Women in Combat ...

My thoughts as a retired military servicemember ...

I loved having women in the military. In some environments - like aboard a ship - the presence of women added a sense of "naturalness" to the environment and the jobs associated with shipboard life. The human race is divided into two DIFFERENT sexes - each with their own strengths and weeknesses and I found that, at the end of the day - women made up for the shortcomings of men and men made up for the shortcomings of women. It's a symbiotic relationship.

I never had to bail a woman out of jail for a DUI, or sexual assault, or spousal abuse but sadly - I DID have to do that for a lot of men.

So women are an asset. However, what I found is that women like CHOICE and get upset when you remove it from them. Ask most women in military if they believe that women should be allowed in combat - and they'll say "yes".

Ask them if women should be FORCED into combat (as men are) and they will say ... "NO!!"

Women like the choice.

And because of this - there will not be a big rush of women to go and fill those combat positions. Don't tell me otherwise - I had the opportunity to serve and lead women in the military for two decades - recently - and I know.

Now - it's one thing if we're doing this to allow the women who can live up to the same physical standards as men to serve in combat roles. I'm cool with that - but the woman should be able to do as many push ups and sit ups and chin ups as any other male grunt.

But you KNOW what is going to happen. Five years from now, the busybodies in Congress will look at the combat services and say ... "WTF? Where are all the women - there's really not that many!!" And they'll start complaining to the services ... which will in turn start SLAMMING women into combat roles involuntarily.

And oh - the screams coming from the women are going to be severe when that happens!!

Also - this now kind of KILLS any thought of bringing back a male-only draft. Next time a draft comes around - we'll be drafting high school football players AND the cheerleaders and homecoming queens. You think it's hard to support a draft now? Fucker, try drafting someone's daughter!!

LOL!!

I think you're right--but having been in myself, I don't want a draft. I refuse to serve with slaves, and all the Supreme Court's straining-at-gnats-and-swallowing-camels cannot make conscription anything but involuntary servitude. If they didn't volunteer, I don't want them with me. Maybe it means we miss out on some smarter people; maybe it means it's inefficient; maybe it means it's inequitable in terms of "sharing the pain"; maybe it means we're going to have trouble meeting our obligations if the economy picks up and no one wants to enlist: so be it. If we don't have enough volunteers to do the jobs we need to do in the military, we need to examine what they're doing--in other words, if young men aren't volunteering in sufficient numbers for a war, we need to examine whether we need, as a nation (not an 18th century ruler), to be fighting it. I guess it's a dichotomy: long-serving member, firm (most of the time) non-interventionist. "Son? Why do you have a peace sign and 'born to kill' on your helmet?" "Uh... the duality of man, sir?"

HD I'm totally with you on the draft - I'm probably a bigger opponent of it than anyone else around. However, whenever a nation feels it's cornered it always implements conscription in one form or another - so it's a possibility that it COULD come back to the U.S. one day depending on the circumstances.

Which isn't to say I disgreed w/the rest of your post. I never realized the "choice" element for women was so important in that sense, and it makes sense (although, interestingly, when you listen to male 'dating-gurus' they always say, 'don't give her a choice. Women love it when you're assertive and say what you're going to do and don't ask them what they want.' I've found this also to be somewhat true--but it doesn't mean these two notions are necessarily incongruous). My guess is the "choice" option for women is very, very nuanced, as are most things female. I, on the other hand, have very few nuances or hidden depths or anything else: "Honey: what are you REALLY thinking right now?" "OK--I'm not tired... I'm not hungry... I'm ALL RIGHT!"

Someone once said "Men are basically large dogs that can talk." I don't know that it is correct for all, or even most, men. But for me at least it's dead-on. Aside from sex, I'm pretty much only motivated by food--if you have food (especially ham, bacon, decent NC barbeque, fried chicken, char-grilled oysters, red-beans-and-rice, cornbread & greens, jambalaya, barbequed shrimp, really good tamales, doughnuts... OK, no "especially"--pretty much anything), I'll be your best friend.

Don't know about you but women PMSing scares me. Women PMSing with guns and able blow shit up is scarey and entertaining.

Don't know about you but women PMSing scares me. Women PMSing with guns and able blow shit up is scarey and entertaining. Originally Posted by pyramider

lol +1 That may be the secret weapon our military has been looking for !

Having served several years in the armed forces myself, I agree that woman should not be in combat roles. Yes they can be very beneficial in combat support, but not the actual fighting.

However, If a woman proves that she is physically strong enough (pass male standard fitness tests) then she should have no limits as most woman would in this situation. Not many woman are capable of this, but a few are (Ive met some woman that could kick most men's asses any day lol).

ilovedatass: You bring up a good point. The fact that women menstruate is another reason they shouldnt be in a combat fighting position. How could she maintain any level of hygiene while out in the field for months at a time? Im sure its been done before, but it cant be very healthy or very comfortable. As far as what you mean about them PMSing and going crazy,...nah, I disagree with that. From my experience when woman are in the military they put that shit on the back burner and maintain a professional attitude.

Lolita, you have my respect for serving in the military.

As Averni posted: any woman that can meet the present minimum standards set for males and wants to serve in combat should be allowed to. The danger is that, at some future point, the "PC crowd" will demand lower standards to admit women that cannot meet the present standards.

Agreed, if they are badass enough to do it let them. There wont be very many that fall into this category. I dont think they should be foreced to do it however.

But in my personal opinion they shouldnt. Whole list of reasons why not.

Thanks geddon

Brings back thoughts of the movie GI Jane. If she can do it, than let her. I hire most people who apply with a military background. You can't find a group of more self disciplined people than military vets ! Lovely Lolita, I would love to see you in uniform!

Lol, ilovedatass,

Personally I didnt think I looked sexy. Them uniforms come in standard sizes,...small medium and large. With my little waist and big hips and bottom I honestly looked kinda fat cus the uniforms were so baggy. I know some women who actually got their uniforms tailored to them, but those were usually officers. If an enlisted women did this it might be frowned upon (depending on how much she got it tailored to her body).

On the bright side when I was seen in my civies I got an amazing response. The guys just kinda of stared and said "whoa I didnt know she was hot!" Lol, miss those shocked facial expressions.

There are many COMMON SENSE reasons for not allowing women in combat. Too many to even list. But, they will probally lower the standards to allow it so the ladies can move up the ranks quicker.

I've been in combat and I know fucking well it would not work. PERIOD

Are you saying a woman cannot pull the trigger? Or launch artillery?

Not exactly. However, I do not think they should lower the standards so that woman can. If a woman can do it then let her, but dont weaken our entire military forces just so the majority of woman can fight in combat.