Explaining women in combat arms

cawacko said:
What favors are they doing for anyone by lowering the physical standards and possibly putting non combat ready people in positions where they risk getting hurt and risks the lives of others around them?

That question has nothing to do with sex, race or gender.
Click to expand...

Women have performed admirably, herorically, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, let their record stand for itself!
 
Rana said:
BAC is not a sexist. If it was the first comment I ever heard the man make, I probably would have challenged him, but knowing his history and knowing the content in which he was speaking, I understood.

I don't want men or women to o to war, but nice that isn't realistic, I think those who wish to serve should serve.
Click to expand...

delete
 
Howey. said:
Did I say that Yurt?

Every duty in the military has a standard to meet. And those standards can be changed as need allows.
Click to expand...

Yurt? Excuse me?

We are talking about physical standards and you are rambling on about Bush letting in criminals into the military which has nothing to do with physical standards.
 
cawacko said:
I'm not accusing bac of being a sexist nor am I trying to throw him under the bus. Jarod is saying a comment that bac made is sexist (Howey agreed it was as well). I was just curious if you felt the comment itself, that my instinct is to protect women and I don't want to see them killed is war is sexist?

(From an indivdual standpoint I understand two people can say the same thing and based on who it is it can have different meanings.)
Click to expand...

Well, picture BAC saying it. Now picture Tom saying it.

I have two different reactions.

Eric Alterman once wrote that when Springsteen sings "girls in their summer clothes" his reaction is "yeah I feel you Bruce". But that if one of the guys from The Eagles sang that (and I forgot which Eagle he has a major problem with), he would be side eyeing him and saying "is that right".

It can be a very sexist statement. It can be a chivalrous statement. Both are problematic. One in the privacy of late night drinks, can be hot.
 
cawacko said:
delete
Click to expand...

I knew you weren't.

Like Darla, the remark can be flattering, but when it is used to try to limit some women in their life choices then it gets my hackles up.

Do I love the fact that my husband wants to protect me! Absolutely! But would I give my life to protect him. Damn skippy!
My husband sees me as his equal, it is why, like Darla, I find it sexy.
 
Rana said:
I knew you weren't.

Like Darla, the remark can be flattering, but when it is used to try to limit some women in their life choices then it gets my hackles up.

Do I love the fact that my husband wants to protect me! Absolutely! But would I give my life to protect him. Damn skippy!
My husband sees me as his equal, it is why, like Darla, I find it sexy.
Click to expand...

You bring up a great point too. Many women would unflinchingly give their lives to protect others, some of them men.
 
cawacko said:
Darla and Rana I was about to ask this question yesterday. BAC said it was instinct to not want women to fight because he wants to protect them. Now bac is in a unique position because his daughter is serving so he can be excused as a concerned parent. But if/when you read his comment did you initially think it was sexist?
Click to expand...

Its sexism when he wants to protect only women and not men. His statement, about why would anyone want women to serve in combat is sexist. It it were not sexist it would ready, "Why would anyone to want anyone to serve in combat."
 
Jarod said:
Its sexism when he wants to protect only women and not men. His statement, about why would anyone want women to serve in combat is sexist. It it were not sexist it would ready, "Why would anyone to want anyone to serve in combat."
Click to expand...

So it is sexist against men? Fair enough I guess.
 
SR_ said:
Society DOES want to put fellow citizens in a position between themselves and those who would do them harm. This isnt hypothetical.

You say its foolish to say that women arent capable... and then you base this belief off your search ability of finding a woman on YouTube that could take out every man on this board...simultaneously?
Click to expand...

obviously......if women are out there who are capable, its foolish to say that women are not capable......and intelligent person would conclude the test is ability, not gender.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously......if women are out there who are capable, its foolish to say that women are not capable......and intelligent person would conclude the test is ability, not gender.....
Click to expand...

This is not about situational ability. As i covered in the initial post. "Finding" 1 woman who is capable is not an INSTITUTIONAL solution. She must be capable, she must also be willing, she must also NOT BE the only one. Otherwise you put a single individual into a situation for which they cannot succeed. They are 1 of 1. That is not an institutional implementation of policy.

The only way to install a policy of integration is with multitudes of women. In essence you need a program where if a woman wants to be in the infantry, she can. This is not the same as "If you find 1 woman who can do it, she should be allowed". In order for an institutional policy to be successful you cant have 99% of the people the program is directed at benefitting NOT QUALIFYING for the benefits. Your only option is to lower the standards.

Too many of you look at this in a situational light instead of an institutional policy. Thats why your previous post of finding a woman on youtube was so ignorant. It does not apply to the issue at hand.
 
SR_ said:
This is not about situational ability. As i covered in the initial post. "Finding" 1 woman who is capable is not an INSTITUTIONAL solution. She must be capable, she must also be willing, she must also NOT BE the only one. Otherwise you put a single individual into a situation for which they cannot succeed. They are 1 of 1. That is not an institutional implementation of policy.

The only way to install a policy of integration is with multitudes of women. In essence you need a program where if a woman wants to be in the infantry, she can. This is not the same as "If you find 1 woman who can do it, she should be allowed". In order for an institutional policy to be successful you cant have 99% of the people the program is directed at benefitting NOT QUALIFYING for the benefits. Your only option is to lower the standards.

Too many of you look at this in a situational light instead of an institutional policy. Thats why your previous post of finding a woman on youtube was so ignorant. It does not apply to the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

Are you totally ignoring the fact that women are already in combat?
 
Rana said:
Are you totally ignoring the fact that women are already in combat?
Click to expand...

Again... and Im not really sure why I have to keep coming back to this.

Jessica Lynch was in combat. She is a recipient of a purple heart. She was NOT a member of a combat arm. Her experience was SITUATIONAL. Having a female in combat is not the same as having her in a combat arm billet. Having her be trained and do what is required by the standards for a combat arm MOS is not the same as restricting her from combat.

I am not ignoring the fact that women are already experiencing combat. You seem to be the one ignoring the reality that NONE, ZERO, NOT ONE, of these women were from combat arm units.

What youre trying to insinuate is if a woman has fired a gun, in any situation of her life, that now she's an infantryman for the United States Marine Corps. This is not true or valid.
 
cawacko said:
So it is sexist against men? Fair enough I guess.
Click to expand...

Not really, keeping women from responsable positions because you belive them more needy of protection than men, is sexism against the women.

"The corporate world is too cuthroat, I wouldent want a woman to have to deal with that" is really no different than, "Combat is too evil, I would not want a woman to have to deal with that".

Denying woman responsability and jobs because you belive they need to be cared and protected more than men do is sexist.
 
"GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah, when you look back at what I've said since I was the chief staff of the Army, what Gen. Odierno has said, Gen. Amos has said, I think we all believe that there will be women who can meet those standards.

The other part of the equation, of course, is in order to account for their safety and their success in those kinds of units, we got to have enough of them so that they have mentors and leaders above them -- you know, you wouldn't want to take one woman who can meet a standard and put her in a particular unit. You know, not -- the issue there wouldn't be privacy. It would be, you know, where's her ability to have upward mobility and compete for command if she's one of one? So we have to -- we do have to work both the standards and the -- kind of the critical mass, if you will, to make this work. But that's what -- that's our commitment.

SEC. PANETTA: And, by the way, that's -- that's why I asked the services to provide a plan that would be presented in May of this year that would point out exactly how this is to be implemented and give us a sense of that. "

This is from the DOD press conference with SecDef Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top