Women on the front lines??
Replies
-
YES obviously woman would get tortured and beat and abused WAY more than a man...
You know men can be tortured too, right? Women don't have a monopoly on pain and suffering.0 -
True... Hearsay/experience is not always truth. This is my opinion. Also, I'm from the south... and the guys/people around me are pretty traditional/protective.
I think that sometimes us, ladies have a quick-kneejerk-freakout-response to things like this. I wouldn't say that I agree with the OP's approach... or even with everything that she's said... but I think we can discuss it without getting nasty (not that you were) or without putting down guys. I hate when women try to prove they are strong by "outdoing" or putting down men. When men do that to us, we call them jerks.
I cannot leave it alone.
A soldier is soldier whether from the South or elsewhere. They know their duties whether male or female. End of story.
As an aside...I have never called a man who excels my skills in anything a jerk.0 -
So I heard this morning on the radio that the US Military is now going to allow women on the front lines. I am all for the gender equality bit in business. For example, I do the same job as a guy but he gets paid considerably more isn't right. Equal pay for equal work is how I feel. But there are just certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis. I also think that worse things will happen to a woman if she were ever captured than would a man. How do you feel about the new ruling?
First, those women in the military could probably kick your *kitten* so I wouldn't necessarily question the physical toughness of them (not that you were, but I'm sure some are questioning it). I do think worse things will happen for them than a man should they are captured though. What's amazing and makes them and anyone else in the military is that they aren't doing it against their will. They joined by their own will and being on the front lines is a possibility with the job. They are incredibly brave to do so that is why they (all people in the military) are truly heros. They do what I do not have the balls to do.0 -
My wife isn't in the military but i am twice her size and she can inflict horrendous physical and emotional damage on me - given military training on top of this? S#it i know who i'm following into combat :laugh:0
-
Men and women will never be the same, but that is different from being equal. Since my husband joined the military i have met some amazing women just as dedicated and brave as the men they serve with. If the desire to serve on the front lines is there, if the same amount of dedication and devotion has been given, if they can pass their physical exams and PT evals, they should be treated as equals.0
-
Who was Voldemort's best fighter? Bellatrix Lestrange. Ain't no one stopped to help that *****.
Checkmate.
I laughed so hard!0 -
True... Hearsay/experience is not always truth. This is my opinion. Also, I'm from the south... and the guys/people around me are pretty traditional/protective.
I think that sometimes us, ladies have a quick-kneejerk-freakout-response to things like this. I wouldn't say that I agree with the OP's approach... or even with everything that she's said... but I think we can discuss it without getting nasty (not that you were) or without putting down guys. I hate when women try to prove they are strong by "outdoing" or putting down men. When men do that to us, we call them jerks.
I cannot leave it alone.
A soldier is soldier whether from the South or elsewhere. They know their duties whether male or female. End of story.
As an aside...I have never called a man who excels my skills in anything a jerk.
"I'm from the south... and the guys/people around me "...."around me" .....not sure what you missed there. And I didn't say anything about duties.....
"As an aside...I have never called a man who excels my skills in anything a jerk"...... thats not what I said. I'm talking about when women bash on men to make themselves look stronger.0 -
Just a bit of background, I used to be an infantryman (11b) in the US Army.
To me, lifting these restrictions also means that there needs to be a reform in the standards for strength and fitness.
There shouldn't be strong enough/fast enough for a male, or strong enough/fast enough for a female, it should just be strong enough and fast enough.
Mental fortitude isn't a male trait, and you don't really know the mettle of a person until they're under fire or in a similar situation.
Some may take offense to this, but Basic Training doesn't really get you ready for much... that's your unit's job.
That said, I don't think that the US Military is prepared culturally for full gender integration at the line unit level.
Currently the provision still restricts placement of women to the battalion level, meaning philosophically anyway, they will be "away from the fight" still. (take that for what it's worth, I define the line as those that go looking for trouble vs those that get hit by trouble... getting hit by an ambush, vs. setting an ambush)
If line unit level gender integration is forced too quickly though, generally speaking you can expect the following:
There will be special treatment, and they will not be treated as equals.
There will be hazing/assaults.
There will be alienation.
There will be few success stories.
There will be resentment.
There will be trust issues.
