Explaining women in combat arms

Women were/are placed on a pedistol much like black people were placed on an auction block.
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

Saying you don't want to see women die is not comparable to saying a women shouldn't be in the corporate world. Life and death are two different things.

So let me guess if you open a door for a woman but don't for a man you are sexist? If you let a woman on the elevator in front of you but don't offer a man the same courtesy you are sexist? If I offer my seat on the bus to a woman that is standing but not a man I am sexist?

Many of us ripped on Poet when he said he would hit a woman but hell if you would hit a man but not a woman and that makes you sexist then maybe Poet was right.
 
SR_ said:
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.
Click to expand...


I also explained how they are getting around this as was explained by a retired woman general I heard address this topic last night. They are assigned to these infantry units but don't get the credit because women before now could not be attached to a combat unit.

I have to believe the General knows what she is talking about.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
Saying you don't want to see women die is not comparable to saying a women shouldn't be in the corporate world. Life and death are two different things.

So let me guess if you open a door for a woman but don't for a man you are sexist? If you let a woman on the elevator in front of you but don't offer a man the same courtesy you are sexist? If I offer my seat on the bus to a woman that is standing but not a man I am sexist?

Many of us ripped on Poet when he said he would hit a woman but hell if you would hit a man but not a woman and that makes you sexist then maybe Poet was right.
Click to expand...

No opening doors and elevators does not limit accessability to women, preventing them from certian jobs DOES. Using the excuse that its because you dont want them to die (when the exact excuse could be used for men) is sexist.

I would not hit a woman any more than I would hit a man, I just would not do it unless it became necessary to protect myself from severe injury.
 
cawacko said:
Saying you don't want to see women die is not comparable to saying a women shouldn't be in the corporate world. Life and death are two different things.

So let me guess if you open a door for a woman but don't for a man you are sexist? If you let a woman on the elevator in front of you but don't offer a man the same courtesy you are sexist? If I offer my seat on the bus to a woman that is standing but not a man I am sexist?

Many of us ripped on Poet when he said he would hit a woman but hell if you would hit a man but not a woman and that makes you sexist then maybe Poet was right.
Click to expand...

Are you saying its more okay for a man to die than for a woman to die?
 
Jarod said:
Are you saying its more okay for a man to die than for a woman to die?
Click to expand...

Yes I am. Fvck men, we can die. We shouldn't have our women killed. Now if a woman can pass the physical test and wants to serve on the front line then more power to her but yes men should die before women.
 
Jarod said:
No opening doors and elevators does not limit accessability to women, preventing them from certian jobs DOES. Using the excuse that its because you dont want them to die (when the exact excuse could be used for men) is sexist.

I would not hit a woman any more than I would hit a man, I just would not do it unless it became necessary to protect myself from severe injury.
Click to expand...

If a man slaps/hits you better hit him back or else you will be looked at as a punk (think Rick James/Charlie Murphy). If a woman slaps/hits you, unless your life is in danger, it's still not acceptable to hit her back. Sexist huh? Sexist men who say it is inappropriate to hit a woman?
 
cawacko said:
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.
Click to expand...

Aoxomoxoa said:
Howey, you are a twat!! Why the fuck are you calling Cawacko Yurt??
Click to expand...

cawacko said:
Thank you. I don't know what the hell his problem is.
Click to expand...

I'm calling Cawacko Yurt (and yes, I apologize) because like Yurt he didn't read what I wrote and decided to argue just for the sake of arguing. The kids Bush lowered standards to recruit were, in fact, on the front line. Hopefully, some of the others on here who've been in the military will confirm this, but only the elitest of the elite fighting corps have training so physically challenging it's nearly impossible. I'm talking about the Seals, Rangers, etc. In the AF, we had Survival Training, which was a grueling, three week long trek in the wilderness and only the most fit would graduate.

Look at the SERE Program, which has had many female graduates.

What Is A USAF SERE Specialist?

Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) Specialists are a specialized career field in the US Air Force who prepare DOD personnel to return with honor from isolating events. Their training consists of learning to adapt to all biomes and their associated weather conditions, along with surviving various captivity situations. SERE Specialists operate in the field of Personnel Recovery (PR) by providing support to the five execution tasks; Report, Locate, Support, Recover, and Reintegrate. SERE Specialists are also the only DOD specialty specifically trained, equipped, organized, and employed to conduct SERE operations for the duration of their career, and they are the USAF force of choice to train and support isolated personnel.
Click to expand...

But they're not front line troops. They don't need all this specialized training. They need to learn how to clean a gun and fire it. And kill. There's no elite training for that. Which makes my point about Bush even more appropos.

The slim forces needed fattening up and what followed constituted a complete re-evaluation of who was qualified to serve – a full-works facelift of the service unheard of in modern American history. In the relatively halcyon days of the first Gulf war in 1990, the US military blocked the enlistment of felons. It spurned men and women with low IQs or those without a high school diploma. It would either block the enlistment of or kick out neo-Nazis and gang members. It would treat or discharge alcoholics, drug abusers and the mentally ill. No more. While the Bush administration adopted conservative policies pretty much universally, it saved its ration of liberalism for the US military, where it scrapped many of the regulations governing recruitment.

Many of the wars' worst atrocities are linked directly to the loosening of enlistment regulations on criminals, racist extremists, and gang members, among others.
Click to expand...

