Possible PsyOp/propagand being introduced to keep a lack of Female Influence in the Military?

Ok peeps, something I've been wondering about (to clarify BEFORE you "read" my topic and reply, i think women should have the RIGHT to go into combat IF they choose to. No one should be forced to shoot another human being.)

Have heard over the news, people saying thing such as an interview of this guy who wrote something about "cowards pushing women into the battlefield" Which in itself hits you right in the dick before even making a point.

"your a pussy if you think women should be in combat"

The reasons they mentioned were mainly ones about the womans ability to pull a man from vehicle, or to carry gear/another soldier

To which I call bull# with this story: mywebtimes.com...

LITTLE GIRL pulls her MOM (bigger than dad if you check the link), from the vehicle.... and they are worried a TRAINED female, wouldn't be able to use the adrenaline to pull out here comrades..... BULL#

I recognize that women have a different physiology than men, but when adrenaline kicks in, and your a TRAINED SOLDIER..... You wont be just some #ing soccer mom from suburbia whos biggest lift is a diaper bag.

The other explanation is that men won't be able to handle or cope with the deaths of females.

Which goes to further my reasoning for why they dont want Female influence, the possibility of MEN questioning the validity of the war they are fighting when they see women dying. Cant have that, can only have "happy" little brainewashed meat-heads.

Despite only men being in combat, I've heard and seen plenty of people who are about as damaged from the LOSS OF THEIR FRIENDS in war. Maybe its just because I'm bi, but if someone I've Known for a lil while, Trained alongside gets murdered..... ima hurt.... PERIOD

I really want you all to think about this because..... it really makes sense to think a bunch of narrow minded male twits think that the female combatant would change things in this country. I'll say that there is a possibility, but i don't even know for sure if it would.

Really I think its them afraid that it will kill the war machine, that to many females will see the horror of war firsthand, not just those returning from it to be patched up and sent back. That if that happens, women will start doing, what they are already USED for

"PROTECT THE CHILDREN" all I #ING HEAR, why we are loosing guns, why we cant drink at the beach etc etc. "cant have kids getting hurrtt. Dont send my baby to war" Thats what I think they are afraid of having happen.

Afraid women will see war for the Fraud it is First hand.

Seriously if you look at this link
www.statisticbrain.com...

You can see that women make up less than 20% of ANY BRANCH, which is JACK #, compared to 80% of the men actually running the show.

To further prove my point, why is it now, NOW, instead of... idk Always, am I starting to hear about women being raped in the military? I had heard a story about a year ago, but other than that, it wasn't until this year did i start to notice them coming up more often.

Are they trying a PsyOp to keep women out of the military by giving them the impression that they can be raped without any repurcussion to the rapist? Listened to this "story" about a commander who was pretty much saying either the female go on a weekend hotel #ery trip with him, or she wasn't gonna go anywhere with her career, and that he would see to it. What happened to the commander? Got sent to a different post.

Honestly IT SOUNDS LIKE BULL#.

No offense to women who are actually raped, i mean I personally like being a bit roughed up myself but.... no one should every be mentally or physically forced to # anyone.

That being said, is it possible women who are against women being put into combat are being payed to tell these stories, when the truth is the military is actually pretty adamant about getting rid of rapists (not sure if they are, would hope so)?

Just possibilities, women who think women shouldn't be in combat being paid by men afraid of the female influence in the military to lie without legal repurcussion?

What do you think?

Is it possible that we are experiencing anti-female military propganda for the sake of perpetuating the war machine?

Think about it, we hear about men snapping and shooting up a bunch of their own...... but no female rape victims doing such (i get being afraid to physically fight a man.... but never snapping and thinking " o gee i could just shoot the #er in the back of the head when he isn't looking")..... It smells like BULL#

reply to post by shaukuna


Are you a veteran or Service member? I’m thinking that you are not.

Women ARE doing roles in combat. On a daily basis. They just don’t hold MOS’s that make them door kickers.

In my three decades of service I have served with quite a few women who excelled at their job and to be frank, put many an infantryman to shame. But I also knew of even more women who used their gender to further their own goals.

I’ve seen what happens to units when a relationship within that unit goes sour. I’ve also seen plenty of sexual harassment charges (from both genders) result more often than not in a ruined career or jail time.

I was brought up on charges by two female soldiers who wanted me to stop treating them like Soldiers, but rather with kid gloves (Yea, like THAT would happen). Luckily, I had people who were privy to their plan and ratted them out during the investigation. Oddly enough, though I wasn’t surprised, they were not kicked out even though it was a clear violation of the UCMJ. Sedition & Conspiracy.

