My friend is not convinced that women should not be allowed in combat.  Of course she is a liberal feminist democrat so what can you expect.  I have tried to explain it myself but have failed.  So what are some good reasons to keep them out of it?  And does anyone actually have any reasons to send them in?  I will send her the link for this message board so she can follow this.

Depends on what you mean by "combat". Flying or something like that, I would agree with. Women make very good pilots. If you are talking "crunchy" ground pounder etc., no, I disagree due to the physical strength thing. It DOES make a difference.

Aviator

[sleep]

Pffffffffft.....

There is not a woman on this planet, who could carry a pack with a full combat load 25 miles, drop pack, and then kick my ass.

Besides that, there is NO COMPELLING REASON TO PLACE THEM INTO COMBAT UNITS. PERIOD.
Sure, arguments can be made that there MIGHT be capable females out there....
...so what?

If it doesn't make the combat unit stronger, it makes it weaker.

There's only so much time on the training schedule, before a combat unit deploys.
There's just no reason for the disruption.
None.

The only reason changes should be made to the T/O or T/E of a combat unit, is to make the unit more combat effective.
Fairness and opportunity?
Not good enough.

NO

according to this logic, you are implying that every single US combatant can kick your ass.

how humble of you.

YOU GUYS EVER HEARD OF P.M.S.?

I am training a couple of women now, in a year...they will each be able to kick your ass

Why would they do that anyway? I would march, drop pack and SHOOT yer ass from 500 yards out. I think hand to hand is kinda obsolete. But that's just me.  [;)]

There was a pretty decent thread on this a few days ago. Someone on that thread posted an article written by a military serviceperson containing quotes from female soldiers in Afganistan, where they were quoted as saying they weren't supportive of the idea of women in combat. Print that out, show it to your liberal feminist democrat, and tell her that the opinion of woman who put on the uniform, pound sand, and stood watch carries a HELL of a lot more weight than TWICE her sorry ass drags. (Sorry...I know she's your friend, but liberal fem demo's tend to piss the hell out of me...) They've been there, they've seen what the guys go through, and they felt that woman shouldn't be there. Can't get much more objective than that.

Or if you REALLY want to tweak her. Ask her if she can do the job. Ask her if she is willing to, at a moments notice, kill someone she's never met? Can she gut someone trying to sneak up on her? Can she calmly hold the guts of a fellow soldier together under a rain of fire until the medic shows up? You could also ask if she's ever fired a gun before, and if she'd be willing. If the answer is no, then she's got no right to say anything.

[url]http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml[/url]

A good summary of what I think.

I really could care less about fair and equal when it comes to someones life. Ground combat units rely on a warriors ethic and a decidedly macho culture.  Unit cohesion is the key. How good is it for unit cohesion when jealousy, sex, and worries over "harassment" rule the day. As "nice" as women in combat may sound, it certainly is not correct.

Edited to say this is also my reasoning against homo's, too.

She is simply arguing from the feminist agenda, which seeks to equate women with men. But don't attack that issue if you want to be successful.
Go this rout: She has not taken the steps to understand, or internalize the elements of war or deadly combat.  If she did, she would hesitate to stick to her belief.

Help her to internalize what it means to be in combat.  

This is the very type of person, both male and female, who would never be willing to go into combat at all, yet they are the ones who raise the most hell about allowing women into combat roles.  Can you say hypocrisy?

If there are any women that could meet the same physical requirements men have to meet to do that job... hand them a rifle and let them kick some ass.

I'm all for women being a ground pounding grunt if they can meet the same requirements men would have to meet.  Combat arms is definately not a place to let women in with lower physical requirements in the name of fairness/equality/womens rights/whatever.

Nope.

Just stating that [b]I[/b] could kick any woman on this whole planet's ass, after she just endured the basic rigors of combat that any grunt must deal with.

I suspect you don't really understand what "logic" means, huh?
That's OK.

precisely the response i anticipated.  so you've met every woman on the whole planet, and know the fighting capabilities of each.

how sociable you are.

