Women in the Combat - new development
 

Women in the Combat

"The Military Leadership Diversity Commission is recommending that the Defense Department lift all restrictions on women serve in infantry units.

The 24-member commission was created last year to “conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces, including minority members who are senior officers.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed 22 members of the commission, the other two were picked by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The panel found that women are physically able to perform in combat roles and the inclusion of females would not affect unit cohesion. It also said banning women from infantry units affects their career advancement, especially in the Army and the Marine Corps.

“Being ineligible for Navy SEALs likely does not make a female sailor ‘less Navy.’ However, being ineligible for infantry may be perceived to make a female soldier
‘less Army,’” the panel said.

And, the panel noted, women are already serving on the “front lines” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The enemy is no longer clearly and consistently identifiable, and all units are essentially exposed to hostile fire,” the commission wrote. “The performance of female servicemembers is frequently applauded, and is recognized
with awards.”

You can read the entire decision here. The panel will present its findings to Congress and the White House in March.

Do you think women should be allowed to serve in infantry units?"

Ready? Go!

Fascinating. I'm going to tell it like it see it, and keep it raw.

First, a male can aim and pull a trigger, and a female can aim and pull a trigger. Soooo whats the problem? I don't see one.

If females had to wait to almost 2011 to be allowed in infantry, that goes to show you how far behind the times we are.

I've always believed in equality of the sexes. I for the most part treat females and males a like.

At some point in my life, I've heard this debate, and someone said something about females getting captured and raped, or some nonsense like that. Anyone who would rape a captured female, would most likely violate a male in some similar manner.

War is war, and it's not a nice state of affairs, but at times it is needed. We don't have a draft, so anyone in the armed forces has joined of their own free will. Male or female, they know what they are getting into.

I really can't see any good reason why a female should not be allowed in infantry. I'm glad they are getting their rights.

-CLK-

Only if they can physically meet the same requirements that are already in place for the men, and I do mean the same 100%.. Not requirements modified for a woman, but the same requirements expected of a male, if they can they have the right, if not, they do not have the right.

Its no bad thing. Many women are just as capable as men physically. As long as they pass the same tests to the same standards as the guys why not?

As long as it is the same tests of course. I mean I'm able to run 6 or 7 minute mile or if I move at a slower pace 6 or more miles is well within me.

BUT

I'm tiny. I'm 4'9" and even on a "fat day" I'm under 100lbs. Me? with one of those huge rucksacks? trying to shoot a rifle thats nearly as big as I am?....just picture that :p

But yeah, if they pass the same tests why not?

x

hell yeah!
if they can do what is required of them then the only problem i can see is that of the more narrow minded male (of which there are many in the forces but not as many as say 20yrs ago) having self esteem issues. they may call it something else but thats what it boils down to.
fact is they dont let in men who are not physically or mentally suited so whats the difference apart from a few inches of flesh in a different place.
and anyone who dares mention rape or tortue of women...well it happens to plenty of men too!
our enemies tend to have less sexual discrimination than our leaders.

I'm all for this as well. If they meet the requirements then I say go for it.

As for the rape part - there are already so many woman is situations where they could be captured I really don't think it is as much of an issue.

Hey let em in. Especially if they prove to be capable of it, don't relax standards any.

I see CR edited the starting post today... did I miss something?

No idea, can't see what he changed

x

I believe the link to the story was removed.

Ah, good eye. Guess I didn't recall it, because I didn't bother to click the link.

Even if shes armed? ;)

x

Awww hell Bat why not theres enough females a few thousand killed in battle wont be missed that much. About time the women get to show how tough and patriotic they really are!

Might have to change that old protest song tho?? "Hey Come on! Be first on the Block to have your "daughter" come home in a Box! and its 1 2 3 what are we fighting for!??"

And remember Girls go to war and show the men how its done ..."BUT dont ask and sure as hell dont Tell!;):)

I am gonna throw some fuel on the fire here...

In a word I am going to say NO... they should not be. I am of course talking about frontline ground units.

Not because they cant fight, many can, however they do have a couple of strikes against them the most obvious being that the AVERAGE female is weaker than the AVERAGE male and from time to time even in this day and age combat does get down and dirty in the trenches and in hand to hand combat MOST females are going to be at a disadvantage. This puts the males who may be counting on them at an un-neccessary risk.

There are of course exceptions, I have known women who could kick almost any guy's ass, and I have known men who couldnt fight their way out of a wet paper bag if their ass was on fire.

