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

Systems

this order to allow women to serve in a combat capacity is voluntary, then those who want to try to do so should be able to do so. They will either succeed and be allowed to do so or fail and end up with the rest of the women soldiers who are serving our country. I seriously doubt that there are going to be a flood of women running to go to the front lines, most of us have better sense than that.

However, if this is a mandatory order and ALL women must go to the front lines than this whole thing will be a big fail. The only thing that has changed and should change is the automatic denial of having women who WANT to try be denied.

It's this narrow minded way of thinking that has prevented women not only in the United States, but the world over, from truly achieving equal status with men.

Equal huh?
If they want to "volunteer" it will work.
But if they are forced, it will fail?

Equal huh?
Did you even read her response Fongolio?

I seriously doubt that there are going to be a flood of women running to go to the front lines, most of us have better sense than that.

REALLY?
WOW!
Too bad, not all military has that choice during war, and the draft, which is a BIG PART of our nations military hisory.
Can ya count how many women have been drafted Cathy?:cool:

Nhpm510

If it doesn't increase military effectiveness, it should not be done.
It is not about PC, it is about killing and wounding as many of the enemy (other humans) as possible and saving your own troops.

nooshinjohn

In my platoon MCRD San Diego, about 20% of us had guaranteed MOS enlistments. After boot is just about over, we gathered around our senior drill instructor as he told us what our "jobs"were going to be... Almost all were told 0311!!! You are gonna be a @&$)in' GRUNT! HoooRAAA!

Point being that yes, the military is a volunteer service, but your MOS is up to Uncle Sam. If you want true equality, women will be told they are gonna be ground-pounders just like the men are told. No descrimination and "fairness" dictate that women should be humping a 70 pound pack and a rifle, just like the men do. If they pick seemingly at random as they chose which men became grunts, logic dictates that standards will need to be reduced or there will be one hell of a drop rate during training.

And for the record, hell yes women should serve in whatever roles make the mission most effective. 0311 and other "grunt" roles ain't it. Further, how many women would even consider enlisting if there was a better than75% shot they would be told they are going infantry? This descision may end up discouraging at least half of those women thinking of serving from doing so at all.

Systems

The only reason this military is "volunteer" is because we are not in the predicaments we have been in the past.

Example A:

25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees in Vietnam. (66% of US armed forces members were drafted during WWII), with 50 million being registered, and 33% percent were "draftees" in the Korean "Conflict".

That is ALOT of this nations population that did not have the choice of "volunteering" to serve.

This descision may end up discouraging at least half of those women thinking of serving from doing so at all.

Hell, evidently, they get to decide what they want to do after basic.

Infantry only if they "volunteer".

Systems

More women in the US than men.
Yet only 12% of the US Military are women.

You gotta give em credit there, pretty smart!

Systems

I thought this was interesting and a little re-assuring considering we are #2 in military strength.

US military age:
71,941,969 females, age 18-49.
73,270,043 males, age 18-49
About 145 Million.

About 3 million (active and reserve) total for the US Armed Forces



China (Peoples Liberation Army) #1

military service age:
385,821,101 males, age 16-49
363,789,674 females, age 16-49


Waaaaaaaaaaaaayy! over 700 MILLION!


But only 3.1 million (active and reserve)!:eek:
With 1.4 million deployed to other countries.
About 4.6 million total.

mrbigbluelight

Wow ..... just ........ wow. :eek:

Was in the military, but was never in a front-line combat situation so I can't speak from that perspective.
Speaking of qualifications, though, it boils down to: are you qualified, or not ?

If you can meet the qualifications for the job, then you should be able to volunteer for the job, and undergo the additional training for the job.
If you don't successfully pass the additional training, thanks for you effort, troop. Thanks for trying.
If you successfully pass the additional training, congratulations.

I've always been a proponent of the watch-out-for-the-magician's-trick-of-diversion when things "pop up". Why this ? Why now ?
Some have mentioned that it might be a diversion for the, let's just say, "malarkey" going on. That could possibly be the reason, but I think there's another reason that may be truer.

