Women do NOT have to get hurt or die in combat.

bangali said:

What I really meant was, a man can theoretically father countless children, but a woman can give birth only to limited children, no matter how much sex she has or how many men she has sex with. Population growth depends directly on the fertility rate which is totally dependent on women. Its that simple. There are people with far more extreme views even to the extent of calling males as disposables, specifically for that reason. But, my thoughts are not that extreme. I am sorry if I have offended you.

Click to expand...

There are basically the same number of females as males on the planet.... so how many women can a single man get if all the men are trying to get all the women getting pregnant, again?

bangali said:

I would say sometimes feminism carries it a bit too far. Women have to go through a lot of **** throughout their lives. Like that was not enough, now people want to send them to die in battlefields, instead of feeling sorry towards them. This is happening in 3rd world patriarchal societies also. This has to stop totally. Women should be BANNED TOTALLY from the front line military. What are men supposed to do then ? Lie around and be lazy ? If a really deserving woman wants to serve and protect the country she should be in the intelligence division/C&C or in the police/armed LEA/SWAT teams. At the very least, they should never be deployed in foreign lands. After all, they are gentle flowers which need sympathy and love.

Click to expand...

To answer your question yes I would love a sugar mama to fight my wars, pay my bills so I can sit at home and be lazy. She would love it as all that energy saved would be focused to a single task.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Not sure if you're aware, but America's military is voluntary service, and most of the people pushing for women to have combat roles have been women in the military.

Women are not "gentle flowers" for you to patronize, and they do not need your sympathy. They are not too stupid or child-like to make their own decisions about what they want to do in their own careers, and they do not need your hilariously ignorant opinion on such matters. They are whatever they decide to be, and just as intelligent and capable of living their own lives as you are.

Click to expand...

Gasp you mean to say they want to leave the dfac aka military kitchen, say it aint so.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Not sure if you're aware, but America's military is voluntary service, and most of the people pushing for women to have combat roles have been women in the military.

Click to expand...

Actually, in my experience most of them are civilians with an agenda to push.

I know of very few women in the military that would want to really try being in the Infantry. And only a few more that might consider Armor. The closest I have ever heard in being "Combat Arms" are the more then handfull of female Medics I have met, who have felt frustrated they could not be attached to an Infantry unit.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

That is true for some other mammals, particularly for non-social solitary ones. It is not true, and has never been true, for humans.

Click to expand...

It is true for humans and did happen in the past where the majority of men didn't reproduce.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Not sure if you're aware, but America's military is voluntary service, and most of the people pushing for women to have combat roles have been women in the military.

Click to expand...

Uhhh... No, most of them are Left-leaning civilians, motivated by ideology, who have never served a day in their lives, and don't understand the first thing about it.

Women in the military have actually been some of the staunchest opponents of this whole idiotic idea, on the grounds that it's simply going to physically "break" most of the women involved, with absolutely no gain to overall combat effectiveness (by all indications, it will actually be diminished). Keep in mind, a lot of these women are actually speaking from personal experience here, having been "broken" in various ways by even non-combat military service themselves.

This is, and always has been, a political vanity project for people who think militaries are silly, old-fashioned things, which should be seen, not heard, and certainly never used. Nothing more, and nothing less.

God help us all when the military we've built under that philosophy eventually winds up getting in a scrape with someone who actually knows what the Hell they're doing; that trains to WIN, rather than kiss boo-boos and stroke fragile egos. I suspect a lot of people will be in for a rather rude awakening when so many of these girls that they demanded be thrown into the grinder wind up coming home in body bags, with the men who had to try and make up for their short-comings right alongside them.

Trollin...trollin...trollin on the river.

Some women in the USA choose to join the military.

I don't believe that choice will be taken away any time soon.

bangali said:

I would say sometimes feminism carries it a bit too far. Women have to go through a lot of **** throughout their lives. Like that was not enough, now people want to send them to die in battlefields, instead of feeling sorry towards them. This is happening in 3rd world patriarchal societies also. This has to stop totally. Women should be BANNED TOTALLY from the front line military. What are men supposed to do then ? Lie around and be lazy ? If a really deserving woman wants to serve and protect the country she should be in the intelligence division/C&C or in the police/armed LEA/SWAT teams. At the very least, they should never be deployed in foreign lands. After all, they are gentle flowers which need sympathy and love.

Click to expand...

For the record, this post is dumb as Hell.

I'm almost inclined to wonder if it's not a poor Poe attempt.

