G.I. Jane coming to a foxhole near you...

nooshinjohn

Sad days ahead as our nation will begin sending our daughters into full combat, including everything from sniper school and spec ops. I cant remember who it was that said when we start sending women into combat, the end would not be far behind, but I do know this descision will lead to absolute chaos on the battlefield and horrific loss of life. It is in a man's DNA to protect a woman. How many men could hear a woman scream as she chokes for her last breath and not leave cover to save her, only to loose his life in the process?

And let's not forget how kind our enemies are to their own women. What the hell to you think they will do to ours??? Great job there mr. O... great job..:evil:

sucks2beme

Once again, why are a few blathering about equal rights?
Men who don't physically measure up aren't Marines
How many women are going to meet those standards?
Mrs. Clinton told the USMC to lower their standards. USMC told
her to go away. Women do a lot of things in support roles
in the Corps. But we are talking combat. It a lot more than just
shooting a rifle. I'm sure anyone can do that with some training.
Armchair nonsense is just that. Perhaps they will put a few women in a team's
NFL offensive line, just to be fair?

tonyb

sucks2beme wrote: »

Mrs. Clinton told the USMC to lower their standards. USMC told
her to go away.

LOL.....well now, that is the projectory we are on isn't it ? Lower standards so that all can be the same....equal. That way nobody achieves, nobody is considered exceptional. An equal sharing of mediocracy ? Afirmative action laws did the same thing, lower standards to be more inclusive for PC reasons. In any given buisness, industry, shouldn't we be seeking the best and brightest rather than chasing ethnic diversity ? Just sayin'.....

Msabot1

I know a gal that is a staff Sargent in the Marines...crack shot with a M16-A1! Would not want to be lined up in her sights! Israel's women have been serving in that capacity since 1948. Soviet women fought the Nazies in the Great Patriotic War.... There are examples through history when women have taken up arms....

rpf65

I think people are looking at this wrong. I think everybody agrees that some women can preform in combat roles, just as some men can't. Be it physical or mental/emotional reasons, all of us are different. I worry that the standards of readiness will be reduced, and cost Anerican lives.

When the politicians are shocked to learn that a larger percentage of women than men can't keep up with the physical demands of infantry training will they order the standards reduced? To me that is the starting point. I was in the Navy, so have no idea what an infantry unti goes through, but can imagine. For most, I would assume that it isn't fun. SO the question is will the standards be lowered or will some type of "back-up" infantry unit be created, if that is even possible.

Msabot1

I know a gal that is a staff Sargent in the Marines...crack shot with a M16-A1! Would not want to be lined up in her sights! Israel's women have been serving in that capacity since 1948. Soviet women fought the Nazies in the Great Patriotic War.... There are examples through history when women have taken up arms....

AsSiMiLaTeD

tonyb wrote: »

Hogwash.....with all due respect.

As I suggested, wouldn't leaving this decision up to the men and women already in uniform eliminate the politics and B.S. grand standing on this subject ? After all, it is their lives at risk, not yours, not politicians. Makes complete common sense to me.

The military isn't about everyones "best interest". It should not be for political correctness or some sort of equal rights movement. It's for defending this country and whatever means to best accomplish that objective. If that means an all male troop lineup, so be it. If it ment an all female lineup, so be it. Those decisions are best left to military people, not by public discourse and agendas.

Sorry I'm not following you. I'm not concerned about the politics of the decision and all that stuff. Let me be clear in what I'm saying:

One's ability to serve in combat should be based 100% on their capabilities and MEASURED performance, not their sex race or color. And the people MOST qualified should be the ones serving, regardless of those attributes.

That's all I'm saying, nothing more and nothing less.

Note that I am NOT in favor of lowering any standards so that a currently excluded portion of the population can server. The standards should be at the highest level, all I'm saying is that if a woman meets those standards she should be able to serve.

Maybe I'm missing something here, because I can't think of a reasonable person who'd argue against that notion.

mhardy6647

tonyb wrote: »

Typical silly talk, jumping to extremes.......

I think the quote to which you refer was meant satirically (but, then again, perhaps yours was as well!).

tonyb

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

One's ability to serve in combat should be based 100% on their capabilities and MEASURED performance, not their sex race or color. And the people MOST qualified should be the ones serving, regardless of those attributes.
.

Cool....then we agree on something. Next....who gets to determine those measured performances ? The military....or politicians ? If you think the military.....as I do, then this whole shebang isn't even an issue.

