BREAKING: Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions

reply to post by cavtrooper7
Isn't it obvious? Probably the same thing that happens to the "elite sons".

Originally posted by 200Plus
I support this decision 100%. Equality for everyone.

That means females will have to be able to do a minimum of 42 pushup-ups in two minutes like the guys instead of 19 for females, right?

It means females will have 15:56 to run two miles now like the guys and not 21:20 for females, right?

Yea, equality for everyone.

I know im going to get flamed by alot of woman but its facts, Men are stronger then woman. Now you put a woman on the frontlines and in situations where they can engage enemies in hand to hand combat. Whos going to win that fight? The 130lbs 5’6” woman or the 5’11” 185lbs man?

wall street journal
online.wsj.com...

The announcement will mark the largest expansion yet of women in combat roles. But defense officials said they don't expect the change to result in women being allowed to serve as infantry troops

reply to post by Maxatoria


As a vet who has seen combat, there are many issues related to having women on the front line that have nothing to do with their performance. I have trained some pretty serious Israeli' women however. It is great win in theory however it will be a distraction on many levels.

Sexual
Drama of the love triangles
Heroism, males will tend to let chivalry overwhelm their combat sense
The aspect of capture and rape

I am all for equality for women, however is this what women truly want?

Man.. this brings up a lot of weird thoughts. We are used to men coming back broken and sometimes violent to their families (it's not good, of course, but it's something we know). Women react differently, equality all you want, but there are huge differences. Men aren't as emotional and can shut down empathy a lot easier I think. It's why you see cases of psychopathy/antisocial personalities (and as a result serial killers) are much more common in men.

I wonder what all the implications are, hell maybe women will handle it better? A part of my brain says it doesn't seem right.. I am just not sure if it's the common sense part (and I'm a misogynistic asshole) or if it's the old world thinking. I mean, obviously wars are less physically demanding now. Not very likely you will be surviving behind enemy lines or cut off from support, etc. No trench warfare, no heavy ass rifles. I am sure there are plenty of women out there perfect for these roles. I guess I just don't like the idea of 18 year old girls getting into something that wasn't what they expected like so many teenage guys did in 2002/3.

reply to post by camaro68ss


I would put my daughter up against most men, but again she has trained many years and is a multiskilled mma blackbelt.

There certainly will be new and existing problems to overcome, in particular, rape.

“Rape in any circumstance is brutal, but in the military the worst effects are compounded,” wrote Broadbent in her Guardian story. “Victims are ignored, their wounds left untended, and the psychological damage festers silently, poisoning lives. Survivors are expected to carry on, facing their attacker on a daily basis.”

truth-out.org...

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in an interview this week with NBC's Natalie Morales that the military's tendency to sweep rape cases under the rug instead of prosecuting them is "an outrage" he intends to change.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by DOLCOTT


The problem is can you kill?
I know there are a few women who can hump a ruck,but what will they do when they have NO CHOICE?
When they are drafted as combat arms troops and they are dropped smack dab into hell.
How many will melt down in combat?
You all see the "entitlement" culture around this board what happens when THEY have to fight?
Gonna runaway from the draft? Not with SMART BORDERS.They will be on alert this time,all your butts are going to fight.
This is a horrible idea but an expected move by them to kill off more people.
Who's the "crazy vet" now?

reply to post by DOLCOTT


But thats a nice 1 on 1 fight, 30 horny enemies and a nice looking female soldier = no matter how much she tries and fights (unless its a gay army)

Originally posted by DOLCOTT
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

I would put my daughter up against most men, but again she has trained many years and is a multiskilled mma blackbelt.

Strap 45lbs to her back, have her carry two 10lbs plates in her vest and see if shes still nimble in combat.

reply to post by DOLCOTT


I know guys that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

It's not a matter of this one or that one. The military deals with the "average".

reply to post by 200Plus


That is the point. Combat arms cannot "average out" to accomodate people who can't or won't fight.
Unless you want to lose the fight ,which is a conspiratorial possibility.Weaken the US military to a point where they are over extended and fail as an institution in order to undermine the US.
When death is your job you HAVE to do it or many die.

There will be people coming in to say," women are not brought up to be stronger if they did, they would be equal to men"... im sorry, nature already decided they would not have high muscle mass than man, instead high body fat for nurture purpose.

bunch of female soldiers against men enemies would be fun for the enemies. They would probably play mind games, and emotionally make them shoot each other !.

reply to post by camaro68ss


From the article below, it seems certain body types (women) won't have too many problems. The problems that will arise will be in the short training period and I would expect women would have to take calcium supplements to strenghten their bones, but all this, along with diet and rucksack design and placement on the body, will be reviewed and, hopefully, adjusted (improved).

works.bepress.com... 3Dcan%2520female%2520soldiers%2520carry%2520rucksack%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D5%26ved%3D0CE0QFjAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fworks.bepress.com%252Fcgi%25 2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1005%2526context%253Drob_orr%26ei%3DdHoAUZmfCsHhrAGbloHIDA%26usg%3DAFQjCNE_Iff1nqV_aDlXJ7NhFS6o6blpjw%26bvm%3Dbv.412 48874%2Cd.aWc#search=%22can%20female%20soldiers%20carry%20rucksack%22

All I ask is for you to hear me out on this because it can get a little murky regarding this subject. To get it straight out in the open, I oppose women in combat -- but maybe not for the reasons that just struck some of your emotions; so save the knee-jerk reactions until you at least read it all.

First, if the Department of Defense moves forward with this, all women, at age 18 should have to by law, do what every man legally is supposed to do -- sign up for Selective Service (aka draft record). If that isn't in place, it will just follow the long line of political correctness in a field which there shouldn't be any at all.

For instance and this is from my view when I was in the Air Force. Women had different standards. They didn't have to run as fast, lift as much or do as many push-ups (or can do it with their knees on the grounds -- step away from the gutter guys). To me, if you are going to say they can engage in combat, they need to be just as physically fit (or at least held to the same standards -- I know many ladies that surpassed my fitness level while I served) as their male counter-parts.

Bottom line, if they go through with this, then equal across the board. But I highly recommend that we don't go down this path unless a woman can prove she can meet the standards that their counterparts achieve.

As I posted in the other thread before it closed:

The only picture that comes to my mind is the scene in the movie GI Jane, when the drill instructor tortures Demi Moore in front of all the men in the cages.

I see the point in what he was saying, as a woman I feel its her choice to do as she pleases. but as the drill instructor said at the end of the clip: "She's not the problem, We Are"...

I feel a woman is just as capable of fighting in the front lines but its the men that would not be able to handle the consequences of a rape/torture scenario happening when/if they are captured.

I would not want to be in a combat position myself, but US allies already have women in some type of combat positions.

From the beginning of the 1970s, most Western armies began to admit women to serve active duty.[2] Only some of them permit women to fill active combat roles, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Why does the US not realize this?

reply to post by magycpapyri


if women wanna fight I say let them fight,they are just as capable of pulling a triiger as a man.

I think getting captured and tortured is just part of the risk If you are at war..

reply to post by goou111


Exactly what I said, Women are just as capable of fighting as men, its not the women I'm worried about, and I don't mean that as a smack in the face to men. Its just human nature that men want to protect the women and children.

Gender roles have also been getting a little fuzzy for some over the years.

There are some men that are a little on the feminine side - way more feminine than me, and I'm a normal woman.
They don't seem like they could handle combat.

There are also some really vicious female brutes out there.

I would think the women that are already in combat positions, or those entering into combat, would be tested first to make sure that they are tough enough to handle that position.