This will always the main conundrum. You cannot mix the sexes and remove the Sex.

The last Commander of my unit was relieved of Command after a tour downrange because she saw everything as an assault on her feminity. She stated such in a company formation no less. She was a micro manager and issued an almost 100% letter of reprimand across the company along with numerous ART. 15’s.

Until you can somehow give a pill/injection that kills the sex drive, then you will always have people against women in combat MOS’s.

But, you must also remember this, there are women who are serving in many places of the world that puts their lives in constant danger.

reply to post by shaukuna


Im all for girls in the military but they should really have to meet the same physical requirements as men. Because its not about equality, its about being able to do a job. Nothing is going to be easier in war for women so the should have to be able to do the same stuff. Yes i saw that you found some article about a little girl pulling her fat mom out of a car, that is why it was a story.
And you really don't have control over your adrenaline, to say that the adrenaline would kick in and help out is stupid. They should be able to perform their duties and not have to cross fingers and hope for an adrenaline rush.
On average women just do not have the same physical strength as men, that is a fact. Sure, you can find and cherry pick people saying crap like "i knew a girl that..." but the fact is women are just not built the same as men.
But people seem to be overlooking the fact that maybe there are not a whole lot of women that WANT to be in the military.

Originally posted by Superhans
reply to post by shaukuna

 

Im all for girls in the military but they should really have to meet the same physical requirements as men. Because its not about equality, its about being able to do a job. Nothing is going to be easier in war for women so the should have to be able to do the same stuff. Yes i saw that you found some article about a little girl pulling her fat mom out of a car, that is why it was a story.
And you really don't have control over your adrenaline, to say that the adrenaline would kick in and help out is stupid. They should be able to perform their duties and not have to cross fingers and hope for an adrenaline rush.
On average women just do not have the same physical strength as men, that is a fact. Sure, you can find and cherry pick people saying crap like "i knew a girl that..." but the fact is women are just not built the same as men.
But people seem to be overlooking the fact that maybe there are not a whole lot of women that WANT to be in the military.

There is no point in trying for combat positions that your not allowed to take. Sure some women have been in combat, but are they all being put directly into combat? Or is it general patrol that brings females into combat?

Either way I find it hard for anyone to claim what females are capable in serious combat roles, when they aren't even open to them to begin with.

reply to post by shaukuna


Hush...
They are allowed in combat roles.
www.usatoday.com...

And before that they were not exactly doing that great
usnews.nbcnews.com...

reply to post by TDawgRex


why am i seeing so many lame replies about how

"oh yeah women can do that stuff"

When in reality NOT ALLLLLLLL combat roles are available.

What makes these replies stupid though, IS THEY ARE NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THE QUESTION IM ASKING

They are taking one thing I base my Idea on, and saying "NO NO NO THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE SOME COMBAT" as if that in any way invalidates my idea in such a way that they don't have to address it

reply to post by Superhans


wow you too?

Can not a single person READ what the topic is?

Or is this just gonna be a bunch of "THEY ARE ALLOWED'

When in actuallity they are not allowed in ALLLL combat roles.

Thats not even what should be debated right now, what is is the damn title of the thread i made.

BUT NOOOO

Not a single post even bringing up that outside of combat, they aren't trying to "keep a lack of female influence in the military"

Im sorry but do all the people on the field run the show? No.... its a bunch of generals behind desks

SO WHY THE @#%@#% does it matter if they are allowed into combat anyway?

I was simply pointing to that as a way to make sure that if you do have females coming in, it wont be the oens applying for the sake of combat, because they are still doing infantry trainning of them to even see if they are "capable" before giving the thumbs up that women can handle

Why do the trainning if your not gonna do that work? Make any sense? So of course ther will be even fewer geared towards combat.

The problem with that though is less combat minded females in the military= less females who will likely voice up their opinion about how battle should be handled, but of course i bet your sexist as won't even go down the road with me about women having a Say in how combat should be handled. And why? Its not like they see the most combat RIGHHHT????

All i wanted to see if people could fathom the possibility to dissuade the female interest in the military. I guess thats to scary to actually discuss without people goin of in one direction. going

Blah blah blah they CAN be in combat..... yes they can be, but not ALL roles. Go ahead and believe they can, I'll go into special forces and start blabbing about how much bull# its for a female even Trying to get into that.

reply to post by shaukuna


Ok...now I see that you have never served. Or you would have saw what you complain about with your own eyes.

And then there is this.

Marine Corps to open infantry training to enlisted women
www.marinecorpstimes.com...

