Women in Combat

Our military is not a "training" or "proving" ground for social equality. It has one focus and that is hurting those who would hurt us faster and more efficiently than they can hurt us ... and do it in a manner and to a degree that discourages them, and others, from attempting that endeavor again.

We haven't been doing that in 60+ years, and we aren't doing that. Adding females to the mix on an "affirmative action" basis to allow for males to "adjust" to the idea over time is not productive in that goal, although it may be politically and socially correct.

Our judiciary has accepted exemptions for the "requirement" that there be equal opportunity and have recognized that in some service oriented functions in government that there Originally Posted by LexusLover

So are you saying that we should not have integrated black Americans into the military since that was a disruption to morale and effectiveness?

For clarification, it seems your focus in this particular discussion is women and not gays in the military, correct?

I actually think that right now is a pretty good time to be doing things like integration since we don't currently have a strong military foe we need to immediately defeat. In the long run, I believe allowing anyone who can meet the requirements to serve will make our military stronger as a whole as we now have a larger population base to draw upon if needed (not to mention as you pointed out, the political and social advantages of integration).

So are you saying that we should not have integrated black Americans into the military since that was a disruption to morale and effectiveness. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

You are the one attempting to equate the two groups. Not me. So don't use your comparative standard as an attempt to redirect the focus of the discussion. The issues are different between the two groups. Always will be. Fron a physical agility standard alone there is a distinction between equating the two groups of people. Black males can meet, if not exceed, the generally accepted standards. Women statstically as a group do not.

Since the majority of men are hetrosexual the competitiveness of males vying for attention and approval was not directed at Black males integrated into the service. It has been, is, and will be with females.

Don't makes this a political discussion, or a social discussion. It's not. It should be about the most effective and efficient military we can present when necessary, which, regardless of what you say, is now.

Pandering to the female vote is not helpful, although I realize that some guys posting on here might think a "pro-female" position might get them a freebie or a discount!!!!!! Hopefully it will, but hopefully it will end there.

You are the one attempting to equate the two groups. Not me. So don't use your comparative standard as an attempt to redirect the focus of the discussion. The issues are different between the two groups. Always will be. Fron a physical agility standard alone there is a distinction between equating the two groups of people. Black males can meet, if not exceed, the generally accepted standards. Women statstically as a group do not.

Since the majority of men are hetrosexual the competitiveness of males vying for attention and approval was not directed at Black males integrated into the service. It has been, is, and will be with females.

Don't makes this a political discussion, or a social discussion. It's not. It should be about the most effective and efficient military we can present when necessary, which, regardless of what you say, is now.

Pandering to the female vote is not helpful, although I realize that some guys posting on here might think a "pro-female" position might get them a freebie or a discount!!!!!! Hopefully it will, but hopefully it will end there. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I bring up the previous integration of black Americans because I disagree and do see similarities in the situation and arguments used between that time and now with both the integration of gays and women.

I'm not saying this because I feel like I have to cater to women or gays, but because I believe that it will be better for our military as a whole. It may temporarily make them a little weaker, but they will be stronger for it in the long run for the reasons I stated above.

I think your insinuation that guys here who are ok with women in the military is some sort of pandering to try and get something from female providers is misguided at best. It's just as disingenuous as saying all people against women in the military are that way because they're misogynists.

"Most effecient and effective" is also a vague term to define. Do we take the top 10% of those who apply? 20%? The needs of our military and composition of it have always varied with the times and the population.

Even right now, our military is operating at far less than what would be the most efficient levels. It's common knowledge that while we do have amazing technological weapons, oftentimes our soldiers have to work with subpar equipment and support in the field. The overall efficiency of the military is probably a discussion topic for another thread though.

It may temporarily make them a little weaker, ...

Even right now, our military is operating at far less than what would be the most efficient levels. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

So, you want to drag it down even more and add more stressers to the situation, when we already have a high level of suicide and a high level of people in the service right now who did not join to be in combat.

You are actually making the argument for not integrating females into combat units. As for being ill-equipped that has to do with authorizations and budgetary constraints as "priorties" shift away from tanks and bullets to food stamps and medicaid. So now we are going to further burden the military with incapable servicemembers who need "accommodations"?

