Women in Combat - Page 5
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 80
Like Tree38Likes

Thread: Women in Combat

  1. #41
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wlillie View Post
    That being said Bonita, these aren't most men. I really think I've only met one female my entire life who could pass the standards these men go through. We train the Combat Controllers for the Air Force on Keesler. There are literally days where they do not stop their training. At all; not even for sleep. They carry logs or sacks filled with rocks on their backs and run up and down in any kind of weather we have (yay for short shorts! ), they swim for hours and hours at a time, they eat stuff that would make most people gag just thinking about and that's just the stuff I know about and I'm not part of that area. The percentage of females that could make it through a week let alone the full training has to be teensy weensy. We had a guy at my last job who really wanted to be a part of it and was allowed to use down time to train (we covered because he was so dedicated so he basically trained 20-30 hours during work time and a lot on his own time too). He spent soo much time in the gym pool I'm surprised he didn't grow gills and still couldn't pass the time they wanted.

    Gloria, the women who can do things like that aren't the kind to let fear of being raped stop them from doing what they want to do.
    My concern is that as soon as they let women in they are going to start saying that it is unfair for women to have to meet the same standards as men. The "gender norming" will begin.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  2. #42
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,542

    Default

    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.

    ~Bonita~

  3. #43
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    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.
    Combat roles include special forces like Army Rangers and Navy Seals.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  4. #44
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    My concern is that as soon as they let women in they are going to start saying that it is unfair for women to have to meet the same standards as men. The "gender norming" will begin.
    So are you concerned that they might be raped so they can't be in combat or that the standards would be lowered (which I believe Lillie says doesn't happen in positions like this but I could be wrong)

    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.

  5. #45
    Prolific Poster bunnyfufu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    So are you concerned that they might be raped so they can't be in combat or that the standards would be lowered (which I believe Lillie says doesn't happen in positions like this but I could be wrong)
    I think it's fine to have multiple reasons to oppose something.

    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.

  6. #46
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    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.
    Women already do those jobs; they are already on the front lines. With the rule taken away, they can now apply for the Special Forces. That's the only really big change besides women will get credit for what they've already been doing. That's what I meant; I'm sorry, I wasn't typing out all my thoughts...

    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.
    Last edited by wlillie; 01-24-2013 at 08:04 PM.
    bunnyfufu likes this.

  7. #47
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    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.
    Spacers and bunnyfufu like this.

  8. #48
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivergallery View Post
    Are we equal or not?

    What do you mean? Did you previously feel unequal to men because women were not allowed to serve in some combat roles? Personally, I didn't.

  9. #49
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wlillie View Post
    Women already do those jobs; they are already on the front lines. With the rule taken away, they can now apply for the Special Forces. That's the only really big change besides women will get credit for what they've already been doing. That's what I meant; I'm sorry, I wasn't typing out all my thoughts...

    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.
    I had totally been missing the significance of what it meant. I totally thought we were just talking about normal military service, just in a front line way, in the trenches of it. That is why it did not make sense to me that anyone would object.

    ~Bonita~

  10. #50
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    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.)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions