Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat

What the hell are you two talking about jobs for? lol.. I went two tours in iraq the first I was an MP doing convoy sec. the 2nd time I was doing foot patrol we were a MP unit doing a infantry job. we had women. they fought as we did.. I think people are hung up on this fact.. women have been doing infantry jobs with out the title so yeah they get all up in arms about giving them the title.. grow up

reply to post by snowspirit


but you cannot FORCE a woman to take a pill if she doesnt want to

reply to post by simples


you could if you were any other country but the us and uk lol...

reply to post by jerico65


I know, I meant to say that should could be infantry. What she did was damn impressive.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross



If other women want to be in combat, fine - the rules of engagement should be the same for men and women in the service tho. I can't see where its going to make anything better for the military, male soldiers, women or children. Its a free country (so they say) so go ahead ladies give it try.

reply to post by Reaper2137


but they are not doing the infantry role on the so called frontline, they might be doing like you just said but in areas that are a bit more safer maby not that safe but safer and they are not going out on 1,2 or 3 week patrols

reply to post by crazydaisy


I completely agree. They should have to pass the same tests as the men. If they can do that, they should not be barred from serving.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


in summary all woman should NOT be allowed to go on the frontline as i explained in my first post please read it

Originally posted by simples
reply to post by Reaper2137

 

but they are not doing the infantry role on the so called frontline, they might be doing like you just said but in areas that are a bit more safer maby not that safe but safer and they are not going out on 1,2 or 3 week patrols

oh yes they were lol.. we were in sauder city lol.. if you know were that was.. the last strong hold of terrorists lol.. but still they fought and should get some thing other than CAB's its wrong we did one to two week patrols

reply to post by simples


No, not all women should. Nor should all men. But if men or women can do it, they should be permitted to.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


nope wrong!

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.

reply to post by Reaper2137


reaper are you american military or british? different rules apply however ill say it once again im not saying woman cant do the job read up

reply to post by sbctinfantry

My point is that the current state of women in the military is largely reduced requirements and standards. For instance :

www.apft-standards.com...
That will show you the very large difference in standards between men and women in the Army. You can find much of the same in other branches.

Until that changes, how can a man be comfortable with a woman watching his back who was coddled through the training and standards?

That's crazy. There should never be that much difference in training standards. There are women who can do the men's standard test, and those women are the only ones that should make it through.

I even looked at the body fat allowance. Yes, women have some extra fat, but 30% is awfully high. If the guys are to be 18%, then the women should be about 22% MAXIMUM. That allows for breasts and butt.

I spent most of my life at 18%, and 30% to me, seems fat.
Women have the ability to be very solid, and well muscled, and that's what should be required for combat.
I agree, those tests need to be changed.

reply to post by snowspirit


but its not all about fat and muscle they have been alot of research done on this subject and its scientifically proven woman can not do what a man can do although a woman has stronger stomach muscles FACT so they should be able to do more sit ups

Well, it may not be fashionable but it's time that society accepted the simple fact that women are different. Not, please note, inferior, but different physiologically, mentally and emotionally to men and there are some roles for which we are simply not suited. Yes, we may be capable of incredible mental and physical toughness, but there is no getting away from the fact that we are the more compassionate sex; instinctively more nurturing and lacking the thirst for aggression that drives our male counterparts. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

did anyone read the full article from a female officer in the british army ? what are your thoughts?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Is is not sexist to say that women should not be allowed into combat arms MOSs.

1. They are physically different than their male counterparts. On average, women are not as strong as men...with the few exceptions.

2. Women are mentally different than men. Its a hormonal thing and what not too. That is not to say that some women can handle the stress situations...I have see plenty of female cops bust a move on male perks (and not just the butch ones).

In order for women to meet the demands of combat operations, you do realize they will change the PT requirements for women going into those certain MOSs?

There is no way that 20 pushups is going to cut it for physically standards...as well as the other low standards for women in the military. (TBH I think it is insulting to women to have the PT req. so low...they have to be injured or disabled...or flat out unfit to not make it past 20. I had a messed up rotor cuff and a pinched nerve in my arms and I still managed to pump out 30...although extremely painful.

But is making PT standards for women in certain MOSs enough to allow them in?

For some...I can see how it is okay. Serving in combat does not just mean infantry. There are other more technical combat MOSs that I would not mind women being in if they are up for the challenge.

But there is still the prospect of mental differences...which could lead to another screening. And I do not know how they would go about this. They already suck with screening out the crazies. We had an entire separate platoon for the crazies in my OSUT unit at Benning. The Suicide Platoon...(but many were frequent AWOLs, and just flat out crazy!)

reply to post by simples


Good article. There isn't much room for compassion in war. It's a liability.
Maybe our role in combat should only be as fighter pilots, or something similar. Then it's do or die, without endangering others. There would be no reason the training for pilots would be different for the genders.

I hate that the tests are so much lower for women. That's just not right, it endangers everyone.
There wouldn't be a lot of women that would be able to do the tests, but the few that got through would have to be in extremely good shape.

This fits with my suspicion of why they really made such a huff about don't ask don't tell.

Draft. It's all about getting rid of your excuses not to be used as fodder. They lowered the testing requirements, got rid of the "I'm super gay" excuse and now can line women up to catch bullets.

Equal rights. Equal right to die fighting some old rich mans war.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by sbctinfantry


I support this idea. There are enough strong, competent people out there that if a few recruits aren't able to do their job, there are plenty more to fill the billet. With a population in excess of 300 million in the US and a deteriorating job market, more and more people are looking toward the military for employment.

Anybody who is deemed fit to serve in the military should be allowed to serve in a combat role. If a fresh bodied 18 year old male can serve directly in the line of fire, I honestly don't see why a female shouldn't have to do the same if that's where she's placed.

reply to post by snowspirit


yes the test standards are a bit lower but with good reason and to be fair it doesnt make a massive difference the standards of the test are based on what they might encounter in there job role in combat