Register for an adventure

Interested in learning new things that you never actually wanted to know?

Thread So does anyone actually have a problem with women serving in active combat roles?

Discussion in 'useless chatter' started by fly, Jan 25, 2013.

  1. i dont need your pity gravy
     
  2. It's the only gravy available to you.
     
  3. Women should be with the group of people that help the soldiers in different ways like being doctors/nurses ur feeding the soldiers etc
     
  4. I've seen first hand how rough and neandertholish some of these front line guys are. I'm against this until they get rid of the woman's standard for physical testing. Once they have to meet the same criteria then they can do the same jobs. Until then you're running risk of having people in the front and can't cut it and endanger everyone. We can try all we want saying that men and woman are the same but the reality is they are not.
     
  5. TSRH
     
  6. If you wanted anyone fighting for you, I think you'd pick my lesbian fisherman neighbor before you'd pick the skinny motherfucker that's me.

    It's pretty simple how things should be, for military service or any other job. Make a set of requirements that a person has to meet for a job, and if they meet those, let 'em do the job. Having different requirements for men/women, or making the "must be a man/woman" one of the requirements, is dumb.
     
  7. Are we sure they don't right now? If they don't, then I would also be against it.
     
  8. #88 Floptical, Jan 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2013
    No there is a male and female standard for physical fitness. I know as an example on the annual tests it's usually averages about 20 less push ups per minute, anywhere from 1-3 minutes on the running, etc, etc ,etc.
     
  9. Yet that has nothing to do with the standards for ground-pounders? That is the standard to ensure that military members look good in their uniforms (essentially)
     
  10. There are still physical requirements for specific jobs. And while the weight standard has something to do with appearance the rest doesn't.
     
  11. I don't understand what your argument is? Each job can have its own physical requirement, yet the standards across the Army determine what a particular job's requirements are?

    The bullet-sponges have not had women in their ranks ever, therefore they have no division of physical requirements for men V women.



    The physical requirements of the military is so that they can look good in uniform (meaning, they will all be more or less uniform), and so that they can cut dead weight when they need to.

    Edit: is looks weird in that last paragraph
     
  12. So there could be equal requirements for women in active combat roles?
     
  13. One issue we're going to have with putting women in active combat roles is they will be the first target outside of marked officers in combat. You always seek to wound the person you think the rest of the squad will slow down to save or defend. The first thing enemies will do after they capture them is gang rape them. How do you prep soldiers for that?

    Plus a lot of our middle east allies do not accept women as equals in their society. They won't like us telling them they have to treat women equally. We're in their countries and have to respect their cultures somewhat.


    I have no doubt women can do it mentally and in some positions could be possibly be physically better than a guy. But overall adding women to the front lines will weaken the platoons more than strengthen them.
     
  14. None of the points you brought up have anything at all to that last sentence. Literally none of them.
    And your first point is just silly. 1) Someone shooting at a squad is not really going to be able to tell male or female simply because of all the body armor that the soldiers wear. 2) A squad is going to help any wounded member, whether they are female or male.
     
  15. #95 b_sinning, Jan 30, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  16. I can almost guarantee that picture was taken out of context.
     
  17. You don't think about shit, do you?

    Women have not been in combat roles, so these women are not combat soldiers, the article specifically states that they are wearing the hijab when interacting with civilians. Because of that they aren't even wearing fucking their helmet with the rest of the body armor. If you seriously think that any soldier is going to go out into battle without every advantage that they can lay their hands on, you're missing a good portion of your brain

    Fuck, the article states that the helmet is the preferred headgear solely for safety.


    You literally have no cohesive argument against this, do you? It's just some misogynistic thing, isn't it?
     
  18. #98 b_sinning, Jan 30, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
    Where do you think combat happens? Do you really think all of the war over there is people lining up on each side of a battlefield? Most of it is pop up fire fights while around civilians. My best friend just got back from there. Of course if they go on a raid etc they'll have helmets but in general population is another matter.

    Their interaction is limited but you will have religious and social issues with our allies if you have women in their faces. These countries are not female friendly.


    War has broken out over cultural differences like this in the past.


    I have no issues with women at all. I just don't think the pros of them being on the front line out weigh the cons.

    It will be next to impossible to keep them separate but equal in the field long term. How long until woman gi's comeback saying their own squad raped them in the field? Do we force them to have birth control implanted when deployed in combat zones? There is just too many issues to have to deal with to make putting them on the front line sound like a good idea.
     
  19. But you have not made one con that makes sense, so why do you think that?
     
  20. Seriously b, what the flying fuck are you on about?