Gathomas88 said:

Uhhh... No, most of them are Left-leaning civilians, motivated by ideology, who have never served a day in their lives, and don't understand the first thing about it.

Women in the military have actually been some of the staunchest opponents of this whole idiotic idea, on the grounds that it's simply going to physically "break" most of the women involved, with absolutely no gain to overall combat effectiveness (by all indications, it will actually be diminished). Keep in mind, a lot of these women are actually speaking from personal experience here, having been "broken" in various ways by even non-combat military service themselves.

Click to expand...

And that is exactly what I have seen as well. It is fairly rare to actually find a veteran who supports that idea. Most women who have served more then 2 months have an idea what they can and can not do, and know their physical limits. This is generally shown early on in boot camp, where they are first given "Physical Fitness Tests", and see how much lower the bar is for them as opposed to men.

Also as part of a team, they generally understand that it is the accomplishment of the mission that matters, not simply making things "acceptable" to some politicians and social reformers. If a change does not improve (or at least does not change) the capability and performance of a unit, then generally it should not be done. When something is expected and anticipated to degrate the performance of a unit, then it should definately not be done.

Once again, I refer to my own personal experience. I am 51 years old, and have bad knees. My time in the Infantry was over 25 years ago. Yet I still have yet to find a single female that can even come close to keeping up with me in even a 5 mile march with no gear or weapon, and only a 25 pound pack. And I have done marches with well over 200 females in the past 8 years. If 0% of them can even keep up with me today, what percentage could be expected to be able to keep up with me when I was in my prime 30 years ago?

Probably the same 0% (although with a larger sample pool, it might rise to 0.25%). And how much money and resources (not to mention broken bodies) do we invest to find that small percentage?

shrubnose said:

Some women in the USA choose to join the military.

I don't believe that choice will be taken away any time soon.

Click to expand...

Oh, it is much more then some. There are roughly 2 million female veterans, and they make up around 15% of the military. Women make up 10% of the current veterans (I remember when it was only 5%, the rapid loss of Korean War and WWII veterans is changing this statistic), and they can now hold 90% of the jobs available in the military.

I do not know of anybody other then trolls thinking that women should not serve. In fact, I myself have seen no problem with having a few select Infantry units be "co-ed". I can even see some real advantages to having a few such units, using them for example as Israel does. Mostly as defensive units, where having females as part of a defensive force could even help ease tensions in areas of the world where sexual segregation is high.

But simply throwing open the doors into all units? Nope, I see absolutely nothing to gain from doing that. However, after creating a few such units and then tracking key information for a decade or so, I also am more then willing to look into it again and revise my opinion.

Oozlefinch said:

In fact, I myself have seen no problem with having a few select Infantry units be "co-ed". I can even see some real advantages to having a few such units, using them for example as Israel does. Mostly as defensive units, where having females as part of a defensive force could even help ease tensions in areas of the world where sexual segregation is high.

But simply throwing open the doors into all units? Nope, I see absolutely nothing to gain from doing that. However, after creating a few such units and then tracking key information for a decade or so, I also am more then willing to look into it again and revise my opinion.

Click to expand...

The thing is, we already pretty much have this, and we have had it for years. The Military Police are co-ed, and they've long been tasked with "defensive" as well as "peace keeping" missions. If you're looking to capture "hearts and minds," MOS types like PSY-OPs, Linguistics, Public Affairs, Intel, and etca are all co-ed as well. It's simple enough to just temporarily attach one of those women to a more combat ready unit if the need presents itself.

Unfortunately, that logic won't prevail here, because what the Left is chasing isn't anything practical. Rather, it's some mythical vision of "GI Jane," inspired by "GUUURRRLLL POWER!!!" flights of ideological fancy. I hate to be the one to tell them, but the simple fact of the matter is that what they're looking for just doesn't exist in reality.

There might very well be a small handful of "1 in a 100 million" statistical anomalies out there who can kinda/sorta fit the bill. However, that's not enough to justify changing the entire way we do things, especially not when - as you say - the resource cost of finding and acquiring such persons will undoubtedly be through the roof, and we could simply recruit a man who would perform just as well, if not better, for a small fraction of the cost instead.

For that exact reason, the more likely scenario here isn't that they will search for women who can truly "hack it." The most likely scenario is that the powers that be will simply lower standards - either just for women, or maybe even for men as well as women - in order to make sure that even more average sorts of females, who would not normally be qualified, can get in. That's going to be a disaster.

