Women In combat

[Mountain Man]

Mountain Man' women are not superior to men when it comes to fighting other men in combat.

And not all men are equal when it comes to fighting other men...can they opt out without consequence ? I am coming from the perspective of "equality" which has been defined as women being able to do anything a man can do...let's stretch the definition a bit to include something that has actual service, risk and danger involved instead of getting that CEO job or being appointed president or director of this or that or having legislation passed in your favor.

Women can't do everything that a man can do. That kind of thinking came along in the early 70's burn your bra Helen Reddy era. Yes we should have equality but in hand to hand combat women will be killed and in large numbers. God did not design them for it.

That era is still very much with us...a society should give the most to who it ask the most of and "equality" means accepting liabilities as well as assets and cons as well as pros....so far feminism has been all about the assets ands pros and nothing about the liabilities and cons....that is not eqality

 

[Nick]

Now granted what some say here is true, you CAN find the exception to the rule if you look

And those women that are the exception should be able to serve in the front line.

 

[jasoncran]

I understand that, but the problem is the the infantry now does more mp missions and deals with the civilians and is more like a cop then an infantryman.the modern warfare is asymmetrical only. it has no fronts. that said. @lewis the probability of women being raped by haji(as we are at war now)is lower then by fellow American soldiers. that is sad.

 

[Northman]

Now granted what some say here is true, you CAN find the exception to the rule if you look

And those women that are the exception should be able to serve in the front line.

Indeed. Although just like everything else being put into action today, that sort of common sense will have no place in any decisions and will instead be covered by blanket rules so nobody has any hurt feelings.

 

[Mountain Man]

Every male born in America is born with the supposed duty to be part of what has become the the world's police force,a baby boy born in Ohio may be called upon to die some day because two groups of sheep herders in lower slobovia can't get along,or the yings are fighting the yangs in the jungle somewhere...this is in and of it's self an outrage.I am an American and my blood should only be spilled in defense of my homeland and my family and not anyone else's...what a scam our government has going,they tell us our men are dying all over the world for freedom and for America and then shred our constitution right in front of us,they talk about "nation building" while ours is crumbling tho most of us think things are ok because they havn't cancelled football season and we still have plenty of Walmarts....male or female it is all a disgrace.

 

[jasoncran]

Another aspect is, are all male soldiers psychologically capable of carrying on in a battle hardened, professional manner if they witness significant casualties among their female co-soldiers, or female military enemies? Many would be; some would not; but then this scenario has not been faced yet on a large scale.

Remember the psychology of Colonel Khaddafi: he chose female bodyguards because he knew Arab culture, by which many men would hesitate to harm a woman physically even if they wished to harm him.

you will get over that quickly when a female woman wearing a burka has a bomb and you have to shoot her. I know men that have killed kids that were there friend yesterday without hesitation.

 

[Nick]

Now granted what some say here is true, you CAN find the exception to the rule if you look

And those women that are the exception should be able to serve in the front line.

Indeed. Although just like everything else being put into action today, that sort of common sense will have no place in any decisions and will instead be covered by blanket rules so nobody has any hurt feelings.

Quite possibly. I wouldn't put it past them.

As long as it's based on merit, it should be ok. I think that's starting in Australia at the moment.

 

[farouk]

Another aspect is, are all male soldiers psychologically capable of carrying on in a battle hardened, professional manner if they witness significant casualties among their female co-soldiers, or female military enemies? Many would be; some would not; but then this scenario has not been faced yet on a large scale.

Remember the psychology of Colonel Khaddafi: he chose female bodyguards because he knew Arab culture, by which many men would hesitate to harm a woman physically even if they wished to harm him.

you will get over that quickly when a female woman wearing a burka has a bomb and you have to shoot her. I know men that have killed kids that were there friend yesterday without hesitation.

...there is also the aspect of female fellow soldiers being killed en masse. One has to become professionally de-senstised to the notion.

"Please Colonel: teach me not to worry if most female members of my platoon are killed. Make me feel it's not my fault. Teach me just to shrug my shoulders."

