Women on the front lines??
SemperAnticus1643
Posts: 703 Member
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?
0
Replies
-
Women want to be on the front lines? Fine. Go for it. I just don't want to hear whining about having to leave your kid behind and that you don't have anyone to take care of them while you are gone.... That excuse was quite popular when my dad was in the AF and of course there was that one woman in the Army who was derilict of duty when she "missed the boat" because she didn't have her affairs in order and had someone to take care of her kid... like she should have months prior.
Women have been on battlefields for centuries. I can name quite a few going back to even the Roman expansion and Occupation.0 -
As a female, I don't think women should be able to based on current female fitness standards. If she can pass current male standards, fine- let her at it. There would be serious risk involved for everybody if a female is with a group of men and she can't keep up with them.
Also... periods! How does that work?0 -
Birth control.... There are forms of birth control out there now where you can skip a period for months at a time now.0
-
I guess so... hormonal b/c turns me into a raging b***h so nobody would want to be around me on that kind of pill! I'm sure it works fine for most women though.0
-
I guess so... hormonal b/c turns me into a raging b***h so nobody would want to be around me on that kind of pill! I'm sure it works fine for most women though.
You are exactly the person I want on the front lines.
0 -
I guess so... hormonal b/c turns me into a raging b***h so nobody would want to be around me on that kind of pill! I'm sure it works fine for most women though.
Some hormonal birth control turns me into a hormonal b... But not all...
And to answer the OP's question that they left in the other thread in the main forums... yes, women should have to sign up for selective service. Regardless of whether or not women are allowed on the front lines... there have been many jobs that women could do in the military for quite sometime now.0 -
I guess so... hormonal b/c turns me into a raging b***h so nobody would want to be around me on that kind of pill! I'm sure it works fine for most women though.
You are exactly the person I want on the front lines.
I've never even shot a gun and I doubt I could make it through basic training
0 -
I do think that there are some women that could handle being out there. But I too agree that it would run more of a risk of compromising a mission because men are men...they are generally protectors. We are also in countries that see women as property and not a person. Remember the female student that was gang raped on a bus then raped with a steel rod and left for dead on the side of the road? Or the women that get acid thrown on their faces because they don't agree with who they are being forced to marry?0
-
It has been said in the other thread but I will say it here. Women have been in combat situations in the modern military constantly. This just enables them to apply for roles and receive various promotions that were previously not allowed due to the ban on women in "frontline" units.0
-
I agree with Doorki... even women who are working for AAFES (the BX/PX/Commissary).... My supervisor's wife works for AAFES and was just over in Afghanistan and even she had to worry about combat... albeit indirectly. When my dad was stationed there while in the Air Force, he had to wear a lighter version of combat gear (gun, helmet, bullet proof vest).... and he was personnel, no where near the "action".0
-
I have no knowledge or experience of the military, any branch. So if I am ignorant of something here, please let me know......sincerely.
Before this was an "official" change, our military was all-volunteer, right?
And, now, after this, it still is, right?
When you enter the military, you don't get to pick what you want to be, is that right? (This is the part I'm truly ignorant of.....DO you have a choice? I'm under the impression that they give you an ASVAB and they tell you what you are going to be.)
My immediate thought was to wonder if this was going to have a chilling effect on women enlisting. Before this change, you could enlist as a woman, knowing that your chances of being in immediate danger were slim (again, correct me here, is this true?) Because now, even as a woman, you may be signing up for a higher level of danger now.
Thoughts? Corrections? Information?0 -
Women serve in combat units in other countries armed forces, and it doesn't effect unit readiness or performance. This opens up more job opportunities for women who pursue the Armed Forces as a career.
What is important that we do is put a renewed focus on combating sexual assault in the military. That's where we can make real progress in gender equality.0 -
Women serve in combat units in other countries armed forces, and it doesn't effect unit readiness or performance. This opens up more job opportunities for women who pursue the Armed Forces as a career.
What is important that we do is put a renewed focus on combating sexual assault in the military. That's where we can make real progress in gender equality.
Completely agreed0 -
I have no knowledge or experience of the military, any branch. So if I am ignorant of something here, please let me know......sincerely.
Before this was an "official" change, our military was all-volunteer, right?
And, now, after this, it still is, right?
When you enter the military, you don't get to pick what you want to be, is that right? (This is the part I'm truly ignorant of.....DO you have a choice? I'm under the impression that they give you an ASVAB and they tell you what you are going to be.)
My immediate thought was to wonder if this was going to have a chilling effect on women enlisting. Before this change, you could enlist as a woman, knowing that your chances of being in immediate danger were slim (again, correct me here, is this true?) Because now, even as a woman, you may be signing up for a higher level of danger now.
Thoughts? Corrections? Information?
Once you have your ASVAB score, they tell you what jobs that you qualify to fill. At this point you have signed no contract and are able to still walk right out. The lower your score, the less options available. Based on what you qualify for, what is open and when you would like to join, you pick your career path. There are some positions that don't seem like they would be very dangerous, but in fact really are. There are some positions that sound dangerous that will really keep you pretty far from combat. I was an avionics technician for F-15's. Deployed or not, I wasn't going to be near the front line. Someone in supply could very well end up serving in the middle of a battle situation. It really all depends.0 -
From my friend recriger, who is having technical issues :
It wouldn't let me reply to the thread so i decided to message instead. To answer your question: Yes and no. when you enlist you get to request a "field" not necessarily a "job", most of the time they grant that field request (at their discression based on need of the service) . I chose Aviation when I enlisted, and then they chose what job I got. I ended up working on Infra-red for the F-18. I could just as easily been assigned to refuling helicopters though. But also, "yes", I scored highly on the electronics/math section of the ASVAB. That made it "more likely" to not be refuling and instead I was given an electronics job. If you were to compair to "levels" of difficulty, In my squadron there were around 120 jobs that I would have been qualified for.
Now there is a time that the ASVAB is ignored (to a point). The draft. If the draft was passed thru congress and they start absorbing large numbers into boot camp, it is generally only the dramaically smart that get any choice. When the paperwork for the rest of us is evaluated there won't be enough time to consider each individual. You'll simply be assigned to a job. There was a draft in both WWII and Vietnam. Most infantry units were a mixture of everything from illiterate farm boys, to guys pulled from office jobs with college degrees.
As to the OP's question, I found this article in the Marine Corps Gazette. It is written by a female Marine Captain In command of a unit of combat engineers. They are like the Seabee's of WWII. They build bases and such. So she was front line, but not directly combat related. As in..She carried a gun, but that wasn't the focus of her job. Not a quick read, but well thought out even though the title seems agressive.
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal0 -
If a woman can go through the same combat infantry training as her male counterparts and succeed, she should be able to fill the same role on the frontline.
I can only address the training in the Marine Corps, but I know very few women that could successfully complete that training. And, if they cannot operate at the same level as their male counterparts then they are jeopardizing the safety of everyone around her.
I raised three girls and I am not a chauvinist, but I can say that although I know plenty of women that may be able to shoot as well as I can or strategise as well or better, but I do not personally know of any woman that I would fear in hand-to-hand combat or that could hump the amount of gear that a Combat Marine needs to survive.0 -
I don't really know where I stand on this.
One factor I kept seeing come up was rape. That women in a more....hostile environment, are going to be more prone to rape, either by fellow service members or by the enemy. Any thoughts on that?0 -
If a woman can go through the same combat infantry training as her male counterparts and succeed, she should be able to fill the same role on the frontline.
I can only address the training in the Marine Corps, but I know very few women that could successfully complete that training. And, if they cannot operate at the same level as their male counterparts then they are jeopardizing the safety of everyone around her.
I raised three girls and I am not a chauvinist, but I can say that although I know plenty of women that may be able to shoot as well as I can or strategise as well or better, but I do not personally know of any woman that I would fear in hand-to-hand combat or that could hump the amount of gear that a Combat Marine needs to survive.
I understand it is up to each service to determine how to execute the order. There are plenty of models and examples in the armed forces of other countries as to how women can be integrated into combat units. I don't see this as being that big an issue.0 -
Women serve in combat units in other countries armed forces, and it doesn't effect unit readiness or performance. This opens up more job opportunities for women who pursue the Armed Forces as a career.
What is important that we do is put a renewed focus on combating sexual assault in the military. That's where we can make real progress in gender equality.
I listened to an interview with a Reserve Marine Captain, Zoe Bedell, who joined a lawsuit against the US government on this issue. She made two points: 1) that even in "non-combat" positions, female soldiers often found themselves in combat situations, so the distinction was increasingly moot; 2) not being in "official" combat positions severely limited career advancement for females in the military.0 -
I believe that if a woman wants to go on the front line [I never would but that's just me personally] then she should be allowed. I understand what you're saying about worse things happening to women compared to men, but I think as long as you know the risks your taking. Women can do just as well on the front line as men and I don't think we should be constantly protecting women from doing what they want to do.0
-
As it was said...if they can do the same PT standards and marksmanship as the male standard, fine by me. Although they may want to ease into this with female combat platoons or squads first before full integration. The common debate is also based on a false dichotomy of comparing a guy who looks like rambo to your sweet grandmother. If you have ever seen what an average soldier, Marine, or any other service member looks like in real life, it is a far cry from what hollywood portays. They are regular people with discipline and an extreme workout regiment. I dare say I know quite a few women who could have been in a combat arms MOS. Physically, could they ever be SF or a Navy Seal? Maybe...but it will be extremely rare. But could a larger percentage of women meet the minimum requirement expected of an infantry grunt or Marine,..sure.
As far as feminine hygeine goes.....we currently have robots on mars looking at martian soil....I am sure we can figure out how to stop a leak.
Rape. Already rules against that for our troops. As far as a fear of being raped by the enemy.....is that worse or better than getting your head sawed off with a rusty knife? Give me a choice between being raped, water boarded, electrocuted, burned, stabbed, drowned, beaten, cut, or just plain ole killed.....I'll pick taking it up the poop chute...but that's just me. I am not minimizing rape, but I don't think this is the worst thing for female fighters to worry about.0 -
I believe that if a woman wants to go on the front line [I never would but that's just me personally] then she should be allowed. I understand what you're saying about worse things happening to women compared to men, but I think as long as you know the risks your taking. Women can do just as well on the front line as men and I don't think we should be constantly protecting women from doing what they want to do.
I don't think this is a question of whether someone "wants to go on the front line" or not. The question is whether they are capable of it or not. If a person is not able to carry their own weight, they are jeopardizing those around them.0 -
Rape. Already rules against that for our troops. As far as a fear of being raped by the enemy.....is that worse or better than getting your head sawed off with a rusty knife? Give me a choice between being raped, water boarded, electrocuted, burned, stabbed, drowned, beaten, cut, or just plain ole killed.....I'll pick taking it up the poop chute...but that's just me. I am not minimizing rape, but I don't think this is the worst thing for female fighters to worry about.
I agree with the second part, rape would be the least of my worries after being captured by the enemy but I don't think that I have to argue the first part. Rules against rape when it comes to our troops don't mean that it doesn't happen...0 -
If the women can pass the same standards as men, then they should be able to go into combat. all these years women have been fighting for equal rights. this is all part of the package. As long as they can perform as well as a man in the job they are assigned, then go for it. The abuse a woman can suffer if captured by the enemy is no worse than what a man can suffer. There are all kinds of tortures and that is where training etc... takes over.
For many years women were not allowed to be pilots or mechanics and I know many that are in that field in the service now. They are some of the best out there.
Many other countires allow women in combat positions and there are many historical women that were soldiers.0 -
I don't really know where I stand on this.
One factor I kept seeing come up was rape. That women in a more....hostile environment, are going to be more prone to rape, either by fellow service members or by the enemy. Any thoughts on that?
Women get raped in Officer Candidate School here in the US. If we put women, that should be required to pass the same test as a man, on the front lines there will not be many women out there. Now throw in the fact that the ratio of men to women would be what? 1 woman for every 50 or so men? Out in the field for how long? Tours last up to a year. The longer she is out there the more her chances are of getting raped by being the only woman out there with several men. That being the men that are supposed to be working by her side. Also keep in mind that we are in countries that see women as property and not a human being. Remember those women that get acid thrown in their faces or gang raped on public buses and sodomized then left for dead on the side of the road? Those women are citizens of their own countries.0 -
i think women should kick some *kitten*.0
-
GI Jane was a great movie. I don't know jack about being in the military. Just from what my relatives tell me, some can pull their weight, most can't. My brother in law who's a Marine Staff Sgt based in Quanaco VA, says it's a porblem when they get bad cramps during exercise drills. But for the most part, he doesn't see an issue at all. If you can hang, why not. Women want to be treated fairly, by all means.0
-
Stop bringing up rape. It's not a reason to not allow women. Frankly I think the men here should be pretty damn insulted that you think they are such animals that they not only can't control themselves but they are low life criminals on top of it. Rape will happen. It will happen if women are allowed on the front lines. It will happen if they are on a base stateside. It will happen if they are 80 years old. It will happen if they live in the city. But are you going to say that women shouldn't be allowed downtown because they might get raped? Of course not! That would be assinine.
If a woman can meet the same standards then she should be allowed. Even then, the standards are staggered based on height and weight. A 6'4" 250 built like a rock guy and a 5'4" 120 lbs guy can both serve on the front lines. They don't have to meet the exact same standards. The little guy could never carry the big guy to safety. But I've never heard anyone say that combat roles should only be manned by men over 6' tall. Suddenly though when you're talking about a 5'4" 120 woman it seems to become a big deal that she won't be able to help that big guy to safety.
Also, women are aready in combat. They may not have actually served on the front lines at their MOS but that doesn't mean they were never in a position to kill someone or be in danger. Tammy Duckworth didn't lose her legs in a sewing accident FFS.0 -
It's fine as long as there is no draft for either gender. Of course women will have to register for selective service next, that is where this will lead.0
-
If a female soldier is equally as capable as her male equivalent, I can see no just reason to prevent her from serving in the frontline position her abilities make her eligible for, should she wish to do so.0