Where is the PSYOP involved? I don't see it. Sounds like opinions to me and opinions can be changed.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by shaukuna

 

Ok...now I see that you have never served. Or you would have saw what you complain about with your own eyes.

And then there is this.

Marine Corps to open infantry training to enlisted women
www.marinecorpstimes.com...

Where is the PSYOP involved? I don't see it. Sounds like opinions to me and opinions can be changed.

edit on 26-8-2013 by TDawgRex because: Just a ETA

Wow someone else in a simliar thread posted that same link, luckily the difference between you and him, and me, is that I actually read the articles instead of just posting something with a title that fits what I am trying to prove.

You likely didn't even read it, you just did the same google search and posted the same stupid link as mr helicoptor guy.

I'll just post the same thing i said to him

Did you even read it?

“female enlisted Marines who successfully complete infantry training as part of this research process will not be assigned infantry as a military occupational specialty and will not be assigned to infantry units.”

WHO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE INFANTRY TRAINING- WILL NOT BE ASSIGNED INFANTRY AS A MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTY AND NOT ASSIGNED TO INFANTRY UNITS

"It’s unclear whether any enlisted women have volunteered yet. Marine Corps officials were not immediately available to discuss the plan."

Pretty much exactly what I said, they wont do it.... BECAUSE ITS A WASTE OF TIME WHEN YOU DONT GET # FOR PASSING. Better off going towards something you can ACTUALLY BE ALLOWED TO DO.... Once you prove you can do it - any tech/med jobs pretty much, thats it. Otherwise its probably gonna just be "hey..... go stand watch over that crap in the shed"

Your just another one of those people who post articles without even reading them. Shame on you.

reply to post by shaukuna


Yes I did read it. Making sweeping changes within the military is usually a recipe for disaster. I've seen it. The Marines are taking baby steps so to speak.

But I apparently do not fit into your mode of thinking. The reality of what you seem to want just won't work right now. It would destroy units. And both genders would be at fault.

Now if they want to make an all-female infantry unit, I say go for it. But such a unit would be of limited value because in many parts of the world, the men just will not talk to a strange woman (unless it's to get them into bed) and an all-female unit would also be a high value target. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth back home if such a unit were to be massacred?

It would also be quite the propaganda coup. Or is that the propaganda you referred to in your title?

I see that you don’t like examples of females doing well or screwing up…but I have plenty of both. Sometimes it was even the same person.

One last thing. Can you imagine how much the sexual harassment cases would skyrocket if your dream could be implemented immediately? A lot of the cases are same gender on same gender.

About the only way I could see your idea even have a remote chance would be to make it a career ender to have a relationship, date or even marry another Service member, period, in any service and regardless of rank or unit. That ain't gonna happen anytime soon either.

Find a job in a leadership position were you have to look at all angles rather than running with your feelings and you'll see what I mean.

There is plenty of female influence in the military, without women having been allowed in combat. There are women commanders of installations, there are four star generals that are women, and there are female unit commanders. Colonel Jeannie Flynn Leavitt is a decorated fighter pilot, and is the wing commander at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. She commands over 5,000 personnel, has 300 hours in combat, and almost 3,000 hours total flying time.

reply to post by shaukuna

wow you too?

Can not a single person READ what the topic is?

If you are convinced that "not a single person read what the topic is" then maybe you just have to face the fact that you are a horrible writer who cannot communicate their ideas effectively. But it is becoming more and more clear that you have little to no knowledge of how the military operates and maybe a rudimentary understanding of how the English language works. Like this;

but of course i bet your sexist as won't even go down the road with me about women having a Say in how combat should be handled.

What the hell does that even mean? Just do me a favor and post in russian, i will use Google translate to get it into something i can decipher.

Hold on. How is this thread different from this thread? www.abovetopsecret.com...

I even had to scroll to the bottom mid-way through reading the OP to see if it was (I was looking for my posts to the original thread) Stop making duplicate threads. If you got more to say about this subject, put it in the first thread you started about it.

There are many holes in this thread. I hope you clarify many points and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Originally posted by Superhans
reply to post by shaukuna

 

wow you too?

Can not a single person READ what the topic is?

If you are convinced that "not a single person read what the topic is" then maybe you just have to face the fact that you are a horrible writer who cannot communicate their ideas effectively. But it is becoming more and more clear that you have little to no knowledge of how the military operates and maybe a rudimentary understanding of how the English language works. Like this;

but of course i bet your sexist as won't even go down the road with me about women having a Say in how combat should be handled.

What the hell does that even mean? Just do me a favor and post in russian, i will use Google translate to get it into something i can decipher.

