Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


please read up to my other posts one of them explains why woman shouldnt be allowed on the frontline and it makes sense to me

It's always amazed me that women get exempted from the military due to men's inability to remain focus and disciplined in the presence of women.

Male attitudes and discipline is the problem, not women.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
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.

Actually you're wrong, says the Pentagon :

www.armytimes.com...

Most U.S. youths unfit to serve, data show

By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Nov 3, 2009 17:08:36 EST

U.S. military-age youth are increasingly unfit to serve — mostly because they’re in such lousy shape.

According to the latest Pentagon figures, a full 35 percent, or more than one-third, of the roughly 31.2 million Americans aged 17 to 24 are unqualified for military service because of physical and medical issues. And, said Curt Gilroy, the Pentagon’s director of accessions, “the major component of this is obesity. We have an obesity crisis in the country. There’s no question about it.”

The Pentagon draws its data from the Centers for Disease Control, which regularly tracks obesity. The steadily rising trend is not good news for military recruiters, despite their recent successes, nor for the overall health of the U.S. population.

In 1987, according to the CDC, a mere 6 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds, or about 1 out of 20, were obese. In 2008, 22 years later, 23 percent of that age group — almost 1 out of 4 — was considered to be obese.

Also See :

According to the Pentagon, the ineligible population breaks down this way:

•Medical/physical problems, 35 percent.

•Illegal drug use, 18 percent.

•Mental Category V (the lowest 10 percent of the population), 9 percent.

•Too many dependents under age 18, 6 percent.

•Criminal record, 5 percent.

Waivers

Some conditions or situations can be waivered or are periodically loosened by the services, as is the case with certain medical conditions, such as asthma. Waiverable examples include limited marijuana use and having too many dependents. For example, the Pentagon says a waiver is required when an applicant is married and has more than two dependents under 18, or is unmarried and has custody of any dependents under 18. Waiver policies vary depending on the needs of the service.

The group of potential enlistees is further slimmed by the “propensity to serve” among American youths, which social scientists say also is declining. According to Gilroy, research shows that about 12 percent of all U.S. military-eligible youth show an interest in military service.

This means that

roughly 75% or more

of the US is unfit to serve.

edit on 2011/1/15 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)

reply to post by rexusdiablos


not in the british army men can keep there trousers on! we dont let working with a woman effect its discipline thats why we are the best army in the world

Originally posted by snowspirit

Originally posted by sbctinfantry

Keep in mind, the majority of women in the military are pregneant(sic), trying to get pregneant(sic) or a single mother. Don't believe me? Sign the contract.

Why would they be pregnant, and how would they be able to get pregnant? Unless they get raped, and then whoever raped them would also be discharged.
Sexual relationships are strictly forbidden while serving, in Canada anyways.

Oh man (or whatever) it's PREGNANT, not pregneant! Sheesh
Dude, get real, people aren't supposed to speed on base either, yet they do it.
And your comment,"Unless they get raped" is so sophomoric.
When you mix men and women together, there is always going to be competition for one or the other. And that's a deadly combination we don't need.

reply to post by simples


Problem being is that what makes sense to you doesn't necessarily make sense to somebody else. I wouldn't exactly consider it a natural order of things for men to always be the chivalrous knight to females that wouldn't readily want men to be chivalrous around them.

Believe it or not, some women find that notion to be insulting, and questioning of their capabilities. And like a male who is driven to serve on the front lines might not want to be coddled by his fellow servicemen, a female who is driven to serve on the front lines probably wouldn't either.

That chivalrous attitude is more of a social trait developed over the years that some women might find to be an insulting social stigma in the workplace that undermines their own sense of duty and undermines their abilities.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


i dont think its insulting at all i personally think its a FACT as i have experienced it first hand and not many people can say that

reply to post by snowspirit


When has Canada ever won a war! look, men have the ability, physically and mentally to kill better than women, period. That and the psychological effects on men in the battle field seeing hurt or dead females or children can debilitate a fighting force.
I was a combat soldier and my worst memories are of women and children being hurt or killed,
I would never wish my nightmares on any man and especially a woman.

P.S. women tend to be loving and nurturing, more so than men so lets not ruin it, please, some one has to be around to remind us how to love and care, if we all become killers it's over.

reply to post by sbctinfantry


That's a matter of perception. Military training is in place to allow the people who want to serve to become fit and ready. The people who are in lousy shape were the same 100 years ago as they are today. Some people who serve in the military now are overweight, use illegal drugs, have mental illnesses, and have criminal records to some extent.