We'll either - assuming that standards are lowered only for women - wind up with frontline combat units handicapped by having under-qualified female Soldiers dragging everyone else down, if they're not simply knocked out of commission by the physical strain of training and operations. Or - if they lower the standard for both sexes - we'll wind up with combat units full of slack fat-bodies who can't compete to the performance standards of our enemies, and are still handicapped by women performing to an even lower average standard than that.

Either way, it's just an all around bad ***ing idea.

Gathomas88 said:

The thing is, we already pretty much have this, and we have had it for years. The Military Police are co-ed, and they've long been tasked with "defensive" as well as "peace keeping" missions. If you're looking to capture "hearts and minds," MOS types like PSY-OPs, Linguistics, Public Affairs, and etca are all co-ed as well. It's simple enough to just temporarily attach one of those women to a more combat ready unit if the need presents itself.

Unfortunately, that logic won't prevail here, because what the Left is chasing isn't anything practical. Rather, it's some mythical vision of "GI Jane," inspired by "GUUURRRLLL POWER!!!" flights of ideological fancy. I hate to be the one to tell them, but the simple fact of the matter is that what they're looking for just doesn't exist in reality.

There might very well be a small handful of "1 in a 100 million" statistical anomalies out there who can kinda/sorta fit the bill. However, that's not enough to justify changing the entire way we do things, especially not when - as you say - the resource cost of finding and acquiring such persons will undoubtedly be through the roof, and we could simply recruit a man who would perform just as well, if not better, for a small fraction of the cost instead.

For that exact reason, the more likely scenario here isn't that they will search for women who can truly "hack it." The most likely scenario is that the powers that be will simply lower standards - either just for women, or maybe even for men as well as women - in order to make sure that even more average sorts of females, who would not normally be qualified, can get in. That's going to be a disaster.

We'll either - assuming that standards are lowered only for women - wind up with frontline combat units handicapped by having under-qualified female Soldiers dragging everyone else down, if they're not simply knocked out of commission by the physical strain. Or - if they lower standard for both sexes - we'll wind up with infantry units full of slack fat-bodies who can't compete to the performance standards of our enemies, and are still handicapped by women not performing to standard.

Either way, it's just an all around bad ***ing idea.

Click to expand...

My wife did 3.5 years in Iraq, she tells me that women routinely did stuff they were not supposed to do, that she herself went out on combat patrols that were off limits to women according to DOD regulation but local commanders had the authority to ignore them, and often did.

Still, I dont want women in the Marines combat units, or special forces Combat units, or Subs.

Hawkeye10 said:

My wife did 3.5 years in Iraq, she tells me that women routinely did stuff they were not supposed to do, that she herself went out on combat patrols that were off limits to women according to DOD but local commanders had the authority to ignore them, and often did.

Still, I dont want women in the Marines combat units, or special forces Combat units, or Subs.

Click to expand...

Exactly. If all you need is an extra body, and you're not particularly concerned with how they'll perform, you do what you gotta do. However, that's a tactic born of adversity, or desperation. It's not the philosophy that you deliberately build your forces around ahead of time.

We want to build our front-line combat units of the best of the best. Nothing less. Unfortunately, women just don't really cut it in this regard.

It's nothing against them. There are just some things women weren't built to do. :shrug:

Do you think a woman could hack it as a line-backer or running back in the NFL, for example? Hell to the no! They'd get massacred out there, and almost certainly cost their teams games in the process.

Why in the Hell should we treat national defense any less seriously in this regard than a silly ball game?

Gathomas88 said:

Exactly. If all you need is an extra body, and you're not particularly concerned with how they'll perform, you do what you gotta do. However, that's a tactic born of adversity, or desperation. It's not the philosophy that you deliberately build your forces around ahead of time.

We want to build our front-line combat units of the best of the best. Nothing less. Unfortunately, women just don't really cut it in this regard.

It's nothing against them. There are just some things women weren't built to do. :shrug:

Do you think a woman could hack it as a line-backer or running back in the NFL, for example? Hell to the no! They'd get massacred out there, and probably cost their teams games in the process.

Why in the Hell should we treat national defense any less seriously in this regard than a silly ball game?

Click to expand...

Oh this is funny.....you think that in 2016 doing things well matters?

I think I need to rethink our friendship. :thumbdown




*sarcasm*

Hawkeye10 said:

Oh this is funny.....you think that in 2016 doing things well matters?

I think I need to rethink our friendship.




*sarcasm*

Click to expand...