Here's the glitch, it's no secret men and women are built differently.....and thank God for that.:biggrin: So in essence, most miltary heavy combat troops are men because of their superior strength advantage over women. Some view that as discriminatory, and thats the crux of it. Kinda like turning the military into some sort of affirmative action experiment where you need x amount of ethnic diversity and also a percentage of women. Not based on their abilities, but race and gender, and thats wrong plain and simple. Normally these arguements come up from politicians looking for brownie points rather than the rank and file members of our military.

Personally, I'm not in favor of discrimination be it gender or race and women as combat troops would be far and few between if standards are left up to the military.....thats a big "if". So this isn't really an issue the general public should be on fire about. Many other big fish to fry in the public domain than this issue.

headrott

sucks2beme wrote: »

Ok, there are women who can cut it. I served with a few. But that's the problem.
Forget that nonsense you see in movies like GI Jane. Seal training takes the best the
Navy has to offer and grinds them under. Most fail.
I was a Marine. Rifle, ammo, full pack. I don't think more than a few women
are ready for that. Adding women changes the whole dynamic. I know Mrs. Clinton
HATED the USMC for boot camp being separated. So much so, she wanted it dismantled.
But putting them together would have watered down the men's training. Men who couldn't keep
up we "recycled" back to the beginning and run through again. There one one guy who spent 13
months in boot camp! Support roles are ok, but real combat isn't a place for most women.
Get shot, and do you think the women next to you is going to carry you out?
Men and women aren't the same. They have different builds. If you don't know that, go back
school and find out.

Good post sir.

nooshinjohn

codyc1ark wrote: »

I find out the OPs opinion sexist and EXTREMELY offensive. Women are already serving on the front lines and this is just recognizing it.

I shame anybody with this opinion, go back to the fifties.

Let's look objectively at pure facts... It has been estimated that about 6 out of 100 women would be capable of completing basic infantry training, assuming that women are held to the same standards as men... Just SIX! Is it worth the wasted resources and training time to find these six? When I was in the fleet, I served in aviation back in the 1980's, and it was fact that a full 1/3rd of the Waves/WM's would become pregnant so they could earn a discharge and return home. And this mind you was in non-combat jobs in a time of peace! My opinion on this subject comes from experience not sexism...

The Israeli's have a wealth of experience in this area, and they have a difficult time dealing with it, and yes, there have been times where males soldiers have died not for the completion of a mission objective, but rather to protect the woman next to them. Let's also not forget the Jessica Lynch fiasco and that many of her fellow soldiers were wounded or killed protecting her and then going in to rescue her before she was decapitated by her captors. Her situation is a great example of lives being placed at grave risk, not for the sake of the mission, but rather for the sake of a woman.

I am all for equal opportunity, pay and everything else... But the military is NOT an equal opportunity employer, nor should it be used as a social experiment, publicity tool, or a means by which politicians should push an agenda. The military is a tool that should be of the highest quality, terrifying in its effectiveness and used sparingly, sadly it has become none of these over the past twenty years as those in power have no understanding of what the military is.

headrott

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

I agree with this 100%

One's ability to perform in combat can and should be measured by factors other than their sex, race or color. The program that prepares soldiers for combat and testing one's capabilities and ability to perform under high-stress life or death situations should be very rigorous, but at the end of the day whoever survives the training and passes the test should be allowed to serve. I know women who could make it through such a program and men who couldn't.

My point is, basing such a decision on anything other than one's ability is discrimination and not in the best interest of everyone involved.

So in your estimation, what percentage of women will meet the ability to become a navy seal (as an example)? Alternatively, what percentage of men will meet this ability?

htrdln

how dare you lie about dealing arms to Syria and give fighter jets to Egypt... oh look something shiny how dare you put women on the front lines... Distraction distraction distraction...

sucks2beme

Msabot1 wrote: »

I know a gal that is a staff Sargent in the Marines...crack shot with a M16-A1! Would not want to be lined up in her sights! Israel's women have been serving in that capacity since 1948. Soviet women fought the Nazies in the Great Patriotic War.... There are examples through history when women have taken up arms....

Yes, that's NOT the point. Once again, strap on a full pack, grab a rifle, and hump it up the hills in
Camp Pendleton. That's what's expected. That's why the retirement age for GI's are 20/30 years.
Old men and women aren't going to cut it. I can shoot, too. But a day of doing that again at my
age- better bring the stretcher. It's a lot more than pointing a rifle and shooting it.
It's getting to that place to shoot the rifle. It's hauling all your stuff there. If you don't know
what that entails, then stop the nonsense. Marine women are a tough bunch and can certainly
take care of business. When needed, women can certainly fight. But who's going to pick up the
slack in a deployment situation where you have to carry it all in?

nooshinjohn

htrdln wrote: »

how dare you lie about dealing arms to Syria and give fighter jets to Egypt... oh look something shiny how dare you put women on the front lines... Distraction distraction distraction...