 

[Lewis]

Women have no business on the front line' period' I don't care how well she is trained, men will over power them and drag them off to be sex slaves or kill them. Put a hundred thousand women in a war and see the problems that will arise. Unless you have a platoon of 300 pound + women they will be over powered when the ammunition runs out and killed. War is for men not women. Except for Deborah, God did not send women into war He sent men.

 

[Mountain Man]

Feminism has destroyed the family yet we draw the line at War....go figure.

 

[jasoncran]

ok so then, women shouldn't be cops? female cops die all the time?should a single parent mother in the ghettos carry heat? think about it this way. If we invade say Iraq or go to isreal as they do allow the idf to have women. women in country are better to deal with women muslims. for me to search a female muslim is an insult to male muslims and women as well. next since we cant just drop the a bomb and call it a day and really expect the enemy to just stop hating us. what is that you expect women to do in the service? its a complicated thing.i have learned to treat women equally. if they want to run with the men then let them do so. yes I know about the male nature to protect but reality is that woman are needed in this type of war because of the above nature of interaction.war was never as in the movies. its not.I am not pc by any means, but I really don't shed any tear greater for a female soldier then a male soldier.

I have lost a female soldier in war, accident took one and the other died from diabetes.

 

[faeriecat]

I am a female. I am a former soldier. Yes, I went to Iraq. There are no front lines. This myth that women can "safely serve behind the lines" is just that, a myth. We don't do the large scale WWI/WWII infantry wars anymore. I was a truck driver in Iraq. How safe is that? It's not ... but was even more scary was it was more dangerous on our post. The enemy liked to shoot mortars at us, about daily, in the "safe behind the lines post".

Am I suited to be an infantryman? No. But I would have loved to have a shot at becoming a sniper, as I was quite good at shooting. Do I know women who would make good infantrymen? Yes. Do I know men who should never have put on a uniform? Yes. We had one gent in our unit that his civilian job was a biostatistician. Dude could do complex maths in his head, but I was convinced he was going to shoot me the one time I drove with him somewhere (we had an idiot playing chicken with our armored semi). He should not be in uniform, or, better, he should be in a think tank.

Everything we do has risks. Just driving to work can get me killed (overcrowded interstate with no wiggle room). Look at the Boston Marathon ... they were just doing what they loved.

Our little post lost several soldiers while I was there, though my unit was oddly spared a lot of hurt. Male and female. The females we lost were killed on our post, you know, the safe behind the mythical lines area.

I grieve for a lost soldier no matter what their job or gender was.

Oh, and the death that still haunts me was the death of a 20y/o young man ...

 

[Claudya]

Women have no place on the battle field. They're not built for it, they're not wired for it.

First I was very tempted to respond with a threat like "You're lucky you're so far away, else I'd show you that *you* are wired for crying like a baby when I'm done with you."

But then actually the sickest point of this whole thread is not the stomach turning stench of sexism.
It's the weird notion that somehow sending males to war (and death or captivity including torture and rape, and a life long post traumatic stress disorder) is somehow okay. Sending humans to a slaughter is crazy. It's insane. It's madness. Gender doesn't matter; war is insane. It's not okay. No human is wired for that.

 

[Claudya]

Personally I don't feel oppressed because I have no aspiration to join some army because I think the whole military system is dehumanising people.
As long as you let me be in combat in computer games or sports (like martial arts or stuff like paintball) I don't feel oppressed.

Anyway, I feel oppressed when I am supposed to be protected while my own instinct to protect what I love is being neglected as if it didn't exist. The idea of sitting back in some safe place while someone else, maybe someone I love, has to fight and possibly die to keep me safe is horrible. There's nothing glorious or romantic about it. Chivalery is just sick. It puts women in weak, helpless and passive positions while claiming all the glory of heroism for the guys. Men in favour of chivalery are being selfish while making it look as if they were being noble.

My ex boyfriend used to declare me his protector and body guard because I was less afraid of many situations (like walking through in the dark, or looking into strange noises in the dark house at night). I loved protecting him. I really loved him a lot for that. He allowed me to be strong and selfless, and that was great.
He wasn't a wussy at all, there were many things in life where I needed his help and protection rather than the other way around, but the sheltering and protecting tasks were distributed equally among us. That's what I'd love my marriage to be like, too.

