- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,552
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
We'll call them the PMS Corps.
And they will rip your head off for calling them that.
We'll call them the PMS Corps.
Already addressed at length in this very thread.
And they will rip your head off for calling them that.
combat theaters are typically nasty, dirty, spartan kind of places. usually without running water, etc. If women were/are willing to give up some of the "perks" they get because they are female, I have no problem with them being there.
but when I have to go a week without a shower because there are only two shower tents and 200 guys have to share one and 5 females get the other to themselves., or I have to cram into an 8 man tent with 15 other guys so that the 5 females can have a tent to themselves... that just ain't right.
other than that, if a female can physically and mentally hack the rigors of combat, I have no problem with them being there.
so that is my only problem with women in combat. because there are so few that could actually handle it physically it requires the males to sacrifice even more on the basic niceties, due to the army's stance on segregating males and females.
Yeah - the whole 'special priveledges' because of gender tick me off.
Didn't the Israelis try having women in front line combat, but decided it was too damaging to morale for men to see female soldiers being killed or injured?
If women can pass the same requirements as men, and go through the same training as if they were men, I would see no problem with allowing them to enter combat units.
What she said.
Please don't make the military more weak with a different set of rules for women, gays, dogs, cats etc.
I really don't care who serves other than I want to know the USA has the most powerful military possible.
They would not have to be stronger than men. They would only have to be strong enough to do the job, which more than a few women are. Those women are exceptional, but so are every person in our military.
If women want to fight on the front lines then let them have their wish...As long as it isn't a hindrance to the unit. I see no reason why a well trained female can't be useful on the front lines.
because they are damaging to the unit they are in, and combat is a team sport, not an individual one.
because they are damaging to the unit they are in, and combat is a team sport, not an individual one.
Generalize much? It is not possible to be a woman and not be damaging to the unit? Are male soilders really as fragile and immature as you paint them?
it is damaging to the unit because the army gives them preferential treatment
Seems to me if this is true, just argue against such treatment. No need to generalize that by the nature of ebing a woman, you damage the unit.
they get preferential treatment due to their nature of being a woman. it's a viscious circle. I agree, if a woman can handle the training and do the job, they should be allowed in combat. but they shouldn't get a tent to themselves while the guys have to crowd in like rats in a cage just because they are female. they shouldn't get a shower trailer/tent to themselves while the guys have to take cold or no showers for days/weeks at a time. etc.
they get preferential treatment due to their nature of being a woman. it's a viscious circle. I agree, if a woman can handle the training and do the job, they should be allowed in combat. but they shouldn't get a tent to themselves while the guys have to crowd in like rats in a cage just because they are female. they shouldn't get a shower trailer/tent to themselves while the guys have to take cold or no showers for days/weeks at a time. etc.
No one on this thread has argued for this type of preferential treatment, in fact, the supporters of women in combat have all stated that women should be held to the same standards and receive the same treatment. Thus, this is a strawman.
These seem like easily fixed problems to me.
Are male soilders really as fragile and immature as you paint them?
I don’t think that anyone said that. I do think that women in combat would disrupt the unit for a number of reasons. Men want to protect women and may get killed in that effort. Men like to talk to women and may forget their duty if they have pretty blues to look at. Men like women for other reasons and may kill their fellow troops if rejected or some other guy tries to talk to the woman.
As far as maturity; we have to remember that combat troops are pretty young.
In the Middle East women would be a greater liability because of the way muslims treat women and infidel women in particular. Islam gives men freedom to treat infidel women as the would treat a dog so our women that were captured would have a very bead experience.
I do agree that women promoting that women be thrown in to combat should be sent to the point of the spear and see what they think after a few months??
and the sad part is, the women who could or would want to serve in combat would not be the ones complaining.
I am an MP, not technically a combat arm and we had problems with females in Iraq. they could not walk alone anywhere due to the constant threat of kidnap and/or rape by the local men.
And, a woman in a combat role rarely does.