In fact, the military receives enough applicants that they aren't even taking waivers anymore, something they were about 6 or so years ago. And with the growing population, trust me, there is always someone to fill an empty MOS.

reply to post by simples


So you would personally be okay if one of your servicemen tended to your shallow wounds before one of your buddies who had a gaping hole in his chest?

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by sbctinfantry

 

That's a matter of perception. Military training is in place to allow the people who want to serve to become fit and ready. The people who are in lousy shape were the same 100 years ago as they are today. Some people who serve in the military now are overweight, use illegal drugs, have mental illnesses, and have criminal records to some extent.

In fact, the military receives enough applicants that they aren't even taking waivers anymore, something they were about 6 or so years ago. And with the growing population, trust me, there is always someone to fill an empty MOS.

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

Dumb and Dumber.. The U.S. Army lowers its recruitment standards... again.

The percentage of what the Army calls "high-quality" recruits—those who have high-school diplomas and who score in the upper 50th percentile on the Armed Forces' aptitude tests—has declined from 56.2 percent in 2005 to 44.6 percent in 2007.

Source : www.slate.com...

That was in 2008, and I assure you that you cannot find any remedy since then.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


what are you on about? im saying the most injured should be treated first, but beacause its instinct a male would automatically go for a a woman with minor injuries rather than a male with severe injuries

reply to post by Tamahu


any credit for the female? remember male dominated religions WERE biased ???????????

reply to post by sbctinfantry


A failing economy and growing population is the perfect remedy.

I have personal experience with this within the last year. In the advent of war, military standards will be dropped in order to grow the military force. That doesn't mean that there aren't strong and competent people who are willing to serve. It means that the military force isn't actively seeking people like it was years ago because the armed forces are overflowing with applicants.

reply to post by simples


You missed the point completely. You said you didn't think that it was insulting for men in combat to coddle women who are in combat that don't want to be coddled and don't want to receive any better treatment than their fellow service people.

So because you didn't find that to be insulting, I asked how you would personally feel if a military medic treated your leg wound over one of your buddies who was shot in the chest and dying. It was meant to put you in the perspective of a female who would be in that same scenario. The female with the shallow wound would probably find it insulting that she was being treated over one of her buddies who was dying.

It isn't an instinct. That kind of mindset is a social trait that developed over so many years, doesn't really belong in a disciplined force. Like rexusdiablo said, "Male attitudes and discipline is the problem, not women.

Originally posted by TheApachekid
reply to post by snowspirit

 

When has Canada ever won a war! look, men have the ability, physically and mentally to kill better than women, period. That and the psychological effects on men in the battle field seeing hurt or dead females or children can debilitate a fighting force.
I was a combat soldier and my worst memories are of women and children being hurt or killed,
I would never wish my nightmares on any man and especially a woman.

P.S. women tend to be loving and nurturing, more so than men so lets not ruin it, please, some one has to be around to remind us how to love and care, if we all become killers it's over.

I don't think we've ever been to war without fighting alongside either the States or Britain. History says we did good. We're just a little country, 34 million total population.

Memories, yeah, not good. Too bad the people starting these wars, and putting everyone in harm's way, don't get the same nightmares as the people fighting them. Maybe then there would be less wars.

Yeah, I like this last one. I'd rather have peace. There's too much killing going on over politics, and political greed.

Then I guess they should be ready to be required to register for the draft in order to receive student loans.

ok i get what you mean now i dont think i explained properly what i mean is erm well let me explain the situation i witnessed.

in iraq in the middle of a fire fight a good friend of mine took a bullet to the chest, a female medic ran out to get him she then took a bullet herself to her leg. with me so far?
a male medic that ws with then proceeded to run out of cover into the fire fight pick the female medic up and return her to cover thus leaving my friend to die of a gunshot wound to the chest,

i later spoke to the male medic and asked him why? his response was 'i dont know realy just instinct i suppose'

well sorry but thats not good enough

Women are just as powerful as men. Because power does not come from muscle, but from mind.

And in this regard, women may be more powerful, because they have an instinctual habit of protecting their own.

I hate to see anyone get hurt in combat, but women are just as worthy as men, in my opinion.