The last one is really the sticking point for me. A female soldier may be strong enough, fast enough, and capable enough, but if her battle buddies don't trust her, be it a reason she can help or not, that's going to cause problems beyond the wire. Argue all you want about how they should be treated equally; the reality of it is they won't, trust won't exist and that will get people killed.
The trust thing, I'm not arguing the point that ideally, everyone should have a fair shot... I'm talking about the reality of what would happen. Right or wrong... that's what's going to happen.
that's all.0 -
Just a bit of background, I used to be an infantryman (11b) in the US Army.
To me, lifting these restrictions also means that there needs to be a reform in the standards for strength and fitness.
There shouldn't be strong enough/fast enough for a male, or strong enough/fast enough for a female, it should just be strong enough and fast enough.
Mental fortitude isn't a male trait, and you don't really know the mettle of a person until they're under fire or in a similar situation.
Some may take offense to this, but Basic Training doesn't really get you ready for much... that's your unit's job.
That said, I don't think that the US Military is prepared culturally for full gender integration at the line unit level.
Currently the provision still restricts placement of women to the battalion level, meaning philosophically anyway, they will be "away from the fight" still. (take that for what it's worth, I define the line as those that go looking for trouble vs those that get hit by trouble... getting hit by an ambush, vs. setting an ambush)
If line unit level gender integration is forced too quickly though, generally speaking you can expect the following:
There will be special treatment, and they will not be treated as equals.
There will be hazing/assaults.
There will be alienation.
There will be few success stories.
There will be resentment.
There will be trust issues.
The last one is really the sticking point for me. A female soldier may be strong enough, fast enough, and capable enough, but if her battle buddies don't trust her, be it a reason she can help or not, that's going to cause problems beyond the wire. Argue all you want about how they should be treated equally; the reality of it is they won't, trust won't exist and that will get people killed.
The trust thing, I'm not arguing the point that ideally, everyone should have a fair shot... I'm talking about the reality of what would happen. Right or wrong... that's what's going to happen.
that's all.
So would you say the problem with female intergration in the military is more of a problem with male persception and prejudice than an issue with the physical capabilities of a woman?0 -
Hate to argue with this who feel this is actually some sort of "great leap forward", but anyone who serves (or at least has their priorities straight) understands that it is about "the mission", not "gender equality". Is this an issue of "necessity" or "opportunity"? Even IF the latter is the right call (which I don't personally support), will this imply a potential expectation among female troops that "because I served in combat I DESERVE that promotion!" and, by extension "my lack of advancement is STILL based on my gender!". I know this probably sounds overly simplistic, but it stands to reason that some will take the "opportunity" notion too far to heart. Just because a male officer (or enlisted service member) serves in combat doesn't imply they are going to be promoted, and I believe this change for women must be tempered by the reality that "open doors" in the military doesn't guarentee success/upward mobility. PLENTY of qualified folks DON'T promote….that’s just the nature of the game. Liberals can/will slam me for being old fashioned, but after 16+ years of service I'd like to think I know a thing or two from personal experience.0
-
Works for me.0
-
As for whether I think women should be in combat now (with our current volunteer-only enlistment,) I think that discussion should be restricted to people who are actually in the military. They have skin in the game. As civilians, the rest of us don't, really.
Agree 110%!!0 -
If a woman wants to serve in combat, then let her serve. We have an all volunteer force for a reason these days. Those who serve WANT to be there.
This.0 -
Women on the front lines?? NO
Men on the front lines?? NO
Bombs & Missiles?? YES0 -
As for whether I think women should be in combat now (with our current volunteer-only enlistment,) I think that discussion should be restricted to people who are actually in the military. They have skin in the game. As civilians, the rest of us don't, really.
Agree 110%!!
Completely agree. Too many a time have I heard civilians tell myself and my husband their take on things and basically tell us to our face we are wrong when it comes to the military. We've lived in these uniforms...0 -
If they think women aren't already out there sending rounds down range they are ignorant. I've had multiple friends who were shot and blown up. All my female friends left the wire and engaged in combat. It doesn't mean that's the job they signed up to do. There are plenty of women I served with that I would never want beside me when **** hit the fan (and some men too). Some people in general can't stand up to that kind of stress and some function very well under that kind of stress.