*sexist, AND you wont go down the road of saying whether or not you think women Should have a say in how combat is handled

IF ya do ya do, if you don't ya dont, whatever.

so..... your saying "blah blah blah" you dont know how the military operates, and im still going to avoid directly addressing the question of the thread; would men in the military want to keep female influence out of the military (combat and non)

you can keep talking about combat though if you want

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
Hold on. How is this thread different from this thread? www.abovetopsecret.com...

I even had to scroll to the bottom mid-way through reading the OP to see if it was (I was looking for my posts to the original thread) Stop making duplicate threads. If you got more to say about this subject, put it in the first thread you started about it.

edit on 27-8-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

That was a mishap that happened when I got a message saying my original posting was deleted, before I could be given a clarification as to what actually got deleted, I remade the thread.

Im not going to put replies to people in this thread, in the other thread, considering they might not be reading both.

I never have prior to now, and did not earlier intend to make duplicate threads, I intended to replace what I thought was gone.

So please tell me how to handle things more.

Originally posted by BristolStew
There are many holes in this thread. I hope you clarify many points and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I've tried, but most people can do is say "woman can serve in combat" even though they cant in All combat.

And link me to things saying they are being allowed to train.... so that a couple years from now If they are deemed capable, they might be allowed to be in an infantry unit.

Regardless of that fact, there would still be a possibility that men would like to have a stronger % of the total men to women ratio for the military, likely fearful that more women would lead to more military people speaking out against the horrible # we do. (i listed in the other thread how we guard opium in afghanistan, how we've used uranium enriched exsloive weapons that have caused horrible birth defects on babys - rt.com...)

I could go on and on blabbing about the #ed up # I know about how our military operates, but I am trying to discuss but one thing that is simply an idea of a possibility.

I could talk about how a friend of mine would be doing weapon checks going door to door, and how they handle the baby left behind when they accidentily shootup a group of people because one person thought they saw something. No point in leaving a baby to grow up and come back to get revenge for its dead family, so the baby dies too.

Just lots and lots of "collateral damage".

I'd really like to see if someone can actually man up and say "idk, maybe they are fearful of women changing stuff and are thus trying to make it seem not so woman friendly" just an ok that could be Possible, not 100%.... but possible.

I base that on fact that they are not allowed in the utmost brutal forms of combat, thus preventing any female opinions about such. I also hear stories of women being raped, and the person simply being put at another base ( i feel these are likely fake stories, the part about the rapist not getting punished). The fact that the airforce has been said to have a pamplet that pretty much says "it is best for you not to resist your attacker; let yourself be raped"

Pretty much it seems like a combination of scare tactics combined with keeping them away from roles that would give them the experience to say how combat is in comparison the opinion of a man.

Everyone just seems to want to argue that "woman can be in combat" posting a link saying that they opened infantry Trainning. For which if you are successful, nothins going to happen for over a year and a half in 2015, and even still it says right after that, that there will still be roles women will not be allowed to fill.

reply to post by shaukuna


As a male 1 considers the female on the battle field as something to be appreciated for putting their lives on the line to pay services to others. As a man 1 can understand it is not easy to consider females on the field, for the social programming has taught that children&woman are to be protected by men and so on the fields of battle some of the men will look after the female soldiers more even w/o them being detected as to doing so, but naturally would because of the females being programmed into the male psyche to be protected by them.

Nothing wrong as its tied to
[color=gold]
Chivalry

Chivalry, or the chivalric code, is the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood. Chivalry arose from an idealized German custom.[1] It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code — the term derives from the French term chevalerie, meaning horse soldiery[2] — involving, gallantry, and individual training and service to others. Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasise more ideals such as the knightly virtues of honour, courtly love, courtesy, and less martial aspects of the tradition.

[color=gold]The Knight's Code of Chivalry was a moral system that stated all knights should protect others who can not protect themselves, such as widows, children, and elders. All knights needed to have the strength and skills to fight wars in the Middle Ages; they not only had to be strong but they were also extremely disciplined and were expected to use their power to protect the weak and defenseless.

1 does by no means doubt female strength in battle considering QUEENA on & off EA*RTH...
Its just the social programming as of current has taught many men to protect the females and so on the fields of battle again some would be watching over the ladies but remember that extra look could be used to see threat and so. be safe...

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Joan of Arc did as she pleased and ended up dying at the age of 19 via being burned to death. Why is it so hard to believe men would want to keep female opinion very minute, when back in the day it was a blatant obvious truth?

reply to post by shaukuna


I'm not challenging your op shaukuna.
I think you make some valid points 1 was just sharing...
NAMASTE*******