It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by crazydaisy
 


But if other women can and want to, why should they be denied?




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
They have been doing so in Canada for 20 years.


Really? Women can be infantry in the Canadian Army?? I find that hard to believe. If it's true, I never ran into any in A-stan.

Edit: I stand corrected; they are allowed in the Infantry. Still, never saw any in A-stan.
edit on 15-1-2011 by jerico65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 



About two per cent of Canadian regular force combat troops are women. There are 99 female combat officers in the regular force. Today, women make up 15 per cent of the Canadian military with over 7,900 female personnel currently serving in the regular force and more than 4,800 women serving in the primary reserve. Out of that number, 225 women are part of the regular combat force and 925 are enlisted in the primary reserve combat force.


I don't know if they're infantry or not. I would assume that if any are, they've had to pass some sort of test. Maybe they just have really good aim?

I've met some big, strong, scary women out there, not a lot, but there are a few.
I'm also quite sure they're not the most feminine ones. One woman I used to work with got taken out of the bar by 6 cops one night. It took all 6 strong male cops to fight her. Clearly not a lady, but a very strong broad.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Absolutely, they can. The first was in 1989. To be sure there are not nearly as many as men, but they are permitted and they are there.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazydaisy
Call me old fashion (I am female) - men have always been the ones to be in combat and women played their roles as a support system. Nurses, wives, Mothers (gotta keep the home fires burning) - I think it should remain as it is. As a women I cannot imagine being in combat along side men, I am practical enough to know I cannot in any way keep up with the physical or mental demands. My 2 cents and dinner if you were here.


There are plenty of men who couldn't keep up with the physical demands either I'm sure, as well as some women who could outperform some men. Your point of view seems fine to me as long as you also agree that working women should get paid less because they can't kevoteep up with men. Also, take away their right to vote and drive... I know plenty of people who think women can't drive as well as men. For the record I'm not against womens rights or trying to attack you in any way. I am against women wanting to be equal only when it's a benefit to them and claiming not equal when they don't want to do something... Serious question, do you think women should have less rights in all aspects? I don't feel it's okay to pick and choose.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
A few points, from my perspective:

reply to post by jerico65
 

There are multiple different means available to women to completely (and safely) decrease (period once every 6 months) or fully stop it altogether. This argument is moot point.


There's a reason why the PT test is different for men and women.

This is actually a much more concerning issue and paramount when considering this proposal of women in certain military roles. If someone (male or female) cannot perform the duties of the job/assignment on par with anyone else performing that duty, then they should be barred. There should not be two standards, IMO.



reply to post by TupacShakur
 

Hollywood. Please, let's not compare. If we're going to have a discussion, let's keep it real.


reply to post by wasco2
 


Feminists are driving this because combat experience leads to faster promotions. The feminists don't really care about the military's readiness and capability to fight so hampering it is not their concern.

Agreed. Except that I wouldn't lay it at the feet of "feminists" per se, I would attribute this to Political ambition. It is well known that in the military, combat experience does drive promotion and that is a major part of this campaign. Not to mention Politicians who believe this can be used to further their own career, something that does not have anything to do with the military at all.


edit on 15-1-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Anyone who believes women should be allowed in the infantry can feel free to join the military, and PT with women all they want. You will see just how wrong you are. Until you've been in the military, and worked around women, you should let those that have be your eyes and ears on the matter.

It is not good for unit morale, it is not good for discipline and order, and it is not good for readiness.

I think a better approach would be all female units, to field test the idea. I also think that all women should adhere to the male PT standards across the board in any MOS.

Edit :

Keep in mind, the majority of women in the military are pregneant, trying to get pregneant or a single mother. Don't believe me? Sign the contract.
edit on 2011/1/15 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Regarding Jessica Lynch, the female soldier that was captured in Iraq, Lynch was shown during a controversial display on Al Jazeera television of four other supply-unit POWs. That video also showed a number of dead soldiers from that unit with gunshot wounds to the forehead. Journalist Rick Bragg states that Lynch had been raped during her captivity, based on medical records and her pattern of injuries. Lynch does not recall any sexual assault and was "adamantly opposed to including the rape claim in the book", but that Bragg wore her down and told her that "people need to know that this is what can happen to women soldiers.
I would not want my daughter going into a combat zone.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by stealthXninja
If the excuse is that women cannot perform at an equal level as the men, then are you all saying that women shouldn't have other rights as well?


No, it's not that. It's saying that women can't perform as infantry.



But why do you get to choose what rights people have? Why do you feel that anyone should get to choose that? Would you want someone to refuse you a right because of your sexual preference?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


So all those nations that have women serving in combat roles are wrong?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
yes woman should be allowed in the but not on the front-line nor anywhere near it.

i am currently in the British Army i have been to Iraq 3 times and Afghanistan twice, woman should not be allowed anywhere near the front-line y? because for example, a woman gets shot in the leg, 5M from her lay a man shot in the chest but still alive, logic says go for the man first hes wounded considerably more however the male instincts take over and go for the woman because thats the natural thing to do no matter how wrong it is.

i have personaly seen this happen in Iraq concerning a female medic.