I would also point out that several nations in modern times have put women in frontline combat units but in the end they were withdrawn? Why is that?
I'll tell you, it's because men are hard wired to be stupid around women. It is literally in our genes and no amount of training or "education" as the PC crowd likes to call it is going to chage things.

Back in the 50's and early 60's Isreal had women in it's frontline infantry units because they needed every single person would could hold a rifle to fight. Outnumbered 100 to 1 they felt like they didnt have a choice but in the end they stopped this practice. Why did they pull the women out? Casualty reports. In reviewing the casuality reports they discovered that the units that were mixed had a higher casualty rate than all male units.

It wasnt because the women couldnt fight or hold their own. It seems that in mixed units the men acted in a reckless manner, trying to protect the women. It really is that simple, stupid men get themselves killed trying to protect women that might not need protecting at all. Much better and simpler to just let the guys do the frontline stuff and use the women for other jobs.

There are 100's of jobs that women can and should do in the military, right alongside the men, many in fact do involve combat, especially in wars such as Iraq and Afganistan where there are no real front lines. With that in mind all soldiers, male and female, should be given combat training and have that training refreshed as needed.

Some studies have even shown that women are better sutied than men for some types of combat, fighter pilot for example. Girls make great fight pilots, maybe it's because they enjoy having all that power between their legs... :D Just kidding girls, just kidding. :)

Women in combat roles will always get men in combat roles killed. It's a simple fact of life. It's in our genes. I don't care if the genes are Wrangler or Levi. It's a matter of fact. There are basic rules by which we all live. Violate those rules and you will live in pain and have nightmares for the rest of your life.

Just a few thoughts from HRH1948

:skull-bee

I have always generally been of the opinion that roughly since the invention of the firearm, there has been no particularly good argument to keep women off the battlefield. I do not buy into it being "in our genes" to behave foolishly around women, I merely think that far too many men are fools.

"They can't handle it/we can't handle it" reasoning strikes me as being rather insincere (no offense intended), given that there has not really been any prolonged attempts in modern western cultures to make that integration. It takes time, which the practice of the concept has never truly been allowed. There is no tradition of it and when you come down to it, people in general and the military in particular have a tendency to be stark traditionalists who resist change.

It reminds me a great deal of the general resistance the American military has shown towards allowing anyone who does not fit a particular, narrowly defined segment of the population to fight for them. It was not that long ago this argument would have been all about if black men or asians were truly fit to serve on the front lines in a modern military and many people would be making sincere arguments about how they were not. There are still people who make completely sincere and, in their minds I am sure, well intentioned arguments about how someones sexual preferences should have an effect on their ability to serve at all.

My hope is that this resistance to women in combat roles will end up the same as that of the resistance to any other new demographic being introduced. Accepted grudgingly, endured bitterly, and eventually vanishing utterly.

I have actually spoke with my husband about this very issue, in great detail, at one time or another.
I absolutely believe that women should be allowed into combat roles, if they are capable of passing the required testing, just like men. However, I don't think the testing should be easier just to accommodate women, either.

I honestly do not buy into the whole 'Men act like fools around women' philosophy. I'm sure SOME do, but I do not think that should be grounds for essentially punishing women who would like to advance their careers in the military, or completely restricting them from the chance at fulfilling combat roles.

I almost joined the military three years ago, and this was a topic that I always felt very strongly about. I, like many women who I know that did join, all just wanted the chance if we qualified at doing what we desired, not just choosing from something we were eligible at fulfilling.

ESPECIALLY if she's armed :skull-lov

Based on current statistics coming out the military, the rates of sexual assault or molestation for women in the armed services is twice that of women in the civilian world. This isn't some liberal or conservative screed talking, its based on the military's own statistics gathered after they began to actively promote counseling, hot lines, and methods for reporting assaults and rapes that were outside the normal chain of command.

Why is this important? Because those rates of assault go through the ceiling if the women are serving in a combat group. Since being deployed out to forward combat units, women have been coming back with horror stories about rampant abuse and danger. Most women stated they were told to keep their firearms by them at all times and to visit the latrine in groups of three or more. The problem the women are facing is some of their fellow soldiers are simply wired wrong. These men start to love the combat a little too much and want to take out their sexual aggression on someone. When they do, the women run smack into the wall of silence most combat groups develop from months and years of camaraderie based on survival. You don't report a fellow for working off a little steam because he could be the one that saves your ass tomorrow, or saved it yesterday.