Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/11/2003 6:20:22 PM EDT
I was reading the ABC online news and now they want to restrict womyn that are "mommies" from any role that is dangerous or nearly dangerous combat type operations. What total crap. I cannot stand this subject. They want to be men with chicken shit PT standards, wallowing in fat and get to just crap out as soon as they get knocked up. Why the hell even show up in the first place? I once attended a meeting where the key note speaker was the first Chief Master Sargeant of the Air Force,retired. He commented on the subject, "if you want to be treated like a man in the military you better get used to the idea of not going home when it gets tough." No free pass because you got kids or you are afraid or you are a womyn. I have no problem with anyone in any role they can perform, but don't train for years and make the military waste thousands of dollars on you, then turn worthless when the time comes to do it for real. What the hell happens to the team you abandon in their hour of need?
Link Posted: 5/11/2003 8:44:03 PM EDT
Barbara Boxer proposed just about the same thing shortly after Gulf One. the almost immediate reaction from the Reserve and Guard Community was if thei happens, can we transfer out all our women of childbearing age and or have young children, since if they are not deployable, I will have to rate them as such and our readiness ratings will automatically plunge to unsatisfactory and never get better. Back then the Guard and Reserve lived and died on Readiness ratings. I expect the active duty folks had the same reaction, and the DACOWITS folks got the message to the liberals and Womens Rights groups that this was the worst thing ever to be proposed for Women in the military. It died quickly. Spect once they think a little bit about it they will see why. Why wast limited training budget on people that can't answer the bell. If they can't answer the bell, why let them in in the first place.
Link Posted: 5/11/2003 9:01:23 PM EDT
How about this for an idea: Require women to accept a long lasting contraceptive (the 6 month shot or implant) before allowing them to be deployed forward or sent into a combat area. If you don't accept the shot, you're a REMF until further notice. And the shot will be renewed if you stay in in the area long enough. Does that sound reasonable to you? Here's another one: If you have children below a certain age (to be determined), you can't go into a combat job until the children are older than that determined age. Perhaps the long term contraceptive idea should be extended to all females for the first X years of their career as a condition of service. Just a thought. I don't have a problem with female combatants. I would simply require ANY service member to be able to effectively perform the duties he or she is assigned. Beyond that, I am NOT picky. In any event, it's not right for the government to spend a million bucks to train a female fighter pilot and then have her blow six months to a year on maternity leave. How can you be a good deal for the government, or even maintain proficiency, when doing that? CJ
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 11:00:26 PM EDT
I tend to agree. When you sign the enlistment papers and swear the oath, you're making a promise. Getting out of that promise simply because it would be inconvenient for you to keep it should be grounds for a dishonorable discharge, not just getting REMFed. Joining the military is a serious business with serious consequences. Let the liberals whine about it all they like, but wearing a military uniform isn't a fashion statement, it's part of a creed (well, except for the airfarce [:D]). If someone isn't prepared to hold up their end of the agreement, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Compulsory contraception is something I've advocated before, I'm not going to argue against it. If it discourages people who aren't prepared to make the commitment and keep the promise they make when they enlist, then the forces are better off without them anyway.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:35:54 AM EDT
Simple answer to any 18yr-old, Male or Female, joining the Mil - NORPLANT, for the entire first enlistment period. No years of training lost to pregnancies, no baloney of unwed mothers garnishing pay of 'carefree' young men. Simple. You get out, or get permission to marry, the contraceptive implant gets taken out.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 3:58:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/19/2003 3:10:02 AM EDT by RAMBOSKY]
One of the Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf had 500 women stationed on it during Iraqi Freedom. Twenty women were sent home because they got pregnant on board during the tour. PS. I not the father. [8D]
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 4:18:01 AM EDT
Remember the Navy's "Love Boat" from Gulf War I? When it comes down to direct combat (grunt style) a key factor is brute strength. High physical demands include carrying a combat load (ammo, etc) and sometimes hand-to-hand fighting. The bad guys aren't going be less aggressive if you have a chick in the foxhole with you. I've served with women that I had extreme respect for. However, front line stuff is for men. That's not chauvanism- it's just common sense.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 8:10:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Brohawk: Remember the Navy's "Love Boat" from Gulf War I? When it comes down to direct combat (grunt style) a key factor is brute strength. High physical demands include carrying a combat load (ammo, etc) and sometimes hand-to-hand fighting. The bad guys aren't going be less aggressive if you have a chick in the foxhole with you. I've served with women that I had extreme respect for. However, front line stuff is for men. That's not chauvanism- it's just common sense.
