Women in Combat - Page 6
+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 80
Like Tree38Likes

Thread: Women in Combat

  1. #51
    Online Community Director MissyJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Rocky Mountain Wanna-be
    Posts
    13,037

    Default

    It is my understanding in reading the OP article "Pentagon removes ban on women in combat" that this lifting of the ban would be applied to almost ALL combat forces (with very few exceptions) -- including -- but not limited to -- those considered Special Forces:

    The Army and the Marines, which make up the bulk of the military?s ground combat force, will present plans to open most jobs to women by May 15.
    The Army, by far the largest fighting force, currently excludes women from nearly 25 percent of active-duty roles. A senior defense official said the Pentagon expects to open ?many positions? to women this year
    But an estimated 238,000 other jobs ? about one-fifth of the regular active-duty military ? were kept off limits to women. Virtually all of those jobs were in the Army and Marine Corps.
    Am I misunderstanding or perhaps missed why the focus of discussion is primarily Special Forces?



    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.
    Gloria, it appears that this may be a part of the plan:
    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another member of the panel, said he supports the decision, but he alluded to some of the thorny implementation issues that have yet to be addressed.


    ?It is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world ? particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units,? he said in a statement.

    The senior defense official said the Pentagon expects to have gender-neutral standards for combat jobs.
    Lowering the standards currently in place for these combat forces jobs in order to make them "gender-neutral" is cause for concern. While perhaps more rigorous than previously women endured, it sounds as if the standards for the men could be lowered. Combat forces soldiers into positions dependent upon one another with their lives. Having anyone that can't live up to those same high(er) standards shouldn't make it.

    Those women that could compete as some of you discussed in relation to the Special Forces teams -- male or female -- they would earn their title.

  2. #52
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    A lot of the jobs that are now "opening" have been filled in the past with women, they just didn't get credit for it. That's why I was focusing on special forces. I know a couple of Air Force females that have done jobs that should have been handled by a male Soldier but since they weren't available, the women filled in under a different title. The biggest change, IMO, will be with special forces. The standards for the special forces shouldn't be lowered; they need to be able to do things that the rest of us probably couldn't even comprehend. They have to be smarter, faster, and better trained than the smartest, fastest, and best trained enemy.

  3. #53
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    "Little America"
    Posts
    5,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Then she has a baby, obvs. Any woman who volunteers to serve for active combat duty knows that this is a possibility. If she accepts this who are you to worry about it? There are worse things you can do to a person than rape a woman. For instance, what if they were, say, castrating another male soldier in front of a male soldier? Or making one male soldier rape another male soldier? I mean, we can get as kinky as you want.
    I snorted so hard at the bolded, lololoololollolol.

  4. #54
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,595

    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 can only pick one reason? And Lillie doesn't know what is going to happen, but I'm pretty sure they will come up with different standards for women just like they do everything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    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.
    A gun is an inanimate object. A gun doesn't shoot itself. If someone is going to kill someone it doesn't matter what object they use they will find a way. I'm sorry but your analogy makes no sense to me.
    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

  5. #55
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Well it isn't like penises just go around raping people on their own do they? It still has to be an act started by the individual.

    I didn't say you couldn't have several reasons. It just seemed all over the place. First it was safety, then rape, then because they could change conditions etc. like you were trying to find any reason to hate this.
    Spacers and bunnyfufu like this.

  6. #56
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    So Gloria is your argument that women are too wimpy and too vulnerable to rape to be considered for these positions?

    A lot of people used to think like you. They thought women were too stupid to vote. Too dumb to go to medical school. To incapable to own land.

    I guess I'm glad we didn't listen to them, either.

    I don't buy this "women aren't capable" slippery slope crap. If women can't qualify, or are becoming Seals or Rangers and truly are NOT qualified don't you think that that is cause for concern for their fellow Seals and Rangers, not Gloria or Lillie, to worry about? I mean, the idea that there is going to be some SEAL team 6 out there and one, like, pudgy slow woman who is on the team worried about her nails but slipped into the team and no one noticed is insane and insulting to the intelligence of our special ops forces, frankly.

    but I'm pretty sure they will come up with different standards for women just like they do everything else.
    They don't have different standards for women in "everything else" like you say. I didn't have any different standards to get into college. No different standards in my career. You seem to think that some double standard exists that frankly, I just don't see. Its weirdly bitter. Has your life been THAT much easier because you are a woman? Stats just don't verify that that is true.
    Spacers, bunnyfufu and Jessica80 like this.

  7. #57
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    They don't have different standards for women in "everything else" like you say. I didn't have any different standards to get into college. No different standards in my career. You seem to think that some double standard exists that frankly, I just don't see. Its weirdly bitter. Has your life been THAT much easier because you are a woman? Stats just don't verify that that is true.
    Yes they do. We are talking about the military here. They currently have physical standards that are different for women in every military job, as they do police and firefighters. Even the Citadel when the court forced them to accept women created different standards for women.

    And seriously... is it just impossible for you to debate without getting personal? I'm not bitter about anything.
    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

  8. #58
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Do you think that the standards allowing women to serve have weakened our military, police, or firefighters? Do you personally feel less safe because people like Lillie are serving our country?

  9. #59
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    I'm with the majority on this one. I think that as long as women can meet the physical requirements for the job, they should be given the option. I'm against drafting women, but I'm also against drafting men. I don't think that anyone should be forced to go fight in a war if they don't choose to. If we don't have enough people to fight in our wars, perhaps we should reconsider our foreign policies and not get ourselves embroiled in wars. I'm also un-swayed by the rape argument. A) If our men are the ones doing the rape, that's a great argument for not allowing men in combat. B) For the enemy, I agree that this is a risk, but I believe that women should be allowed to decide for themselves if that is a risk that they are willing to take.

    I agree that not all women could meet the physical requirements, but I don't see that as a justification to bar them from trying. If they try and fail, oh well, they don't get in. Same for men.
    Jessica80 likes this.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  10. #60
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    I agree that not all women could meet the physical requirements, but I don't see that as a justification to bar them from trying. If they try and fail, oh well, they don't get in. Same for men.
    So do you feel the same if they have a different set of requirements for women?
    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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 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