They aren't all physically fit. In fact, just from personal observation, they don't even appear to be maintaining the standards to which I was held prior to 9/11. I think they may be loosening the standards in order to meet numbers requirements. That's just my opinion.

Even a fit women, pound-for-pound and height-for-height, isn't going to have the same muscular strength as a man.

If they do allow women into combat, I strongly believe they must meet the current male PRT requirements and not the modified women's requirements. If they can carry the same dead weight at a run as a man, then OK. If they can lift the same weight as a man, then OK. If they can hold their own in hand-to-hand combat, then OK. But no one, man or woman, should be in combat who can't take care of themselves and their wounded comrades.

I think it should be voluntarily if a woman wants to be in Combat. Her choice. If she passes all the stringent training and it's her wish to be in combat then so be it.
The problem is, if women can be sent to combat, then it can't be a voluntary choice unless it's made a voluntary choice for the men, too. Otherwise, that wouldn't be equality, eh? If women want combat equality, then they have to accept it all the way.

I agree with you about passing stringent training.
 
Reba -- I'm curious. Are you okay with women being in non-combat only situations? Maybe yes?
 
Research shows that when women act on violent impulses, they are much more violent than men would be in the same situation.
Successful modern combat requires self control in addition to aggression, under much training and experienced leadership; it's never about acting on violent impulses. Combat units don't need or want soldiers who are prone to emotional outbursts.

Beowulf's mention of women snipers was as an example of their skill, not violent tendencies.
 
So GI Jane is fake? :tears:
Right from the title. :lol: The character was supposedly a SEAL. SEALs aren't Army GI's.

But if she suits your fantasies, don't let me disturb you. ;)
 
Successful modern combat requires self control in addition to aggression, under much training and experienced leadership; it's never about acting on violent impulses. Combat units don't need or want soldiers who are prone to emotional outbursts.

Beowulf's mention of women snipers was as an example of their skill, not violent tendencies.

It depends on who is in the crosshairs. :lol:
 
I'm against sending women into combat, and I've been consistently against it since my active duty days in the 1970's.

Is that pic of you in your uniform? If so, you look lovely! <3

As for women on frontline... Well they already are doing it and as long as they can do the job as well as men can, I am fine with it.
 
Successful modern combat requires self control in addition to aggression, under much training and experienced leadership; it's never about acting on violent impulses. Combat units don't need or want soldiers who are prone to emotional outbursts.

Beowulf's mention of women snipers was as an example of their skill, not violent tendencies.

What about Combat pilots? Would you be "ok" with female combat fighter pilots?
 
it was said that seeing female soldiers being maimed or killed at front line can cause a demoralizing effect on whole troop.
 
Whoever said women lack the stigma clearly is forgetting that many women carry a baby in the womb for nine months and then go through delivery. NOW tell me again that women don't have the stigma?

They also forget how men behave when they have a common cold. You would think they were dying of flesh-eating bacteria. No offense to my guy buddies, but seriously...come on. We know it's true! ;)
 
Whoever said women lack the stigma clearly is forgetting that many women carry a baby in the womb for nine months and then go through delivery. NOW tell me again that women don't have the stigma?

They also forget how men behave when they have a common cold. You would think they were dying of flesh-eating bacteria. No offense to my guy buddies, but seriously...come on. We know it's true! ;)

lol a full combat gear plus weapon weighs over 100 lbs.

can?
 
A lot of guys can't.

apparently they can. that's what soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq routinely carried.

for daily patrol - it's between 60-100 lbs. For few-days long missions, 100-130 lbs.

for those who can't, it's because they're injured from heavy weight.
 
Not really. They're weaklings. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top