So if you think women don't have that protector thing within them you have a misconception about women.
We're not "special" or so. Half of humankind can't be "special". The life of a woman isn't worth more than that of a man (exception if she's pregnant because she's two lives then). Men are worth to be protected. Men shouldn't have to die in pointless wars or fall prey to disturbed criminals just like women shouldn't. Violence is sick, regardless of what gender the victim was.

 

[jasoncran]

[MENTION=91320]Claudya[/MENTION], there were no female samurai, or hwarang, or even female Filipino resistance fighters(to my knowledge). most arts weren't taught to women. that was changed when gichin funakoshi came around.

 

[jasoncran]

claudya, so its not sick If a man wants to carry a child? if you all want that type of equality then why not remake and allow men to have kids? where do we stop?

 

[Lewis]

This is an interesting article that I found on this subject.

Women in All Combat Units by 2016, Says Pentagon: Female Navy SEALs, Army Rangers on the Way?

Women will be in all combat units by 2016, the Pentagon asserted Tuesday, which means that even traditionally all-male special forces units like the Army Rangers, Green Berets, and Navy SEALs could find female additions soon. Although many of the top leaders of the Army, Navy and Marines are supportive of the idea, others are not, and have concerns about the integration process.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/w...ale-navy-seals-army-rangers-on-the-way-98477/

Women will be in all combat units mainly because of former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who said in January that women will be integrated into infantry and special forces. Currently, women serve in various other capacities including gun crews, air crews, and as seaman- some of which have been involved in firefights.
"The department remains committed to removing all gender barriers wherever possible and meeting our missions with the best qualified and most capable personnel," current Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a memo released Tuesday.

"I remain confident that we will retain the trust and confidence of the American people by opening positions to women, while ensuring that all members entering these newly opened positions can meet the standards required to maintain our warfighting capability," he added.
Though most are of the position that women should fight in combat situations- 200,000 women are already part of the armed forces, and countries like France, Germany, Israel and Australia have women on the front lines- some feel the integration could be messy or distracting if not done carefully. One such person is Rep. Duncan Hunter, who believes the military should not alter standards in the name of inclusion.
Standards should be "based on what an individual can accomplish, what they can lift or what they can do to get into a specific military occupational specialty that has physical requirements," he told UTSandiego.com, instead of policies of inclusion or quotas.
Follow us

Others feel that men and women shouldn't fight on the front lines together at all, especially in particularly tight-knit units like the Navy SEALs. J.E. McCollough, a Marine who served two tours in Iraq and earned a Purple Heart feels that with the rise of sexual assaults, sexual liaisons, pregnancies, and other drama in the military, young soldiers would do better if the genders were kept apart.
"Men and women side-by-side in the same infantry units will almost certainly lead to more problems and a weaker military," he told Time magazine. "Since modern warfare inevitably puts women into combat, I believe those units should be gender-segregated. That would give the nation the best of both worlds: allowing women full access to opportunities afforded to men, while preserving military readiness."

The Pentagon seems to be aware of these issues, and are giving commanders some breathing room to evaluate how best to integrate women into these positions in a "measured and responsible" way. One example could be the testing of women vs. men when lifting a 55-pound tank round repeatedly. Congress would be notified of results.
"There is an understanding that doing this right takes a period of time," Juliet Beyler, who directs the officer and enlisted personnel management, told CNN.

 

[Lewis]

The Pentagon seems to be aware of these issues, and are giving commanders some breathing room to evaluate how best to integrate women into these positions in a "measured and responsible" way. One example could be the testing of women vs. men when lifting a 55-pound tank round repeatedly. Congress would be notified of results.

Hmmmm' or how about the 2000 pound bombs ?

 

[Nick]

"The department remains committed to removing all gender barriers wherever possible and meeting our missions with the best qualified and most capable personnel," current Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a memo released Tuesday.

As long as they stick to this, then it should be good.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Haven't read the entire thread, but as women in combat is never really addressed as good or bad in the Bible (that I'm aware of), the fact that we never really see women in battle in the Bible probably has more to do with the culture at the time than anything.