View Quote
If you have a snipper taking apart a man trying to draw you out for the kill how many of you could let it happen ? Now what if it was a woman out there ? How many people will die this day ? Men just have to be the white knight. Yes I agree keep the girls off the front line !
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 4:50:30 AM EDT
That was similar to something they taught us in survival school. In a POW situation men tend to "hang tough" together in their suffering. However, when you throw a woman into the mix the overriding instinct is to protect her. What man can stand there an do nothing when they say, "We're going to beat and rape her in front of you until you cooperate."? I mentioned this to a female captain (USAF) and she belittled it as a weakness in men. She said, "We women are a lot tougher than you guys think. We can take it", referring to rape, beatings, etc. The funny thing is a week later she was telling me about becoming an aunt. Her sister described to her the whole labor & delivery process in detail. Captain G.I. Jane then said it turned her off from having kids- she wouldn't be able to cope with all of the pain & discomfort. I almost busted a gut! She was so blind in her naive feminism that she couldn't see the contradiction. "I can handle being gang-raped, but there's no way I could have a baby!" Right.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 7:09:52 AM EDT
In reference to the "men protecting women in combat" point, didn't the Israelis run into this problem in one of their early wars? IIRC, from a History of Warfare class I had in college, the female soldiers in the IDF were hard chargers, and the units were tight. However, when said female soldier charged a MG nest, and went down, wounded, the rest of the male soldiers in the unit were slaughtered trying to extricate her from harms' way. As a result, units were decimated. Unfortunately, you'll never be able to get a feminazi to buy into that at all. Or the American public (who, by overwhelming majority, will never serve their country). -Zmeja
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 7:32:01 AM EDT
I may have mentioned this elsewhere in another thread. If so, oh well, it bears repeating. Several years ago I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Col. Bud Day (USAF/Ret). He was a combat pilot, Fast FACs in the F-100, POW in VN, and CMH winner. At the end of his talk they opened it up for questions. Most of the questions were like "Tell us another war story, Col. Day." I thought, "This is a rare opportunity- I want to get some meat out of this", so I raised my hand. When he called on me I asked, "Col. Day, given your experience in combat and as a prisoner of war, what is your opinion of this trend toward trying to put women in front-line combat positions?" He looked back at me and said, "My first question is when did we run out of men to do the job? It's bad enough we have to send our sons to fight- but our daughters??" Then he gave a very rational explanation of why women don't belong there. He went on to comment that after most of his talks at the USAF Academy, Squadron Officer School, Air War College, etc., the vast majority of women come up to him and say, "I agree with you- I think you're right on target." However, once in a while a young 2Lt comes up to him and tells him, "You just don't get it." Let's see.... He's been in combat, he's been a POW, and this girlie fresh out of college is telling him HE is naive about this stuff???????!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 9:52:15 AM EDT
So some of you guys are saying that in the hypothetical case that a wounded comrade is wounded and lying in the line of fire that men would make inordinate efforts to save a woman but not a man? Would Marines leave a wounded Marine out in the line of fire? (Any Marine care to comment on the tradition and/or the implication in the preceding notes that Marines would leave a Marine out?) Looks a little different when phrased that way doesn't it? As long as a person can physically and mentally perform the job they should be allowed to volunteer and perform. Are there some women that have the physical makeup to be humping field gear for weeks in the field? Yes. Are there some men that can't? Yes. Putting a 110 pound man in line and telling him to hump a 70+ pound pack is not gonna fly. Can a 6'3" man fit in modern armored vehicles, most fighter a/c? Not really. Does that mean all men should be eliminated? NO. Common Sense should prevail (OK, OK, I know it's an oxymoron about the military) put the right person in the right job.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 10:33:30 AM EDT
I think the point is that the risks would be weighed differently, possibly interfering with good judgment. NOBODY is doubting the courage of our Marines and other folks in uniform. I hope you're not implying that it's better to have an entire squad cut down around a wounded comrade than to face the fact that in a given situation it may not be possible to reach an individual without incurring massive losses. I think also you are using the exception to make your rule. [i]Some[/i] women may be able to carry that 70 lb. pack into combat, but they would be so few that it would be foolhardy to open the field to [i]all[/i] women. Likewise, some men may not be able to, but they would be such a small minority, and I have to wonder if they would be kept in an infantry position if they couldn't physically perform the task. My gut says no. Can any of you infantry types tell me whether there are physical performance standards for that MOS?