Well, needless to say, if we ever find outselves going up against someone like the Chinese or the Russians (i.e. real armies, not idiot jihadis with forty year old AKs who never learned how to shoot straight), we're going to want to have the "A team" up there, not the "B squad" or "F troop." :lol:

Gathomas88 said:

Well, needless to say, if we ever find outselves going up against someone like the Chinese or the Russians (i.e. real armies, not idiot jihadis with forty year old AKs who never learned how to shoot straight), we're going to want to have the "A team" up there, not the "B squad" or "F troop." :lol:

Click to expand...

Ya but I was making a much bigger point...that "half ass everything who gives a damn how well things work" thing that we have going on has got to stop. It got out of hand a long time ago, and this country is going down the ****ter largely just for this reason.

I am done, you have to be done with this, we are all going to be done with this, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!

not so funny.

This is serious business and I have run into too many fvcktard dp ruggrats today.

I am not in a great mood.

Sorry

Hawkeye10 said:

My wife did 3.5 years in Iraq, she tells me that women routinely did stuff they were not supposed to do, that she herself went out on combat patrols that were off limits to women according to DOD regulation but local commanders had the authority to ignore them, and often did.

Still, I dont want women in the Marines combat units, or special forces Combat units, or Subs.

Click to expand...

As a former Royal Navy Chief I think that women should serve on ships and submarines - but only in the safe, unsinkable parts.

Sweden said:

As a former Royal Navy Chief I think that women should serve on ships and submarines - but only in the safe, unsinkable parts.

Click to expand...

The only issue I really see with putting women on subs is the gender dynamic that introduces to the environment. If you're going to be spending several months sealed in a steel tube 50 meters or more under the sea, "hanky panky" really isn't something that's conducive to good order and discipline.

Sweden said:

As a former Royal Navy Chief I think that women should serve on ships and submarines - but only in the safe, unsinkable parts.

Click to expand...

Subs, seriously? How do you think that works long term? If they have to go do real missions ever again that is a primed social disaster. The navy is already a mess with this sex and hazing crackdown, they have lost tons of great officers and even more tonnage of officers who could not control themselves because they never learned it anywhere, to include in the Navy. Serving in a sub is even at its best no picnic.

How does this work?

Explain please.

Hawkeye10 said:

Subs, seriously? How do you think that works long term? If they have to go do real missions ever again that is a primed social disaster. The navy is already a mess with this sex and hazing crackdown, they have lost tons of great officers and even more tonnage of officers who could not control themselves because they never learned it anywhere, to include in the Navy. Serving in a sub is even at its best no picnic.

How does this work?

Explain please.

Click to expand...

Sorry Hawkeye. It was sort of a naval joke. There are no unsinkable parts of a ship or a sub. There is equality of danger. Everybody being in the same boat as it were.

When I was in the RN women did not serve on ships and, like you, I think it would have been better if it had been kept that way.

Sweden said:

Sorry Hawkeye. It was sort of a naval joke. There are no unsinkable parts of a ship or a sub. There is equality of danger. Everybody being in the same boat as it were.

When I was in the RN women did not serve on ships and, like you, I think it would have been better if it had been kept that way.

Click to expand...

Shoulda figured.

How close to me are you on the assessment I gave?

For three years I thought I wanted to be on subs, but I never got close to one, barely ever been on the water.

Hawkeye10 said:

Shoulda figured.

How close to me are you on the assessment I gave?

For three years I thought I wanted to be on subs, but I never got close to one, barely ever been on the water.

Click to expand...

Pretty close. Would I prefer to engage an enemy ship with an all male crew or one where half the ship's company were women? The latter without hesitation - how un-Pc can one get.

Henrin said:

It is true for humans and did happen in the past where the majority of men didn't reproduce.

Click to expand...

Which past, Victorian or Australopithicine?

I agree with you but we should know threats could be there at both foreign and local soils

Women should be able to make the decision themselves, especially if they themselves are pushing for it.
If women want to fight for their country they should also be drafted.
I don't have a problem with this, I am a woman and would serve my country if necessary.
Besides, war has greatly evolved, the use of drone warfare is now much more sensible than sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to foreign lands to kill our enemies. Drones can quickly wipe out ground troops without their being any human casualties on our side.
I believe that women should be treated the same as men.
Egalitarianism should be prevalent in every aspect of our society, in social, economic and political platforms.
They should at LEAST be given the opportunity to try out for combat MOS's and positions.
Even if they fail we should not deny them this right.
Give them the opportunity to at LEAST have the option.