You forgot to mention Benghazi... You are right of course. They turn our attention to the left hand while the right is utterly destroying everything else. The real questions we should be asking is who benefits from this? Who looses? Why now, and what else is being swept away while we at looking the other direction.

I find it rather ironic that conservatives are accused of waging a "war on women" while those on the other side of things now want to actually SEND them to the front lines of an ACTUAL WAR! As an aside, the war on women was created in Hollywood, where less than 20 percent of the highest paid "behind the scenes" jobs in the tv and film industry are held by women... Where's the outrage?

AsSiMiLaTeD

headrott wrote: »

So in your estimation, what percentage of women will meet the ability to become a navy seal (as an example)? Alternatively, what percentage of men will meet this ability?

I"m not qualified to answer that question, and the answer is irrelevant because it's not even the correct question to ask as you're missing a key component.

The question is "OF THOSE WHO WANT TO SERVE, what percentage of men and women meet the standards?'

And I can't answer that question either to be honest, but I bet that once you throw in the qualifier of those who want to serve the numbers wouldn't be as massively different between the two populations as you'd like me to say.

However, I will concede the point that if you have to expend lots of effort to screen candidates and women have a 1% success rate and men have a 90% success rate that it may not be an efficient use of resources to find that 1%, but if we're going to start down the road of discussing efficient use of resources this probably isn't the most obvious place to start. But John's argument (and the one I think you're trying to draw me into) that a lower percentage of women are capable is invalid if it looks at the overall population and not narrowed to the group of those who would want to serve in the first place.

AsSiMiLaTeD

tonyb wrote: »

Cool....then we agree on something. Next....who gets to determine those measured performances ? The military....or politicians ? If you think the military.....as I do, then this whole shebang isn't even an issue.

Then we agree, because I also think the military should set the requirements for service and not politicians, as long as those requirements are fair and make sense.

exalted512

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

This thread is so full of fail that it's absurd.

Saying a woman can't handle combat is like saying a single dad can't raise children because they don't have the nurturing instinct...

I agree.

codyc1ark wrote: »

I find out the OPs opinion sexist and EXTREMELY offensive. Women are already serving on the front lines and this is just recognizing it.

I shame anybody with this opinion, go back to the fifties.

Extremely offensive? Laughable. This kind of crap pisses me off 10x more than what the OP is saying. The OP says he's worried about what our enemies would do to our women and that offends you?

The kind of intolerance online forums have is amazing. If you have another opinion - that's great, but at least try to understand where they are coming from. Being offended by something like this is stupid and THE VERY REASON why people HAVE to be so politically correct. Because they're worried about offending someone. So then we have a country of ...

I'm going to stop there.

badchad wrote: »

Incredible. We all know women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Next thing you know we'll allow homosexuals into combat. This would be just as crazy, as they'll be far too sensitive to kill someone, and will spend their days making sure their camo's are color-coordinated.

tonyb wrote: »

Typical silly talk, jumping to extremes.......

I LOLed.

sucks2beme wrote: »

Once again, why are a few blathering about equal rights?
Men who don't physically measure up aren't Marines
How many women are going to meet those standards?
Mrs. Clinton told the USMC to lower their standards. USMC told
her to go away. Women do a lot of things in support roles
in the Corps. But we are talking combat. It a lot more than just
shooting a rifle. I'm sure anyone can do that with some training.
Armchair nonsense is just that. Perhaps they will put a few women in a team's
NFL offensive line, just to be fair?

This is my only concern. It should not be dumbed down so women can participate. It should be equal. Everyone has to deal with the same things - so they should be subject to the same training - and if needed, cut because of the same reasons.

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Let's look objectively at pure facts... It has been estimated that about 6 out of 100 women would be capable of completing basic infantry training, assuming that women are held to the same standards as men... Just SIX! Is it worth the wasted resources and training time to find these six?

So what's the statistic for men? This is typical media statistics. No basis at all.

If that were to have any valid argument behind it it should be this: It only considers women who would apply to military - and it should have the same statistic done for men. Then it would hold water.
-Cody

jephdood

Let women do it, but keep the standards the same. Those who can hack it, cool. Those who can't, so sorry.

tonyb

exalted512 wrote: »

This is my only concern. It should not be dumbed down so women can participate. It should be equal. Everyone has to deal with the same things - so they should be subject to the same training - and if needed, cut because of the same reasons.
-Cody

I can agree to that Cody, but seriously, do you really believe the military would be left alone to do just that ? Hardly....hasn't worked out so well in other area's. It wouldn't be long before they were put under pressure to pass a few females for publicity reasons and political gain. I think we all know that would happen....at least I hope we all know.

exalted512

tonyb wrote: »

I can agree to that Cody, but seriously, do you really believe the military would be left alone to do just that ?

