Women in the military

[lucille]

I have been pondering this post for a couple of days now; I have no definitive answers and I am not sure there are any. I know we tease each other on this board about men/women stuff, but this is actually a serious question:
Traditionally, women have not been included in large numbers in front line military battles. There are now more women in a variety of military positions; but there are still significant gender differences in numbers in actual front line fighting.
Do y'all have opinions having to do with women in combat?

For me, it will not likely ever make a difference; I am past the age where people usually enter military service and have no career plans in that area.

I do not have an answer but have some thoughts:

I believe men and women deserve equal pay for equal work.
I believe men and women are different, both physically and in the way they process information.
I believe that ALL Americans have the duty and responsibility to help their country in some capacity if that help is needed and has been requested.

What do y'all think?

[andy]

I think that few MEN can handle the job, actually. If a woman can prove herself to be EXCEPTIONALLY capable and determined to serve, why not?

[Aslan]

The Israelis have had women in their military, in combat roles for quite some time - I suspect partly just to annoy the hell out of the arabs. They seem to be just as effective, strength issues aside.

I don't think a woman has to be exceptionally capable to do a good job or serve well at all. If you have the commitment, male or female, you can serve well.

If you don't have the commitment, abuse your posts, disregard orders or procedures, then you have no business being anywhere near the military.

:devil:

[RIKA]

I got into a brutal argument on another forum about this exact same subject and its a can of worms that I don't want to reopen. I will say that if a person is capable of doing a job, they then should be given the chance to do it regardless of sex.

RIKA

[KJUN]

Last time I inquired, the official answer was that women can serve in any position except combat ones.

Everyone always says "men and women deserve equal pay for equal work." I think it SHOULD be stated as "equal pay for equal output" or for "equal results" or for "equal productivity," etc. If there is a job loading trucks with 80lb bags of cement all day by hand, a large male, an average female, and a very small male would NOT have the same results even though they are doing the same work (loading bags of cement for 8 hours). For example, lket's pretend that the large man can load 1,000/day, the avergae female can load 500/day, and the small man can load 350/day. There is NO WAY they should all take home the same pay The large man should make the most and the small man should make the least. If they want more pay, but aren't good at that work, then they need to find another job.

Of course, if you use the mathematical definition of work, then I won't disagree. :)

[KJUN]

I believe that ALL Americans have the duty and responsibility to help their country in some capacity if that help is needed and has been requested.
I agree, but the $20 question is "How do you define 'help' in any given situation?" I'm glad you said requested, because I feel that a draft turns us away from a democracy and has the net result of meaning there are NO civilians: just active and reserve military. :(

[RIKA]

The big gripe of some of my fireman friends is that women get assigned to the trucks but can't hump the hoses and do any of the heavy work so they just pretty much do light work and sit on their butts while drawing equal pay.

RIKA

[lucille]

"Equal pay for equal work"

If it was MY house burning down, I would like the fire put out right quick, like. Not to reiterate my initial post, but there are differences; my focus is when the two genders do in fact do a job that IS equal, they should be paid the same.

[RIKA]

"Equal pay for equal work"

If it was MY house burning down, I would like the fire put out right quick, like. Not to reiterate my initial post, but there are differences; my focus is when the two genders do in fact do a job that IS equal, they should be paid the same.

I of all people am not disagreeing with you. The big problem I see is that people who are unable to do a job are being installed because of PC or simply to fill a 'minority' position. This is wrong.

RIKA

[KJUN]

I of all people am not disagreeing with you. The big problem I see is that people who are unable to do a job are being installed because of PC or simply to fill a 'minority' position. This is wrong.

RIKA
Correct, you would NOT want to see me dressed up as a "Hooter's Girl" no matter how PC it is!

[lucille]

I agree with you, Rika. Affirmative action is a can of worms and can be the subject for many debates; but if it is my house and especially if my kids are in my house, I want the fire put out now.

However, women in the military presents a different interplay of concepts, I think. Because of modern weapons, there may well be situations where properly armed the two genders may be able to do identical jobs; but there are many other factors involved.