And yes, they weren't physically or mentally able to fight.

New recruits were physically, as well as mentally, unfit. In 1993, around 23% of prospective recruits would have been overweight – a pretty significant tranche. By 2006, this had increased to just over 27%, or more than a quarter of potential recruits, due partly to the use of "medical waivers" to make exceptions for overweight recruits.

The three most common barriers for potential recruits were failure to graduate high school, a criminal record and physical fitness issues, including obesity. The criminal record had been dealt with by "moral waivers" and the obesity problem by "medical waivers", but dropping the standards on educational attainment would not be so easy without seriously affecting operational readiness.
Click to expand...

I come to these discussions prepared, Cawacko. I respect your opinions and thought you did too. Obviously, in this case, you failed.


Darla said:
WOW

So being called "yurt" is the new c-word here.

Interesting...
Click to expand...

It is quite the insult, isn't it?


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...

Bullshit.
 
Rana said:
I also explained how they are getting around this as was explained by a retired woman general I heard address this topic last night. They are assigned to these infantry units but don't get the credit because women before now could not be attached to a combat unit.

I have to believe the General knows what she is talking about.
Click to expand...

Its unreal how much the average citizen has no idea how the basics of the military work.

Yes, you can have a Forward Operating Base. This installation will be the "home" of line company or an infantry company. This is the "home base". Now they need food, and they need water, and they need communications, and they need vehicles, and they need people to DO ALL OF THESE SUPPORT POSITIONS.

So if you are a female communications soldier or Marine in charge of charging batteries for 153's, then you are in the same position as an infantry unit. However... YOU ARE NOT IN THE INFANTRY. The infantry leaves the wire (goes outside the walls of the forward operating base), to patrol, or to undertake snatch and grab missions, or to eliminate an enemy position. During these missions they use those radios that that female communications soldier or Marine charged just hours before. She in her capacity as an 06xx whatever communications billet has not been trained as an infantryman. Yes she is attached to the "infantry unit", she provides comm support, but she has not trained to do the missions nor does she take part in shouldering those responsibilities.

She gets credit for charging those batteries as without comm people die. Her role is important, and she did it overseas in a combat area. There is no denigration to her service. Just because she was there, and just because she was "with" an infantry unit, does not make her an infantryman.
 
SR_ said:
Its unreal how much the average citizen has no idea how the basics of the military work.

Yes, you can have a Forward Operating Base. This installation will be the "home" of line company or an infantry company. This is the "home base". Now they need food, and they need water, and they need communications, and they need vehicles, and they need people to DO ALL OF THESE SUPPORT POSITIONS.

So if you are a female communications soldier or Marine in charge of charging batteries for 153's, then you are in the same position as an infantry unit. However... YOU ARE NOT IN THE INFANTRY. The infantry leaves the wire (goes outside the walls of the forward operating base), to patrol, or to undertake snatch and grab missions, or to eliminate an enemy position. During these missions they use those radios that that female communications soldier or Marine charged just hours before. She in her capacity as an 06xx whatever communications billet has not been trained as an infantryman. Yes she is attached to the "infantry unit", she provides comm support, but she has not trained to do the missions nor does she take part in shouldering those responsibilities.

She gets credit for charging those batteries as without comm people die. Her role is important, and she did it overseas in a combat area. There is no denigration to her service. Just because she was there, and just because she was "with" an infantry unit, does not make her an infantryman.
Click to expand...

You are one of the few people who makes any sense on this issue, are you speaking from experience?
 
Howey. said:
I'm calling Cawacko Yurt (and yes, I apologize) because like Yurt he didn't read what I wrote and decided to argue just for the sake of arguing. The kids Bush lowered standards to recruit were, in fact, on the front line. Hopefully, some of the others on here who've been in the military will confirm this, but only the elitest of the elite fighting corps have training so physically challenging it's nearly impossible. I'm talking about the Seals, Rangers, etc. In the AF, we had Survival Training, which was a grueling, three week long trek in the wilderness and only the most fit would graduate.

Look at the SERE Program, which has had many female graduates.



But they're not front line troops. They don't need all this specialized training. They need to learn how to clean a gun and fire it. And kill. There's no elite training for that. Which makes my point about Bush even more appropos.



And yes, they weren't physically or mentally able to fight.



I come to these discussions prepared, Cawacko. I respect your opinions and thought you did too. Obviously, in this case, you failed.




It is quite the insult, isn't it?




Bullshit.
Click to expand...

Any danger of providing links?? What you are presenting is nothing new as there were many female agents in France, Belgium and Holland in WW2. But that is not the same as being on the front line.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
Yes I am. Fvck men, we can die. We shouldn't have our women killed. Now if a woman can pass the physical test and wants to serve on the front line then more power to her but yes men should die before women.
Click to expand...
y?
 
cawacko said:
If a man slaps/hits you better hit him back or else you will be looked at as a punk (think Rick James/Charlie Murphy). If a woman slaps/hits you, unless your life is in danger, it's still not acceptable to hit her back. Sexist huh? Sexist men who say it is inappropriate to hit a woman?
Click to expand...
i don't care if someone looks on me as a punk, I won't use violence unless I need to in order to protect myself or others from real physical harm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top