So, you want to drag it down even more and add more stressers to the situation, when we already have a high level of suicide and a high level of people in the service right now who did not join to be in combat.

You are actually making the argument for not integrating females into combat units. As for being ill-equipped that has to do with authorizations and budgetary constraints as "priorties" shift away from tanks and bullets to food stamps and medicaid. So now we are going to further burden the military with incapable servicemembers who need "accommodations"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Again, as I have stated previously in many posts, I'm only in favor of it if they can meet all the requirements that other soldiers meet.

Nowhere have I ever said that anyone incapable of performing their duties should be allowed into any position. I don't think anyone on this thread has taken that position?

Given the large size of our military budget, I have a hard time believing that our soldiers being ill equipped has anything to with our social issues at home and nothing to do with spending on a bunch of things they don't really need.

I'm only in favor of it if they can meet all the requirements that other soldiers meet. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

There are females who do and will ... but that is only a part of the equation.

The cohension of the unit is critical, and we are all animals with animal instincts. The scenarious are endless

There are females who do and will ... but that is only a part of the equation.

The cohension of the unit is critical, and we are all animals with animal instincts. The scenarious are endless Originally Posted by LexusLover

I don't disagree - I just believe that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.

There are females who do and will ... but that is only a part of the equation.

The cohension of the unit is critical, and we are all animals with animal instincts. The scenarious are endless Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you support female firefighters? How about female police officers? Somewhat different but the same. At some point, it is very possible that if you are a fellow combat soldier, firefighter, or police officer, your life might depend on the actions of a woman.

I was in the army but never in a combat situation, but I can guarantee you that as long as the people, man or woman, next to me were qualified in doing there job, I couldn't care less what their sex (or sexual orientation for that matter) was.

I don't disagree - I just believe that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

That's because you have a "social agenda" at stake and the individual members of the unit have their ass on the line every minute of every day....and their life and/or the quality of their life depends on 100% all the time and 110% or better some of the time.

Do you support female firefighters? How about female police officers? Somewhat different but the same. At some point, it is very possible that if you are a fellow combat soldier, firefighter, or police officer, your life might depend on the actions of a woman.

I was in the army but never in a combat situation, but I can guarantee you that as long as the people, man or woman, next to me were qualified in doing there job, I couldn't care less what their sex (or sexual orientation for that matter) was. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Thank you for your contribution.

That's because you have a "social agenda" at stake and the individual members of the unit have their ass on the line every minute of every day....and their life and/or the quality of their life depends on 100% all the time and 110% or better some of the time. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Or I could just believe that a small decrease in efficiency now makes for much larger long term gains in the future.

Do you support female firefighters? How about female police officers? Somewhat different but the same. At some point, it is very possible that if you are a fellow combat soldier, firefighter, or police officer, your life might depend on the actions of a woman.

I was in the army but never in a combat situation, but I can guarantee you that as long as the people, man or woman, next to me were qualified in doing there job, I couldn't care less what their sex (or sexual orientation for that matter) was. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/...2871210625538/

Considering women make up more than half the population, something must be going on to result in such a small percentage.
Could it be that when it all comes down to the basic facts, they simply cannot cut it when the physical demands become real. Jusr sayin..........

I don't disagree - I just believe that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

There are no potential risks. There are only absolute positive risks. I've seen combat. My guess is that you have not. If I'm wrong I thank you for your service.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/...2871210625538/

Considering women make up more than half the population, something must be going on to result in such a small percentage.
Could it be that when it all comes down to the basic facts, they simply cannot cut it when the physical demands become real. Jusr sayin.......... Originally Posted by Jackie S

I'm wondering if you really read the article.

"The researchers found that women firefighters are simply not being hired. When women are hired, the study found that 85 percent say that they were treated differently; 80 percent say they were issued ill-fitting equipment, 37 percent report that their gender creates barriers to career advancement; 50 percent feel shunned or socially isolated; and 37 percent are verbally harassed."

Hypothetical

Im a 6' 4" 230lb marine, in full combat gear I weigh over 250lbs ... Im fighting beside a 5' 4" 135lb female marine ... I get severely wounded, and go into shock .. my life depends on her dragging me to saftey...

Im dead.