Ditto...as a former Marine, I most definitely concur.
One thing I always worried about when this subject would come up was that in my prime, I was 175Lbs of pretty much LBM...If I went down, would she be able to get me out? That was really my only concern; other than that, I knew some pretty awesome WMs.
Once a Marine always a Marine! :P I could haul you out no problem. That's part of the combat fit test we go through annually now. I would have no problem hauling you and 40 pounds of gear. :drinker:
Thanks Devil Dog!0 -
Women on the front lines?? NO
Men on the front lines?? NO
Bombs & Missiles?? YES
I was going to give my opinion and probably lose friends over it, until I read this...AGREED 100%!!!!!!0 -
I am going to be honest here...
I'm fine with it. It does not bother me at all. If the said woman can do everything that a guy can do while on the front lines than so be it.
I use to be a cart pusher at walmart..The amount of black clash I got from doing that was...something.
If the person, either gender, can take that stress than yes, it's fine. I don't think it comes down to Gender, I think it comes down to personailty.0 -
The Isreal army already tried this and it failed miserably. Men were not emotionally equipped when they saw women blown up or mortally wounded in combat and it made them less effective as soldiers. I believe woman can handle combat, but the ingrained nature of a man being a protector for woman could be a detriment to the mission.
My ex-Marine boyfriend said the same thing when we discussed this issue.0 -
I am in the Coast Guard. Women have been able to do the same job as the men since the 1970s. Woman can be boarding team members, helo pilots, rescue swimmers, everything. It is a good thing. If a woman goes into training and can't hack it then she can't hack it, but that doesn't mean some other woman can't come behind her and blow the men out of the water.
Sure men tend to have more strength then women, but women tend to be more agile and more flexible. I don't understand why our country has no problem sending a women into a shoot out as a police officer on our own turf, but cringes at the idea of sending them into combat. It is a double standard if you ask me.0 -
Just a bit of background, I used to be an infantryman (11b) in the US Army.
To me, lifting these restrictions also means that there needs to be a reform in the standards for strength and fitness.
There shouldn't be strong enough/fast enough for a male, or strong enough/fast enough for a female, it should just be strong enough and fast enough.
Mental fortitude isn't a male trait, and you don't really know the mettle of a person until they're under fire or in a similar situation.
Some may take offense to this, but Basic Training doesn't really get you ready for much... that's your unit's job.
That said, I don't think that the US Military is prepared culturally for full gender integration at the line unit level.
Currently the provision still restricts placement of women to the battalion level, meaning philosophically anyway, they will be "away from the fight" still. (take that for what it's worth, I define the line as those that go looking for trouble vs those that get hit by trouble... getting hit by an ambush, vs. setting an ambush)
If line unit level gender integration is forced too quickly though, generally speaking you can expect the following:
There will be special treatment, and they will not be treated as equals.
There will be hazing/assaults.
There will be alienation.
There will be few success stories.
There will be resentment.
There will be trust issues.
The last one is really the sticking point for me. A female soldier may be strong enough, fast enough, and capable enough, but if her battle buddies don't trust her, be it a reason she can help or not, that's going to cause problems beyond the wire. Argue all you want about how they should be treated equally; the reality of it is they won't, trust won't exist and that will get people killed.
The trust thing, I'm not arguing the point that ideally, everyone should have a fair shot... I'm talking about the reality of what would happen. Right or wrong... that's what's going to happen.
that's all.
If they were able to train all armed services when the termination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" then they can train the services to accept women in combat.0 -
Women on the front lines?? NO
Men on the front lines?? NO
Bombs & Missiles?? YES
I was going to give my opinion and probably lose friends over it, until I read this...AGREED 100%!!!!!!
It was going to be my original response earlier this afternoon. I am in a F it type of mood so I decided to no longer hold back.0 -
If they were able to train all armed services when the termination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" then they can train the services to accept women in combat.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion (re: DADT repeal) in such a hurry. Let's just say it is a "work in progress", for better or for worse.....and I don't think the consensus is nearly as clear-cut as you would believe. That's not a knock, it's simply the truth....0 -
As a female ex Canadian RCAF I will put in my "two cents", but I'll keep it short and simple.