Nope. But that's another problem. I don't think you should punish females that want to join (and are capable) because of the potential (even though its extremely likely) someone whom wants to dumb things down.

-Cody

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

I can agree to that Cody, but seriously, do you really believe the military would be left alone to do just that ? Hardly....hasn't worked out so well in other area's. It wouldn't be long before they were put under pressure to pass a few females for publicity reasons and political gain. I think we all know that would happen....at least I hope we all know.

Remember the first woman to qualify for carrier ops with the F14 "Tomcat"? According to the investigation that took place after she slammed into the fantail of the USS Abraham Lincoln, it was found that indeed she was pushed through for the publicity and the photo op...

The boot camps of all military branches are unequal to begin with. Fewer than one in fifty would make the cut in the marine corps if standards were the same for men and women to simply earn the right to be called a Marine. Even the Air Force has lowered basic training requirements for women.

This line of thought comes from those that think of the military as a job and not a solemn duty and an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

sucks2beme

I can only speak of USMC, but combat roles did have a pretty broad definition.
A lot of support roles were listed as "combat". Of course, the USMC pretty much
assumed you were a rifleman 1st, and your MOS 2nd. The Marines tend to be close to
the battle front even in non-combat roles. A lot more positions could be filled by women.
But really, what's next? The physical and age requirements are also "unfair".
26 or under. Minimum Height/weight and maximum weight was enforced. No physical
impairments. Gee, you could have a field day with that. And don't think the draft is
off the table. In fairness, I think everyone should have to do a couple of years.
That might also change a lot of minds on how the military should be run and deployed.
It would certainly change a lot of people's view of things to be FORCED to do things you
don't want to do. Think of the improved viewpoint that would give most 20+ year old citizens
of the U.S.

headrott

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

I"m not qualified to answer that question, and the answer is irrelevant because it's not even the correct question to ask as you're missing a key component.

The question is "OF THOSE WHO WANT TO SERVE, what percentage of men and women meet the standards?'

And I can't answer that question either to be honest, but I bet that once you throw in the qualifier of those who want to serve the numbers wouldn't be as massively different between the two populations as you'd like me to say.

However, I will concede the point that if you have to expend lots of effort to screen candidates and women have a 1% success rate and men have a 90% success rate that it may not be an efficient use of resources to find that 1%, but if we're going to start down the road of discussing efficient use of resources this probably isn't the most obvious place to start. But John's argument (and the one I think you're trying to draw me into) that a lower percentage of women are capable is invalid if it looks at the overall population and not narrowed to the group of those who would want to serve in the first place.

I understand the argument you are trying to make and am not trying to dismiss it. However, I wanted to serve when I was age 18 (and still do) but was automatically disqualified to serve as an Air Force F-15 pilot due to having diabetes. Should we now expend the resources to re-evaluate those diabetics who would like to serve as an Air Force F-15 pilot (myself included)? Or, should we conceed that a vast majority of diabetics do not meet the qualifications to serve as an Air Force F-15 pilot (let alone serve as a Navy Seal) but there are a very very select few diabetics who could meet this standard? Yes, I know this is a different argument but the argument makes the point I am trying to make about women serving as a Navy Seal (for example). And, I wanted to serve as a pilot in the Air Force when I was 18 and still would like to serve as a pilot in the Air Force, yet I am not even considered. Should I now be considered as a male diabetic being given the ability to defend our nation as an Air Force F-15 pilot? I am equating this to a women wanting to serve as a navy seal and expending the resources to find this very very small number of women with the ability to do this. It's an equivalent argument and an argument I should be able to make here as I would have liked to have and would like to serve, correct? Or should we all conceed that a very very few select number of women would qualify to be a Navy Seal, but expending the resources to find them would be wasted. That, and there are a number of other points brought up in this thread that should not allow women to become a Navy Seal.

nooshinjohn

Another point that has not been made is this: What about the wounded female warrior that returns home missing arms, legs, her face... We as a society place so much emphasis on appearance, I would submit that for a woman to be horrifically maimed on the battlefield would be a fate worse than death. It is the most difficult road to travel for a veteran wounded in combat to return to some semblance of a normal life, but for a woman, and I could be wrong, but I can only imagine that road would be much more difficult and much harder for others to accept.

