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. sexual assaults are common during deployment
  2. And how would that change if women were just in a different role? It's like b missed the news that women are in the fuckin army anyway, it's not like rapes don't happen, this isn't new, and using that argument to try and exclude females from combat roles is misogynistic and disgusting imo. There are plenty of worthy arguments against women in combat roles, but wishing to take on medieval worldviews where women are seen and not heard and stay home where they're all safe and sound is NOT one of them.
  3. #103 my little brony, Jan 31, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
    Not reading thread, putting in my two bits nonetheless.

    I don't know how it works in other branches, this is speaking strictly from the viewpoint of the USMC:

    As it stands there are different fitness requirements for males and females. Until this year females didn't have to do pullups for the Physical Fitness Test, they did a timed flex-arm hang. They are implementing a pushup requirement but their minimum standards and max scores are lower. Their run times are allowed to be higher (despite the classic thought that women should be faster, for some reason). It's the same for the Combat Fitness Test. Note that in addition to a different standards for sex, there is also a different standard for age. The requirements for a Marine - male or female - age 27 to something is lower than those 18-26 (I might be off one or two years). There's at least one other bracket above that age group and a final one at 46+.

    There is, however, absolutely no difference in PFT/CFT requirements based on MOS. The yearly tests are across the board. For certain "elite" jobs like Force Recon and Scout/Snipers there requirements to get the job and stay in it are higher but only in the sense that you have to score a certain level (1st class) on the very same PFT/CFT that everyone else takes. Force Recon usually requires stronger swimmers but even then the requirements are based off the same swim quals that everyone takes.

    Those are special cases, however. The official physical fitness requirements for an admin clerk or legal aid are identical to the official physical fitness requirements for a rifleman, machine gunner, mortarman, and every other kind of grunt. A 98lb weakling serving in the infantry might be tossed into the admin shop to keep his deficiencies from getting in the way but at long as he's scoring the bare minimum in the PFT/CFT there is no way for the Marine Corps to say "you can't run fast enough for this job, you need to be tranferred to something else". The problem is that if this becomes a common practice with females in the infantry then you're going to have an admin shop full of females complaining that they're not getting a fair shot.

    As for women currently in combat: there is no "front line" and there hasn't been for ten years. Truck drivers and cooks and paper pushers of both sexes have found themselves in firefights because that's how the enemy wants it. There are also Female Engagement Teams/lioness/whatever they call themselves these days that routinely go out on patrols. Some people say they ones they've worked with were shit hot and put the male grunts to shame, some people say they were worse than useless and made it the most dangerous babysitting job in the world.

    If rape is a problem then the problem is the people who would rape. Someone who would do that should not be given a weapon, should not be wearing a uniform, and should not be representing our country to a culture we're trying to get on our side. That being said, it will happen. It already does. They have to show commercials on AFN reminding us not to rape each other. There's a serious problem in that regard but the solution to that is not "don't give the rapists more opportunities" it's "eliminate the rapists".

    There are not nearly as many women capable of meeting the physical requirements as males. There are plenty who can do it, there are plenty of men who can't. There are plenty of chicks that'll out run, out shoot, out ruck, out lead the rest of the pack. But they are less common than the average male who can make the cut. Keep in mind, however, that with the severe draw downs going on they can be far more selective on both fronts. We no longer have to deal with pushing shitbags through boot camp to meet numbers, no need to tolerate fat or stupid turds in the fleet that should have been let go because the op tempo is too rapid to get replacements in time. They can weed them out but they need to raise the standards, they need to ensure that those who are in those jobs are top notch regardless of the style of genitals they came with.

    Regarding the hygiene thing, it can be a problem but in this era you can carry a pack or two of 20 baby wipes. It'll fit in a cargo pocket along with tampons/pads. Not a big deal.

    There's the argument that men won't be able to suppress their instinct to save a woman. It's a stupid argument. Not only are grunts surpressing the most basic and primal instinct any living creature has - self preservation - every single day but plenty of grunts have had to shoot female insurgents or IED mules in the head as necessary to save lives or accomplish the mission. Do people really think that "protect the female" instinct only applies to those of the same nationality? It's the same level of nonsense as when people were saying that it would be too distracting to have a gay dude fighting next to you.

    I don't think our culture is mature enough for a completely unisex military a la starship troopers or BSG, but it will eventually happen. Just like DADT ending eventually happened. It won't hamper our ability to fight. It might cause friction in the short term but ultimately the goal of an equal society is the greater good. We can't claim to be fighting for American values if we refuse to uphold them while fighting.


  4. I notice you wholly avoid the issue of sandwich making though. How convenient.
  5. I think I'm in love :heart:
  6. Did someone say rape?
  7. So are we both here for the gang rape? :hi2u:
  8. Yes, but not the good sort.
  9. There is a bad sort?
  10. Namerape's not always good.
  11. The horror.
  12. #113 b_sinning, Jan 31, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
    I know several ladies in the military. I also have heard them bitch about stuff. Like being treated as outsiders in the boys club that is the military sometimes. I never said anything about women being seen not heard. I said they were probably more than capable. I just don't see a strong enough pro to go through the trouble in our current situation. I said that some of the areas we are currently in see woman culturally different than we do here and we can't just piss them off to feed the ego of a small portion of the military. When the British didn't take cultural differences into account once it lead to one of the largest rebellion uprisings in India. All because some idiot changed the grease type on the cartridges and the natives thought it include pork and cow fat. We're fighting in countries that still do things like stone women they think may have dishonored their own family. To force it insults their culture.

    It's like we could have women play on Football teams in the US but do we really need or want that?
  13. Dude, sometimes you're a little *too* crazy.

    Everyone bitches about their job.
    I'm sure plenty of able bodied men are excluded from certain cliques as well.
    What about declining enlistments? We're running out of poor, inner city kids to sign up.

    Alcohol isn't allowed in a lot of places too, which we honor. You think women are unable to be culturally sensitive?

    No one has to force anything. Women can kill people 'on the front lines' and still be culturally sensitive - just like men.

    Straw man argument. However, if some chick can run for a thousand yard season and juke the Bears defense, hell yes I want her playing for the Bucs.

  14. It's not an issue about a woman's behavior being culturally insensitive. It's some foreign cultures still refuses to see woman as equals to males. It's not their behavior. It's their physical sex. It's the whole White Man's Burden issue redone. Our arrogance in saying everyone should be culturally like us be in religion or woman's rights is causing more problems than we're fixing. It's better off not to force an unwinnable issue.
  15. But would she want to play for the Bucs? Probably not.
  16. #117 b_sinning, Jan 31, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013

    I'm sure there are woman out there that want to play for the bucs and can physically be able to do it. But is it the smartest choice considering the strife it will cause in the locker room and on the field?

    Same way I'm sure a male priest can be a great nun and sleep in a huge room with nuns like rest of the other women. But is it the smartest thing to do?
  17. So who is going to be upset again? The people we're killing? I'm confused.
  18. We're not just killing everyone in the middle east. Some of our allies do not see women as equals. Saudi Arabia for example. Women aren't even allowed to drive there.
  19. Christ... it is like you are trying to be sensitive but learned how from domon.
    Feed the ego of "A small percentage"? Werent you just saying how women you personally know see the military as a good ole boy club? Do you know that part of this is to advance women's careers because it is pretty damned hard to get a Star without combat history in your record?