In WWII a goodly number of Germans got dead in Russia - at the hands of very determined women.  I do not have an opinion on whether they should be in combat units but realize some are probably up to the task, some are not.

[b]sirensong[/b] vs [b]Cincinnatus[/b]  [:D]
[img]http://freespace.virgin.net/p.hilling/graphics/culttimesjan98-4.jpg[/img]

I'm too sure about wemonz in the field pounding the ground. But I know that women can handle G forces better than men can while flying Fighter aircraft. I saw it in a TLC segment.

From sniper fire, anti-aircraft arty, & from being bombed & strafed by aircraft.  Not to mention the more than a few shot up close & personal by partisans. [img]http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/images/corillo2.jpg[/img][img]http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/images/litvyak.jpg[/img] Maybe eastern women just have more of what it takes than western women.  Osprey21's pic kinda makes my point (Xena being from Thrace, now part of Bulgaria)[:D]  Seriously though, I doubt most could or would even want to hack Infantry or other up close/in your face groundpounder positions.  But if they could hack the same EXACT training & conditions then I'd say let them serve.

Pix from [url] http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/sovwomen.htm[/url]

I don't agree with women in combat, but.....
as horrible as rape is to a woman, how is that worse than what can be inflicted on a man?  If a man gets tortured, he can expect to have his fingernails ripped out, bones broken, daily beatings, toes sledghammered, hot pokers, electric shock, hunger, constant fear of death, etc.   I have also heard in the Soviet/Afghan conflict, plus the Russian/Chechnya conflict that the Afghans and Chechnyans have been known to rape men that they captured.  

Like I said, please don't construe this as an argument for women in combat, I don't feel that women should serve.  They are a few who can in my opinion but it is too disruptive on the men in the unit.  

There was a female MP in Panama that drove a jeep thru a gate, ran over a couple of guys with it and then shot several enemy soldiers to death with a pistol.  

Well..I really don't quite understand why some women would want this...at the moment they have it pretty easy..they can vote, run for office, get preferential hiring treatment due to affirmitive action, get preferential treatment by judges during divorce proceedings, even preferential treatment by the judicial system (for the most part) when it comes to sentancing..so why are they so insistant on trying to establish a precedent for allowing women in combat?

All it means is that women POW's will be gang raped by their captors.

Women will be shipped home in body bags..or if they survive their wounds they will be mangled and disfigured.

I know that their are some positions that women can fulfill such as being pilots..but others? I don't think they are physically capable. Such as humping 30 miles with a 80-120 pound pack loaded with gear.
Or passing a raising a belt of 50 BMG ammo over their heads.

bwahahahaha.

sorry.  i'll control myself now.  ahem...

bwahahahahaha!

*wipes tear*

this morning, a little less cranky and a lot less, well, drunk, i'll explain myself.  the military has a long tradition of excluding certain types of people from combat, and have done so for reasons which seemed perfectly logical at the time.  the reasons ranged from lack of night vision, (black soldiers) to 'probable collusion with the enemy', (japanese) to 'destroying unit cohesion'.(any excluded group)  but time passed, the wheel turned, and all these 'reasons' were refuted.  our military is better today because it judges on merit, rather than appearance.

i believe in one standard, and the points raised in this thread are very valid.  if a woman will not kill someone she's never met-no combat MOS.  if she can't lift the .50 belts-no combat.  if she can't kick cincinnatus' ass-no combat.  if she can't cope with an infantryman's life-no combat.  these rules also apply to men, but before we say 'no' to them, we test them.  if a woman wishes to fight, test her.  no exemptions, no special treatment.  if she can't hack the field, there are many fine jobs in the rear.  (that sounded odd)

in the end, i want the best possible person defending my freedom.  if that person happens to be a woman, so be it.  i'm secure enough to cope.

Please cite references or, failing that, the episode of "VIP" where you saw Pam Anderson do this.

IIRC, there was a femaly MP Captain who was credited for having her company seize a Panamanian Forces dog kennel.  It made all the papers, as incidents [i]positively[/i] involving female soldiers in combat ALWAYS do.