If they need more troops that badly... Take me, and look to other vets or middle aged men that are in decent health. I am certain every man on this forum and elsewhere would gladly pick up a rifle and stand a post rather than letting them send our daughters in our place.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Headrott,

So....you're equating being a woman to having a medical condition? Diabetes is a defect, being a woman is not.

You can't state in the argument you're making that you know it's different and still continue to make the argument. I'll take it at face value though, if someone can PROVE that the vast majority of women (again who want to serve in combat, not 6 out of 100 women which includes the vast majority of 'traditional' women who'd have zero interest or ability to serve) would in fact be incapable of serving in combat, and that this rate is significantly lower than for men, and the the resources to weed through all the unqualified and find the good ones would be a huge drain on the system, then I would be forced to reconsider my position.

BlueFox

Some of you guys whine over anything, and use it as an excuse to espouse your political views. :rolleyes:

cnh

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

Then we agree, because I also think the military should set the requirements for service and not politicians, as long as those requirements are fair and make sense.

I think AsSimiLaTeD has been level headed and appropriate in this discussion. It is a matter of "ability", that "can" be determined, and since this is the "military" they should determine it.

There is NO doubt that a percentage of women exist who CAN meet whatever standards we are talking about. The debate is NOT really about what that percentage is or if it is EQUAL to men. Stop being threatened by the fact that there are SOME women out there who are as tough as men! And let it rest, or settle in for a moment.

cnh

kevhed72

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Sad days ahead as our nation will begin sending our daughters into full combat, including everything from sniper school and spec ops. I cant remember who it was that said when we start sending women into combat, the end would not be far behind, but I do know this descision will lead to absolute chaos on the battlefield and horrific loss of life. It is in a man's DNA to protect a woman. How many men could hear a woman scream as she chokes for her last breath and not leave cover to save her, only to loose his life in the process?

And let's not forget how kind our enemies are to their own women. What the hell to you think they will do to ours??? Great job there mr. O... great job..:evil:

Dude, you really need to stop worrying about everyone else so much. But, for fun, let's break down this doozy of a post:
1. "sending our daughters into full combat" - worry about your own children, and where does this collective "daughters" idea come from anyway?
2. "I cant remember who it was that said" - I'm not sure either, so you can take full credit.
3. "I do know this descision will lead to absolute chaos on the battlefield and horrific loss of life" - please, site your sources - which specific study conducted by who, or is this a Fox News talking point?
4. "It is in a man's DNA to protect a woman." - fascinating, but more of an opinion than a fact.
5. "How many men could hear a woman scream as she chokes for her last breath and not leave cover to save her, only to loose his life in the process?" - not sure about the logic here, but I think if a man can deal with a fellow soldier dying, the gender would really not be an issue.
6. "And let's not forget how kind our enemies are to their own women" - please, educate us further. In many other countries, women are not given the same rights as men, as in this great country of ours. Rights such as voting, working, free speech, equal pay, and serving in the military. God Bless America.
7. "Great job there mr. O... great job" - and there it is - your parting shot at our president, which reveals your true motivation, which, of course, is political in nature.

wayne3burk

News Flash - In 1948, President Harry S. Truman's Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the armed forces shortly after World War II.... (all from wikipedia).... On July 26, 1951, the US Army formally announced its plans to desegregate, exactly three years after Truman issued Executive Order 9981.

Sorry folks, the US. Military has a long history of being on the leading edge of progressive thinking. If you ever served in the military you'd be aware that the military has formal training in Equal Opportunity and Treatment. Yes, the end of the world as we know it is near. Did I mention the sky is falling?

And just to add a little more food for thought, the military has provided universal health care for it's members and their families since world war II as well. The doctors don't have to pay for malpractice because you cant sue them if they amputate the wrong ear.
P.S. The US Military has always been headed by civilians since the constitution, the framers wanted the military to answer to civilian bosses to ensure there would be no "military coup's de atat".

p.s. - we should bring back the draft anytime we are actively at war, the last 12 years of fighting wars without 1) having a draft so that every US family sacrifices with their own blood and 2) raising the capital to pay for the wars - see the national debt here - is a travesty.

i'm just saying

on a final note - the actual decision by the Secretary of Defense was that women would not be ruled out from volunteering for combat duty, not that they would be forced into combat roles, there is a difference.

nooshinjohn

Ummm.... News flash for you. The military wasn't segregated until 1913, when Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, segregated it! It took 35 years for Truman, not a progressive, to undo that disaster.