KJUN, lmao.

[Thirdeyex]

I will not support an androgynous society or military. (Much to the dismay of the establishment)

Women can do a multitude of military jobs but combat is not one of them.
The standards had to be lowered for women to even pass boot. Lowering the standards does not make for a stronger military.

Men are wired mentally (more aggressive), physically (more muscle) and chemically (testosterone) for combat Women are not.

Keep women out of combat for the same reason that you posted this topic in the “pensiveness” forum.
(I don’t need to elaborate for fear of having this post removed for being derogatory in nature)

Appropriate posts for this forum

This particular forum was created to allow us to share personal and thoughtful experiences and thoughts

This subject would do fine in the Rubber Room or General BS forum

Current Soldier’s opinion:
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0%2C13190%2CDefensewatch_031004_Women%2C00.html?ES RC=army.nl

YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
http://www.armslocker.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=&stc=1
:smash:

[lucille]

Third, I asked for opinions because I want them. Just keep the posts from being facially derogatory; after all, in my intial post I even gave you that women are different so it comes as no surprise to me that you give the same concept back. Differences of opinion are welcome, vive la difference......

[Wylycoyte]

Men are wired mentally (more aggressive) ::snip:: for combat Women are not.

You've obviously never been to a church sale.
:duck:

[BigEd63]

You've obviously never been to a church sale.
:duck:
:laugh01:

Good one and obviously shows the importance of motivation. :dgrin:

[Thirdeyex]

Actually I will withdraw my comment and say that this government is so far out of wack that I wouldn’t allow either my son or daughter to enlist. And I will fight to the death if they try to draft either one of them. As this country steps into the third world war they are going to need plenty of cannon fodder to further their agenda and if no one is enlisting then there will be some “event” that will rally support of the Amerikans to battle whoever they deem to be the enemy.
i.e. the Maine, Northwoods, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, Project Bojinka, 911 etc… ( I’m guessing bio attack for the next event, cooked in our own kitchen)
The sheeple will fall in lockstep and send their sons and daughters to “police the world.” I guess it doesn’t matter if females are there, all they need are bodies.
Public Law 87-297, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, one of the worst, most dangerous examples of an unConstitutional law, was passed on 9-26-61, accompanied by State Department Publication 7277, The US Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. Section 31 A of Title 3 of PL 87-297, states that the function of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is:
"the detection, identification, inspection, monitoring, limitation, reduction, control, and elimination of armed forces and armaments, including ... missiles, conventional, chemical and radiological weapons."
State Department Publication 7277, while it is not a law, clearly defines the intentions of PL87-297, and that is to implement the transfer of all weapons and military personnel of all nations (including America) to the control of the United Nations global "peace-keeping" force.
Below are some excerpts from SDP 7277...
"a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations [Corporation]." "The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their re-establishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations [Corporation] Peace Force".
And most ominous,
"In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN [Corporation]Peace Force..."
This dismantling of our military and the transference to the UN was laid out to take effect in a three-stage plan. We are nearing the completion of Stage II and "transitioning" [sic] into the third and final stage. U.S. soldiers, "in defense of the World Order, are killing and dying" in foreign countries while our closed military bases are swarming with foreign troops under the guise of multinational training. They call it "Partnership for Peace".
As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. said in his article...
"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."


The Chinese have a standing army of 300 million (all male) That means that their army has more people than the entire population of the USA (men, women and children) China now holds a great portion of Amerikas debt. What do you think is going to happen when they want to collect?

Both my children will learn the art of battle and when it comes to defending “America” and our Constitutional Republic……… they will be ready.

P.S. If we ever reestablish our Constitutional Republic I still vote not to have women on the battle field.
But I feel that they should be trained for battle.

[KJUN]

I wouldn’t allow either my son or daughter to enlist.
Once of legal age, trying to do that might be the best way to get them to enlist. :)

[41mag]

Maybe military women should be given the same drugs that the Soviets used to give to the Eastern Bloc female(?) athletes.They'd kick Mr.Joe averages butt.