1.  Pregnancy.  Get knocked up...[spend the rest of deployment in the brig.  will work itself out.]

2.  Weaker.  [filltered out in training.  one standard.]

3.  Sick more often.  [bullshit.]

4.  Require seperate facilities.  [nope.]

5.  Add nothing to the unit, detract in several ways.  [explain how any individual adds to the unit.]

6.  As for superiority in G Forces...  [who cares.  can she meet the standard?]

7.  Women bring absolutely nothing to the table that a man doesn't.  [blacks bring nothing to the table that whites don't.  hispanics bring.... asians bring...see how absurd that point is?]

judge on individual merit.  not group identity.

Sorry but it sounds like you are talking about an idealized world that doesn't exist in the military.  Since we work in a world created by will of the US people. The first time we attempt to give even an adverse page 11 for getting pregnant to avoid a deployment we would have 60 mins, 20/20 and every other news program wanting to talk to us and everyone from the CG down going infront of congress asking us why we were so insensitive.  We would probably be kicked out if we brought them up on charges of malingering, which they deserve.

As soon as the military can UNWIRE the basic human nature in every man begun at conception to treat females differently, the issue will be moot.  They will not be able to UNWIRE the basic human male soldier and therefore women will continue to always compromise the potential of front line forces.  As the Russian WWII circumstances and even revolutionary war circumstances show women will always be a force in the war.... just not the tip of the spear (at least until the men are killed off).  Planerench out.

[/b]

It probably isn't, against someone with the mentality of the Red Army, 100% of the women will be raped, many raped to death. Certainly they would rape some men, but most men would not be raped.



I think you are confused on this. There was a female [i]officier[/i] in Panama who got credit for driving her jeep through a gate, but in fact she wasn't present when her [i]male driver[/i] did it.

[/b]

Acording to a book I read, she gained credit for being present when in fact she wasn't.

When a female does meet and maintians the same standards as a male must then MAYBE let them in.
I was an 19E, It was a hell of a lot of work and I don't know any females that could do the jobs we had to.
Remember, no special allowances for being female.
Here is a question, how does one properly dispose of tampons in the field? Bury them like other bits of trash? Think how easy it would be for canine units to track the "Bleeding Brigade"
BTW, I have many other reasons not to allow them in but I am too lazy to type any but this one.

Women should serve.....IF they can meet the same requirements men do.

here is what we should do,
get 28 brigade of women and house them in 28 barracks.  When women live together, their menstral cycles synch up.  That way we would always have 2 to 4 brigades of women who are on PMS.  Tell them the enemy has donuts and said the bdu's they are wearing make them look fat, viola!  no more enemy.

SHE isn't willing to do squat. SHE is just trying to make it possible for ANOTHER WOMAN with her act together to get into combat.

Isn't that what liberals do? This is just another form of taking money from your pocket to give to someone else. Only in this case, she's fighting for the right of ANOTHER woman to fight for her.

I always wonder about a person that tries to get someone to do something for them that they are either unable or unwilling to do.

For many of the reasons cited, I believe women should not be in infantry units. However, I see good reason for them to be in some SF type units, and they are probably a good choice for aviation and armor.

For the same reason women should not be firemen.

And I would add I have never met a woman who can be driven to the near psychotic level of violence present in men.

Of course, I've only been married 1 1/2 years. he he

Listen, you cannot fight 100,000 years of evolution. Women have no place pounding the ground next to men.

There's a fvcking reason men are larger and stronger than women. It's our job to kick ass.

Personally, I think it would be a good idea!  The DOD should set up an experimental all female combat unit. When the shit hits the streets of Bagdad, Hillary, Janet, Rosie, Sarah and Fiengold, Boxer and the rest of the, "I am Women hear me roar" crowd and the let me tell how to run your life, raise your child, etc. etc. crowd be the first ones' in.  If they want to run the country let them step up to the ultimate test. Oh and they could take Dennis Miller, Barney Franks and our good friend Chuck Schummer along just so there is diversity and won't be discriminating and elitist.