Our military is hurting. Bad hurting.
That's the reason, IMO, why the military did away with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. You're **** ? Hell, you don't even have to pretend to hide it anymore, are you breathing ? Okay, welcome aboard.
Multiple, multiple re-deployments causing cracks in the armor, so to speak ? Well, let's allow women to volunteer for combat duty. That will fill some additional combat slots.

Wrong reasons, but right outcomes.
You want to serve ? You American and willing to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic ? Then, by God, it shouldn't matter if you're male, female, straight, ****, white, black, Hispanic, cute, or ugly ..... you get your chance.

If you can qualify, congratulations.

The reason we don't have the draft even though we've been "at war" for 11+ years is simple:
To institute the draft would mean having to supply reasons for a draft.
Anyone care to supply a reason(s) for a draft ?
Hmmm ? No, I thought not.
No, it much easier to have things hidden from us if we're not involved (for the most part).

George Grand

Another "the sky is falling" rant from the OP. Lose that crybaby.

shawn474

This thread follows the same pattern as all the others like it.......first, voluntary participation in a combat training program for women. But, whats next? All men are chivalrous primates conditioned to take care of women. It will be the end of the military as we know it!!!!!! What if the draft is reinstituted. Just like the second amendment thread awhile back - if they ban asault weapons, whats next? They will take all of our guns and we will have to resort to caveman tactics to fashion our own weapons against a crumbling democracy.

"The sky is falling"' types push the same political agendas as they claim of their opposers.

The what if scenarios can go on and on and on........fact is there is no problem at all for females to volunteer for military service. Plenty have died in wartime. If they so choose to qualify for combat training and pass, why shouldnt they be allowed to fight? I say a lot of it has to do with the insecurity of males. If a female passes the same combat tests as males, next thing you know we will have the guys start clamoring to raise the qualifications because they obviously cant be hard enough if a female can pass.

My opinion is that The crux of the issue is much more ingrained and complicated than any one of the issues posed in this thread. Its a combination of all these issues and many many more.

SDA1C

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Atrocities will occur in any war, whether they are military against military, military against civilian or civilian against military.

Agreed. Atrocities similar to those that brought the parents out to collect their kids not send them KNOWINGLY into harms way. There is nothing we can do to stop these activities by those that have no respect for human compassion. But we do not have to provide fodder for their exploits.



But we wouldn't be putting women in harms way intentionally, that would only occur with a draft. In the proposed scenario, qualified women would be volunteering for combat positions.

It has nothing to do with volunteering for combat. I am sure they are willing and just as brave if not moreso in many cases. It has to do with the effectiveness of the soldier based on weight and strength of the individual. I would love to see evidence that a woman is pound for pound is as strong as a man. If that's the case I will retract everything I have said. But it won't be....



An enemy combatant should feel no more welcoming when faced with an armed and trained female soldier than a criminal should feel when faced with an armed and trained female police officer. The only area where an enemy combatant might feel confident is in the area of hand to hand combat...and how often does that occur?

My analogy was based on whether or not the enemy (i.e. Tali Ban) would rather fight a woman or a man to the death. That one is kind of answers itself. How often does that occur? Um... as soon as you put her in that position. You know, the position right next to the men fighting hand to hand. It must happen often enough to need support in the infantry or we wouldn't have even considered it. I would have expected this in a maritime situation but in the middle of conflict? What is the true reason for this action? 270 years roughly and then this politician, on his way out no less, throws this on the desk? Gotta wonder why. Not hearing a word of this until it is shoved into law seems loathsome and underhanded to me.



I call it a knee jerk reaction and not losing our minds. After the initial furor, people, who are not directly affected, typically calm down an look at the situation more rationally. There would be less of a knee jerk reaction if the ratings-driven media and politicians did not use such tragedies for selfish purposes.

Spot on my friend! The media and is convergence with government operation is the true enemy of the state!

Holy Moly! I have some reading to do lol.

SDA1C

Nhpm510 wrote: »

If it doesn't increase military effectiveness, it should not be done.
It is not about PC, it is about killing and wounding as many of the enemy (other humans) as possible and saving your own troops.

Plus 1 million!

tonyb

shawn474 wrote: »

"The sky is falling"' types push the same political agendas as they claim of their opposers. .