Females on the front line are a reality here, I have seen it. Unfortunately, I have to agree on the statement that when a woman is front line, men are more susceptible to step in the help the female if injured/in need of help/etc and then they all become a liability. Women on the other hand have a fight to the death mentality and will not hesitate to fire first ask questions later in a matter of speaking.
I also believe in evals being EQUAL no matter the sex/age. I busted my *kitten* on my FIT test and my express test to make sure I made the male equivalent. I did not HAVE to but I did it to prove I could, mostly to myself. I find it basically comes down to an emotional debate. And that debate will NEVER end...0 -
I am quite curious precisely what you feel are "certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis"?
Do I feel all women are equipped to do the things required of combat. Well no, but I don't think all men are equipped to do what is required on front lines either. And neither does the military, not all men are put in the front lines. Historically they just haven't been prevented from even trying to attain those goals.
What I don't agree with is giving women completely separate fit eval goals. I know last year the marines asked for women to try, two signed up and they did not pass the requirements. But that is ok. Their fitness was apparently evaluated based on the same standards as the men. That is the right way to do it. Not all men can pass those requirements, many women will not be able to either. But should a woman pass those requirements, why should she be stopped from attaining a combat position?
I agree ^^ I went through Infantry Officers Course for the Marines over a decade ago, and my class started with over 40 men...we lost 4 on day one due to broken bones and other injuries. By the end of the class we had 26, nearly a 50% attrition rate. The infantry and especially the infantry officer isnt for everyone, but if you can pass the course, then good for you.
To clarify though, the women on the front lines still wont put the women in the infantry, it will put them in supporting roles in infantry battalions. This does get them a lot closer to the dirty nasty, but it isnt being a Plt or Company Commander which is a completely different thing altogether.0 -
Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned. We are generally more vicious than men, are more likely to kill another based on principal, less likely to care if we hurt someone who is a threat. I am all for it. If a woman chooses to be that bada$$, I say let her!
^This. I think some people are made for war, some aren't. Men and women both.
Personally, I think war is stupid, but it's human nature and you can't fix something like that overnight.0 -
I don't want to be "equal"... I believe men and women both have there places in this world and in relationships. I believe men are built to protect. I believe a woman should be protected.0
-
Just a bit of background, I used to be an infantryman (11b) in the US Army.
To me, lifting these restrictions also means that there needs to be a reform in the standards for strength and fitness.
There shouldn't be strong enough/fast enough for a male, or strong enough/fast enough for a female, it should just be strong enough and fast enough.
Mental fortitude isn't a male trait, and you don't really know the mettle of a person until they're under fire or in a similar situation.
Some may take offense to this, but Basic Training doesn't really get you ready for much... that's your unit's job.
That said, I don't think that the US Military is prepared culturally for full gender integration at the line unit level.
Currently the provision still restricts placement of women to the battalion level, meaning philosophically anyway, they will be "away from the fight" still. (take that for what it's worth, I define the line as those that go looking for trouble vs those that get hit by trouble... getting hit by an ambush, vs. setting an ambush)
If line unit level gender integration is forced too quickly though, generally speaking you can expect the following:
There will be special treatment, and they will not be treated as equals.
There will be hazing/assaults.
There will be alienation.
There will be few success stories.
There will be resentment.
There will be trust issues.
The last one is really the sticking point for me. A female soldier may be strong enough, fast enough, and capable enough, but if her battle buddies don't trust her, be it a reason she can help or not, that's going to cause problems beyond the wire. Argue all you want about how they should be treated equally; the reality of it is they won't, trust won't exist and that will get people killed.
The trust thing, I'm not arguing the point that ideally, everyone should have a fair shot... I'm talking about the reality of what would happen. Right or wrong... that's what's going to happen.
that's all.
I completely agree with everything you wrote. It's true. I come from a poor family and thought that my only option for college was to go into the Army. My parents forbid me to go, mostly for what you just said.0 -
i support this 100%. as long as they pass the same tests the men do.
any claims of it disrupting morale are just dumb. they said the same thing about blacks and homosexuals. if someone is too prejudiced to accept it then too bad for them.0 -
But there are just certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis.
Like what? Peeing standing up?
Actaully they can pee standing up. A lot of women in the military get issued a device called GoGirl. Check it out!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions