I am confused, what exactly does "In Combat" mean. I know a few different men that are in Afganistan. None of them are huge over the top men. A friend of DH's just died a few months ago in Afghanistan. He was not a very big man or stronger than average (more on the small side), but was obviously on the front lines.
I also can't figure out how you can come to the conclusion that we need to protect women from serving in combat because of the potential danger of rape but do not think the same restrictions would apply to owning a gun. Anyone can own a gun no matter what but a woman who meets the critera and has the want to do this job shouldn't because the have the potential to be raped? Why is it that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but with rape it is "well you shouldn't have been there, rapists don't just rape...unless they have a reason to" because as you noted previously...US soldiers just sometimes lose it and rape.
But I agree that there is some faulty logic behind the soldier rape question.
It's like saying "under the duress of being a soldier, sometimes a soldier will rape their colleague so to remedy that, we should ban the potential female victim." Instead of insisting that soldiers should not rape their colleagues.
I am unsure about gender-norming being a bad thing when it doesn't have a direct impact on the job at hand. But, if it does decrease the effectiveness, then it is a bad thing and should not happen. But it sounds like everyone agrees that a soldier - regardless of gender should meet Physical standards for their job.
eta- Jessica- I don't know if it's going to happen; I pray it doesn't. The standards for the jobs we hold now are soooo much lower than the standards for the Special Forces. Like Melissa was saying, the standards are pretty cake for being active duty. If they lower the standards for the Special Forces to meet a female quota, it will negatively impact their mission which will ultimately impact our entire world. We can't have a weak link when it comes to those people. There is no way they can do two people's jobs and keep track of that second person. In the real military, you can pick up the slack and let things suffer for a while until the other person gets their **** together. Special Forces jobs don't allow for that.
The Combat Controller pipeline has a wash out rate upwards of 80-85%, mostly due to self eliminations and injuries sustained during training.
That's men. More than 3/4 of men don't make it all the way through.
SEAL training is extremely rigorous, having a reputation as some of the toughest anywhere in the world. The drop out rate for BUD/S classes are sometimes over 90 percent
I don't know the stats and couldn't find them for Army Rangers so this next nugget is just from a previous boyfriend. He said half of the people he started out with didn't make it through the first two weeks of their training.
They are the elite of the military and still can't get through it. I can't wait for the first woman to become one just because it will be an easy question for me on my promotion tests. ;) I won't forget her name.
I'm late to this one and maybe I didn't comprehend everything I read.
Are we saying women shouldn't be in combat because they could be raped? So we need to protect them from what others might do? They might get shot too. If it's a known risk of a job and they choose that, how can we begrudge them the choice? Also, couldn't the women have the choice to use an anti-rape condom?
As for selective service/draft....well, it could be seen as a waste of time and resources. Some of us have prefaced our opinions with "if she is qualified...." If we are accepting the premise that the majority of women don't meet the qualifications, is it wise to create a pool of all women to draw from? Or change the requirements to create a larger pool of applicants? Furthermore, for many women, it could come down to a choice: have a baby or involuntarily get sent to boot camp. (My cousin got out of her orders to Korea by getting pregnant and she chose to be in the army.)