Shawn my good man, nobody is saying "the sky is falling", thats rediculous. Having civil debate is good even though not everyone will agree. History is a great teacher and requires one to study it so as not to make the great mistakes of the past while at the same time trying to inch society ahead in a possitive way. Knee jerk reactions based solely on emotion is no way to construct policy. If thats an agenda to you, so be it.

The gun thread was more of a constitutional issue and the meaning of the 2nd amendment. This thread is more so about us as a society, the differences between a man and a woman, and how that can or should be incorporated into the military.

I guess if you want to talk agendas, everyone has one don't they ? Government for sure pushes certain agendas which may or may not coinside with what the people want. Special interest groups have agendas, lobbyist, who also push their own agenda. Corporations, Hollywood, racial agendas, Environment,Homeowners,****, straight, religous, even animals have groups with agendas. Everyone is looking out for their own interest, yes ? Some more relevant than others to the masses, yes ? In my view, the problem comes in when these agendas start to erode constitutional rights, individual rights, granted to us along time ago. Is that not a fair arguement worthy of discussion ?

tonyb

SDA1C wrote: »

Plus 1 million!

add a few million here. Kinda put it in a nutshell. You could have saved us alot of typing by posting earlier.:cheesygrin:

SDA1C

What Tonyb said Nhpm510...where you been?:cheesygrin:

George Grand

tonyb wrote: »

Shawn my good man, "the sky is falling", Knee jerk reactions based solely on emotion is no way to construct policy. If thats an agenda to you, so be it.

There is nobody here to blame except the OP, who pulls this emotional crap all the time. If I thought for one moment that this "subject" has any impact on him personally, I might feel differently. But it's the same old whining just for the sake of whining.

Let him go protest it live and in person somewhere so some woman kicks his ****.

tonyb

GG,
I hear ya, but I believe I asked earlier in this thread if this subject really means 2 hoots to anyone aside from those already in the military. I got zip in response.

Call me curious, but I am kinda looking forward to what a military issued battle bra would look like. Bullet proof....maybe with built in flame throwers, who knows.:biggrin:

cnh

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

cnh

tonyb

Man, CNH....I hate that song.

mrbigbluelight

tonyb wrote: »

Call me curious, but I am kinda looking forward to what a military issued battle bra would look like. Bullet proof....maybe with built in flame throwers, who knows.:biggrin:

Tony, Tony, Tony. :rolleyes: Now, I have the utmost confidence that you make that statement in jest, but it sadly does represent the way some folks honestly feel.
To which I say: What sort of body armor do police women wear ? Do they have to wear "armored bras" ?
Do men have to wear armored jockstraps ?
Could a case be made that the female anatomy is actually advantageous in regards to surviving a high-powered round to the upper chest (assuming use of body armor) ?
Even when the armor plate completely stops a round, kinetic energy is delivered behind the plate, bruising flesh behind it. Under the right conditions, the kinetic energy may be sufficient to cause heart trauma.
Wouldn't it seem that a soldier with more natural padding (****) be able to better withstand this shock ?
Theoretically, I'd propose the answer is "Yes".

But that's absolutely besides the point.
As is the argument, IMO, regarding the "Well, what about those 'special days' ?".
They can either put a cork in it, a patch on it, toss their skivvies more often, and then move on.
Tampons/Kotex are excellent for battlefield dressing, btw.

But that's beside the point, too.
The point is, IMO: if you've made an informed decision that you're wanting to join a unit/branch that requires extreme mental and physical toughness, and are willing to try and honorably pass or fail, then my hat's off to your, brother OR sister.
Go for it.

George Grand

tonyb wrote: »

GG,
Call me curious, but I am kinda looking forward to what a military issued battle bra would look like. Bullet proof....maybe with built in flame throwers, who knows.:biggrin:

You wouldn't be the least bit curious if you asked that of some of the woman I have worked with in and out of uniform. They'd beat you senseless with that bra. Then your intestinal system would become totally familiar with it and you wouldn't have any more questions about it.

Then the worst part is afterwards when they're standing around with the guys having a beer and laughing about it.