Just my opinion , I may be wrong.

Notions of chivary asside, I think some of you guys aught to go back to the cave and start over again, you've missed some evolutionary steps.

If a woman can hack ONE standard set of requirements that every other grunt has to face, then by allmighty God, go ahead. Thats going to eliminate MOST women in the military anyhow. When I was in ROTC, the top cadet both physicaly and academicaly for THREE YEARS was a female. She was a model to boot, and is now flying Blackhawks.

I'm MARRIED to a blackbelt who had to go eleven 0:00:60 fights with every other blackbelt currently active in her Karate club. Bare fisted, no pads, kicking and punching to every major target including face, knees, kidneys, etc. Not only did she keep fighting for eleven minutes against opponents who were invariably bigger than she is (5'5" 110lbs), some of the fights had to be stopped so THE OPPONENTS could sit down and rest. So dont give me that crap about all women being unable to hold up, bare knuckle, against guys.

OTOH

Would I want her in combat? Hell no, first off hard as her testing was, its not life or death, hand to hand, and there were no weapons involved, and there were only a couple of times where brute force would have been an issue in the testing. Besides, she wont shut up, and is the least observant person I've ever met. She'd walk through a minefield if you didnt yell at her to stop and look where she was going.

Much as women being raped pisses me off to the point of wanting to hunt down and torture rapists to death, hundreds of thousands of women every weekend put themselves in stupid situations where rape is just as likely as on the battlefield. Worse yet, they INCAPACITATE THEMSELVES chemicaly and lay their scantily clad bodies on the doorstep of good human nature, to take care of them. Or havnt any of you ever been to a High School/College party?

In the end I think the Israelis have the right idea. Keep women grunts at home. Let them play G.I.Jane, let them defend their nation and be infantry, but keep them in a strictly territorial role. As for women fighter jocks, tankers, artillery crews, etc? If they can hack it, sure as hell they should be out there doing it with the rest of us.

precisely the same idea that kept black men out of combat.  do black men belong in combat even if they interfere with racist redneck unit cohesion?

i don't disagree with this idea at all.

Obviously you have no concept of how the military works or you wouldn't use that tired refrain of the liberals who always say the same thing about women in the military.

The reason your view is an ideologies world is that you speak of to include the punishment for getting pregnant cannot be done because of the regs and norms establish for the military by people.

Anyone who has served in the infantry knows the reasons why this just wouldn't work.

Any here remember the "sensitivity training" that took place after "Tailhook"?

My men were required to take a FULL DAY out of the training schedule for this crap.  This was an infantry battalion, SO THERE WERE NO WOMEN TO HARRASS, ANYHOW. Regardless.  We lost a valuable day of training, with less than a month to go, before deploying overseas.

Now imagine not just one day lost, but dozens.  Imagine the facilities changes that would be required.  Imagine the discipline problems that would arise.

Now ask yourself this:

Why do it in the first place?

If the reason is to give womwn the same opportunities that men have, that's no reason.

The only reason to make any drastic changes to a unit's T/O, would be to increase the unit's warfighting abilities.

Adding women just doesn't do this.
Adding women (even if they are little, female Rambos) doesn't help a unit.  This is the point that eludes so many in this discussion. EVEN if the women's individual combat skills WERE SUPERIOR to the men in the unit, they would do more harm, than good.

[b]If you've ever served in an Infantry, or combat arms unit, you'd know this.  
If you've ever had the responsibility to train men for combat, you'd know this.
If you've ever deployed with such a unit, you'd know this.[/b]

IF you thnk women should be forced upon combat arms units, make the case.

Try this:

A Regimental Commander is about to begin the build up and training of his Infantry Regiment, for an invasion of Iraq.
Tactics, weapons employment, physical conditioning, and countless other skills are needed to ensure both victory, and the survival of his men.

What would you tell him?
How would you explain to him why he "needs" to have women in his Regiment?
How would the introduction of women into his regiment help to "ensure both victory, and the survival of his men"?

Good luck.