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 11:12:33 AM EDT
I think that's the key point of the Issue - individual performance. I don't care what the person's gender is, as long as they can do the job. Physically AND Mentally. For an MOS / Job with heavy physical tasks, there should be a minimum performance standard, REGARDLESS of gender. Meet the standard, qualify for the MOS. General conceptions of Gender-capability are just that - 'general'. There are always exceptions, on both sides. Besides, many is the time I've seen a runt / scrawny MALE Marine / Soldier, who barely weighs more than the gear they are sweating under, lugging another 16-50lbs of weaponry. Ridiculous that some would say 'Women don't belong' when there are physically weaker men doing the same thing.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 1:13:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RAMBOSKY: One of the Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf had 500 women stationed on it during Iraqi Freedom. Twenty women were sent home because they got pregnant on board during the tour. PS. I not the father. [8D]
View Quote
++++++++++++++++++== So who gets to pay for this?[devil]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 3:56:08 AM EDT
Now that's funny ! I can see it now 75 dead Marines in a pile trying to get one person off the field. Head Lines. ( Snipper Wins War ! ) [sniper] [LOLabove]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 5:15:41 AM EDT
[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23886[/url] Debunking the Israeli 'women in combat' myth By Jon Dougherty ------------------------------------------------ © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots – mostly feminists who themselves will never have to face an armed enemy soldier – pushing lawmakers to drop a ban against allowing women in combat. Israel – a nation of about 6.2 million people constantly at war with its neighbors – allowed women in combat, the idiots shriek. Why, then, must the American military, as regards ground combat roles, remain so androcentric, so "male-centered"? It's time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel's experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn't successful. It was a disaster by Israel's own admission. "History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle," wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder. "For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said. Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: "Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat." "Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically," said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review. Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat. Finally, even Israeli citizens don't relish the thought of allowing their women into combat roles. In 1998, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper found that 56 percent of Israelis don't want women in combat. There are now and always will be idiots who say the Pentagon should put women in any combat unit they wish to serve. Most of these people will speak with the ignorance of never having had to experience the horror of combat, as well as the luxury of never having to worry about engaging in armed conflict themselves. But to use the "Israeli experience" as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it's disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension of "the will of the people." Perhaps if more lawmakers – and Americans in general – were exposed to military service, the idiots who seem to be dominating this debate wouldn't have many sympathetic ears.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 6:06:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: How about this for an idea: Require women to accept a long lasting contraceptive (the 6 month shot or implant) before allowing them to be deployed forward or sent into a combat area. If you don't accept the shot, you're a REMF until further notice. And the shot will be renewed if you stay in in the area long enough. Does that sound reasonable to you?
View Quote
NO Who's going to pay for that shot? ME or the Woman?
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 6:34:57 AM EDT
I think the main point is not that men are "better" than women, but that men are different from women and thus generally better suited for certain roles, and vice versa.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 6:45:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 6:47:16 AM EDT by cmjohnson]
The government would pay for the shot, of course, just as it pays for all other articles used by our armed forces. A few contraceptive shots won't break the bank! I say, let women try to be frontline soldiers if they want to. If they can't hack it, learn from the mistake and move on. If they can handle the job, more power to them. I think women could be great in combat. What man wouldn't be justified in fearing something that can bleed for five straight days and doesn't die?!? CJ
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 7:17:56 AM EDT
This isn't about fairness in a jobs program. It's about making decisions that make the U.S. military the most effective fighting force possible. Period (no pun intended).
Top Top