DarqueKnight

nooshinjohn wrote: »

In my platoon MCRD San Diego, about 20% of us had guaranteed MOS enlistments. After boot is just about over, we gathered around our senior drill instructor as he told us what our "jobs"were going to be... Almost all were told 0311!!! You are gonna be a @&$)in' GRUNT! HoooRAAA!

Point being that yes, the military is a volunteer service, but your MOS is up to Uncle Sam.

Uncle Sam is just like any other employer with regard to "guaranteed" job assignments: the "guarantee" is CONDITIONAL depending on the employee's job performance and business conditions. Tenured teachers have "guaranteed" employment, but they can lose their jobs due to a school consolidation, poor performance, criminal behavior, immoral behavior or budget cuts. I would think that the "guaranteed" MOS enlistees who were reassigned to other military occupations near the end of boot camp were re-evaluated after Uncle Sam got to know them a little better. The same thing happens in the private sector: a person is hired for a "guaranteed" job at a certain rate of pay, then after some time it becomes apparent that the person can't perform at the level required of the job and they have to be reassigned...or dismissed. This frequently happens with corporate CEO's and politicians.

nooshinjohn wrote: »

If they pick seemingly at random as they chose which men became grunts, logic dictates that standards will need to be reduced or there will be one hell of a drop rate during training.

You must know that drill instructors are trained to evaluate enlistee attitudes, aptitude and potential. They have to generate frequent written reports of the performance and development of each enlistee under their training. I can't imagine that DI's are shoehorning enlistees into grunt positions at random. Even if that were the case, I would expect word to get around about the "bait and switch" tactics and that recruiting efforts would be compromised.

pepster wrote: »

I thought this was interesting and a little re-assuring considering we are #2 in military strength.

US military age:
71,941,969 females, age 18-49.
73,270,043 males, age 18-49
About 145 Million.

About 3 million (active and reserve) total for the US Armed Forces

China (Peoples Liberation Army) #1

military service age:
385,821,101 males, age 16-49
363,789,674 females, age 16-49

Waaaaaaaaaaaaayy! over 700 MILLION!

But only 3.1 million (active and reserve)!:eek:
With 1.4 million deployed to other countries.
About 4.6 million total.

I prefer to go by who has the most nukes and who can deploy such nukes with the greatest speed and accuracy. In that regard, the US is #1 by far.

Actually, the Chinese would prefer to subjugate us economically rather than militarily.

SDA1C wrote: »

It has to do with the effectiveness of the soldier based on weight and strength of the individual. I would love to see evidence that a woman is pound for pound is as strong as a man. If that's the case I will retract everything I have said. But it won't be....

No one with any sense would argue that a typical woman can compete with a typical man in the weight, strength and endurance category. That is why women don't compete against men in athletic competitions. There are very few females that can meet the military's physical requirements for walking long distances while carrying a heavy load of food, weapons and supplies, but there are some who can do it. Of those very few women who meet the physical requirements, very few of those would actually choose a front line combat position. However, if a woman is qualified or qualifiable and if they want to serve in that capacity they should be allowed. I believe in giving people a fair shot at any job they are qualified, or qualifiable, to hold.

George Grand

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Actually, the Chinese would prefer to subjugate us economically rather than militarily.

They're going to beat out asses with our own pocketbooks.

SDA1C

DarqueKnight wrote: »

No one with any sense would argue that a typical woman can compete with a typical man in the weight, strength and endurance category. That is why women don't compete against men in athletic competitions. There are very few females that can meet the military's physical requirements for walking long distances while carrying a heavy load of food, weapons and supplies, but there are some who can do it. Of those very few women who meet the physical requirements, very few of those would actually choose a front line combat position. However, if a woman is qualified or qualifiable and if they want to serve in that capacity they should be allowed. I believe in giving people a fair shot at any job they are qualified, or qualifiable, to hold.

And yet with all of this understanding of athletic competition and the inequalities in such a genre, which is what combat is all about, we are still willing to send them in and expect equal results. Aren't the examples of WMBA and Olympic games segregated by sex no be a clear indicator that women cannot compete effectively with men? Will there be one in a thousand that can? Sure. Is it worth the loss of those that cannot to find that one? Not to me. But I am not a women that feels the need to prove something. Those that want to send their daughters to war-more power to you. I''m with Cfriz on this front though.