[stevenms2008]

i say they should have one standerd and if men can pass it there in if women can pass it there in they shouldnt lower it for anyone


cant women fly combat sorties?


thirdeye you remind me of a hippie

[RIKA]

I think that women do fly combat sorties but it was a bitter fight. I don't think Thirdeyex is a hippie; he is a man. Some of his reasons are valid. Some are not. The argument will continue forever and people will never reach agreement. Congress and our politically correct military officials will continue to force the incompetent and unsuitable (and I'm not talking about women either) into combat field units just to satisfy the whining voices. It will never cease.

RIKA

[andy]

there's nothing you can do about it once they turn 18. The point is to have taught them LONG ago that the military is USUALLY misused, and to have no part of it.

[Thirdeyex]

thirdeye you remind me of a hippie

No Son, I still have a few of those hanging on my wall with a couple of deer heads.
But I understand where you would draw that conclusion. Some of my words have a “hippie-esque” tone (that means you are reading and comprehending-that puts you ahead of the game). When I was your age through 25 I had a blind patriotism and trust in our government. We were America: land of the free and home of the brave! Then I had an event that jarred my perception. And with the help of relatives and friends in or beloved capitol I began to peel the rosy veneer away. I found that the majority of what I was taught was sadly wrong. I have been studying our wonderful system ever since in many different areas: educational, judicial/Law, congressional, geopolitical, economics, medical and pharmaceutical, sociological, and religious influences.
To coin a colloquialism “I took the red pill” and can see much clearer now. (It aint pretty)
To keep this on topic, a good example to look at is the battle strategy to weaken the “family unit” over the last 60 years. The social engineering was masterfully carried out by the “Collectivists/Communist” in a slow, methodical advance in the name of “progressive thinking”. The funding and media exposure was firmly in their grasp (as it is today). The culmination of this “progressive thinking” is where we are today. Teaching your children homosexual relations in grade school, affirmative action were you are privileged by your color of skin, single mothers as a norm, NAMBLA perverts, and yes-feminism. (ask yourself if we are better off)
The problem is not equality, men and women are equal. Women are everything a man is not and Man is everything a woman is not. Together they are whole, two equal parts. There is a truth to the adage that “behind every good Man is a good Woman” and I would add the corollary holds the same truth. Feminism tries to make females more manlike. And we see the broken fragments of the loss of a true strength-femininity. (This subject is voluminous)
My advice is to shut off CNNCBSABCCNBCFOX and do your own research and form your own opinions-READ while it is still available. There is a whole world out there that many don’t know or even care to understand. Learn all that you can and teach your children for it is in the interest of the “powers that be” to have the old die and the young to forget.

P.S. Stay away from bees :)

[Coyote]

I would be proud to enlist in the Canadian Forces, but with Paul Martin in power I am none too comfortable with the idea. I fail to understand why he hasnt unleashed all flaming hell on Iran for torturing one of our citizens to death. But thats another subject.

I am also concerned about being used for unjust purposes.

[84 C4]

I have no problem with women in the military, so long as they conform to identical standards as the men, and not this water down bootcamp crap that they go through. In my personal belief, if you cry during bootcamp because the DI "is a big meanie" you automatically fail.

[KJUN]

I have no problem with women in the military, so long as they conform to identical standards as the men, and not this water down bootcamp crap that they go through.
I agree. Equal means, well, equal. If the standards aren't the same, then obviously they aren't getting treated as equals. The standards should be the minimum that are needed and anyone that can make them (regardles of sex, age, race, anything) should be allowed. Anyone that can't make them - for whatever reason - shouldn't be allowed.

Of course, someone would make a standard that said you had to be able to pee standing up without using any hands and not get any on your legs to be able to pass bootcamp. Since that obviously is not a real requirement, that type of standard would not be valid. However, being able to lug a certain amount of mass in the form of gear a set distance in under a certain amount of time would be a relevant standardfor some jobs.