So woman should be allowed in the army they just shouldnt be allowed anywhere near combat!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Lets just look at the implications in actual front line and not just remf positions. Front line infantry can be expected to be in the field for as long as the mission takes. So female hygiene is more then just smelling good is it not? There are also medical issues to be considered in their combat effectiveness and extra weight/packing space in their rucksack. Lets also talk about the birds and the bees
A female infantry soldier gets pregnant, is she entitled to just be rotated out of duty?? [My answer is dishonorable discharge] Uncle Sam is losing a big investment in both time and money AND possibly sets a precedent of lop sided rules. The military is not the same thing as a office job, political correctness often glosses over inconvienent facts of life. People complain about derogatory language in a setting where people are trained to kill or be killed, so there is a huge gap in the comprehension of what the military is.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I don't see a problem with this at all. It's not like they are just going to let any 4 ft 6 in, 100lb woman in the army. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to go to boot camp and pass training before you're shipped off into the combat zones? So only the tough women are going to make it in anyway. I imagine there will be a bunch of butch women like that chick from Aliens who kick a lot of ass.

See that chick with the red bandana and the huge gun? She looks like she could kill a man with no remorse. Imagine a bunch of those kinds of females fighting in the army, would anybody have a problem with that?


You do realise that the people in that picture are actors, right? The real world is a lot different.

Yep, everyone goes thru training before the deploy, but going thru infantry training, either in the Marines or the Army, is a whole new ballgame. So they let women become infantry and they fail; what then? Lower the standards so they can pass? So then you have sub-standard training for people going into combat, and that will get Troops killed.


Wait, a movie based hundreds of years in the future didn't really happen?


No, don't lower the standards to make it easier for women, if they fail, they fail. That's like saying make the driving test easier so 10 year old's can pass it, so then we will have a bunch of sub-standard drivers on the road, and that will get other drivers killed.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Sbct, I agree with you. In my experience in the Navy, every Navy captain that was a female was a disaster. Even the women aboard ship want to get off as soon as a female captain comes aboard. They don't have the same standards or competition as a man to move up. They can be far below a man in knowledge, physical abilities, and other performance evaluations but are still promoted ahead of the men. This takes place with the officers and enlisted alike. On one ship I was on in the 1990's, the CO and XO were both females and having an open homosexual affair. The Captain was so overweight that she could barely move around the ship. This is in spite of the Navy having body fat standards. She was responsible for discharging from the service enlisted men who were slightly over even though she was a huge cow. The ship was broken down and a disaster.

In my experience in the service I noticed many problems with women. When it came time to deploy many would get pregnant and would never gain the required experience but the Navy would keep advancing them. I remember having to train an E-7 when I was an E-3 because she had never been deployed. When it comes to the hard or dangerous work it was usually a man doing it. There were exceptions to this and yes there some exceptional women. The problem comes when the standards are not the same. Even the intellectual standards and testing are not the same. A woman with a lower score on her written testing will be pushed ahead of the men. The men know this too, so they do not have the same respect for the women. If you have the same standards then I do not have a problem. If you require a man to run 5 miles but a women only needs to run one then you are creating a disaster.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


So all those nations that have women serving in combat roles are wrong?


No, they are not. All the men in the military are wrong, will not follow, will criticize and ridicule every word out of a female commander's mouth.

I have seen it with my own eyes.

You are not understanding that I am not against it, but the majority of the military is. To introduce something so alien and foreign to the military is largely irresponsible.

I have made suggestions as to a proper avenue of approach on the matter. Keep in mind, the bar is already set lower for women in general in the military. The same rules do not apply in terms of dress, uniform, cleanliness, haircut, physical abilities, and parenthood.

These need to change first.

Second, an all female brigade would be sent to combat and evaluated, then a few years down the line, women can be slowly introduced into combat roles.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
It's about damn time


It's their job. They train for it just like the men do. They should see combat. No excuses.

P.S. Sounds like this soldier has already seen combat. A Female Officer's Perspective on Women In Combat.


edit on 1/15/2011 by ~Lucidity because: added the link...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthXninja
But why do you get to choose what rights people have? Why do you feel that anyone should get to choose that? Would you want someone to refuse you a right because of your sexual preference?


It's not a right to serve in the military; it's a privilege.

And it's not about sexual preference. I mean, I love to see women in all sorts of positions.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
It's about damn time


It's their job. They train for it just like the men do. They should see combat. No excuses.


They've already been "seeing combat". It's about whether or not to allow them into Combat Arms (Infantry, Armor or Arty).



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


I've been in the army and you are speaking in sweeping generalizations which are simply untrue insofar as it pertains to all women. I served with women who could in all likelihood kick your ass.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


Many nations already have women in these roles. Those militaries have not broken down. Soldiers are expected to follow orders; if they do not, they must be punished.

I agree that people will have to change, but that will never happen unless they are forced to. It is wrong to bar women from combat roles, so no matter what the men in the military may thing, women should be allowed to perform in these roles.
edit on 15-1-2011 by InvisibleAlbatross because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join