I also know many welders...most certified (qualified if you will). Doesn't mean they know their electrode from a flux bucket. Qualified by a government official and competent are two entirely different things. Beating this bush has come to and end for me. I have enjoyed the spar. Thanks Folks!

BlueFox

Didn't we just through all this with **** in the military? Deja vu all over again.

scottyboy76

Something just occured to me, this will be less and less a factor in the future, as technology supplants soldiers.

Our president seems to be doing a pretty good job with drone strikes to take out some pretty heavy hitters in al qaeda.

Hardly a peep because of political correctness, others would have been crucified, but i will take it, as long as justice is delivered to those who deserve it.

heres hoping we continue to take care of more of our own energy needs, allowing us to mind our knitting, and let others do the same.

DarqueKnight

SDA1C wrote: »

And yet with all of this understanding of athletic competition and the inequalities in such a genre, which is what combat is all about, we are still willing to send them in and expect equal results. Aren't the examples of WMBA and Olympic games segregated by sex no be a clear indicator that women cannot compete effectively with men?

No. Athletic competitions are primarily one human body against another, without the equalizing effects of equipment.

Military units go to great lengths to avoid close quarters hand-to-hand combat because the winner of such contests often ends up seriously injured. A man would only have an advantage over a woman in a fist fight or knife fight. Once the fight involves guns and other projectile type weapons, the winner depends on who can shoot faster and with greater accuracy. To my knowledge, a man's superior strength and endurance would provide no advantage in projectile based warfare. As I said before, battles are won primarily with superior strategy, superior equipment, and superior field position.

While we are on the subject of size, strength and endurance, let's revisit the Vietnam war. The average Vietcong soldier was much smaller and physically weaker than the typical American soldier, yet they certainly gave us a run for our money didn't they? In fact, they fought us to a stalemate. Any American soldier who went to Vietnam with a superior attitude due to those "female-sized" Vietcong soldiers quickly received an attitude adjustment.

SDA1C wrote: »

But I am not a women that feels the need to prove something.

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to prove something, as long as you prove it by honest means. It is good to seek appropriate challenges. Lots of men sign up for military traing and service to prove to themselves, and others, that they are strong enough to endure it and master it.

DarqueKnight

scottyboy76 wrote: »

Something just occured to me, this will be less and less a factor in the future, as technology supplants soldiers.

Sure. That was the point I made earlier:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Aren't battles won with superior fire power, superior strategy and superior position? If a group of well trained and well armed women have superior fire power, superior strategy and superior position on the field, how could they be taken advantage of?

tonyb

scottyboy76 wrote: »

Something just occured to me, this will be less and less a factor in the future, as technology supplants soldiers.

Our president seems to be doing a pretty good job with drone strikes to take out some pretty heavy hitters in al qaeda.

Hardly a peep because of political correctness, others would have been crucified, but i will take it, as long as justice is delivered to those who deserve it.
heres hoping we continue to take care of more of our own energy needs, allowing us to mind our knitting, and let others do the same.

Interesting....your advocating the absense of due process ? Violation of air space ring a bell ? Granted, war scenarios vary along with targets, and drones have their place in all this, but how about drones on private citizens ? Or killing citizens without due process ? Sending drones into other countries air space without permission ? Gets kinda sticky eh ? It would be one thing if war was declared, but it hasn't been.

Would love to take care of our own energy needs, too bad we have an administration who doesn't see it that way. Energy needs to come from a variety of sources, not just those that fit into someones ideals. Oil and coal need to be part of the bigger picture of independence of foreign influence but no help from government in that direction. I think we all want the same things but differ on how to get them.

George Grand

It doesn't bother me at all that a woman isn't flying one of those drones.

Or maybe there is.

I think it's much more fascinating that a stone geek, someone who can't hit or catch a softball worth a damn, can "fly" a drone. Or the real thing for that matter. Someone with no real physical coordination or athletic ability.

tonyb

You just need to be good at Play station I guess.