|
Author
|
Topic: Should Women Serve In Combat Roles?
|
YoursTrulyAlways
Knowflake Posts: 3624
From:
Registered: Oct 2011
|
posted September 03, 2012 11:50 AM
  
This is a controversial topic, naturally. Captain Petrino is a US Marine who has served three tours of duty on the frontline. She says that women should not be allowed in combat infantry, despite the fact that she's a combat engineer.
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal This isn't official US Pentagon propaganda. It's only Capt. Petrino's opinion. BTW. I disagree with her assessment. Having been an infantry officer myself, I have witnessed women with heroic capabilities. Russia, China, South Korea and Israel not only have women in combat roles. They have women in elite special forces units. IP: Logged |
aquaguy91
Moderator Posts: 4054
From: tennessee
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted September 03, 2012 03:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
This is a controversial topic, naturally. Captain Petrino is a US Marine who has served three tours of duty on the frontline. She says that women should not be allowed in combat infantry, despite the fact that she's a combat engineer.
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal This isn't official US Pentagon propaganda. It's only Capt. Petrino's opinion. BTW. I disagree with her assessment. Having been an infantry officer myself, I have witnessed women with heroic capabilities. Russia, China, South Korea and Israel not only have women in combat roles. They have women in elite special forces units.
this is a really complicated issue no matter how you look at it. different countries have experimented with this since world war 2 and most have decided against it, not because women can't be fine soldiers, its because it affects the men in negative ways. the experiments have shown that seeing a woman die really hurts the mens morale, another issue that has popped up is that men will fight over the womans attention and it causes a lot of tension. men are instinctually protectors of women, so having women in their units really compromises their ability to complete the mission at hand. I personally think women should be able to be in combat roles if they want, but I think there needs to be seperate units for men and women. I don't think its in men or womens best interest to be sharing tents together in combat.IP: Logged |
Ami Anne
Moderator Posts: 36084
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted September 03, 2012 06:42 PM
I would say no, imo.------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal
http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/
IP: Logged |
RedScorp
Knowflake Posts: 3096
From: GMT-5
Registered: Jul 2011
|
posted September 03, 2012 06:56 PM
Like aquaguy said, there an issues of a shared unit or tent...I've heard lots of stories about females in the army or navy being sexually assaulted. I think it's a personal choice and if a gal wants to be all up in the army, she can, but maybe there should be separate units or squads or whatever the correct terminology is?  IP: Logged |
ail221
Knowflake Posts: 1082
From: Mary Margaret Blanchard's home
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted September 03, 2012 07:12 PM
Sure they should; there are advantages of having both men and women in combat roles and women can make up for the lack of abilities the male combatants don't posses.
Ex. Where men have naturally less body fat and gain muscle mass easily. Usually better upper body strength.
Woman have better coordination and flexibility. Usually better lower body strength.IP: Logged |
PhoenixFire
Knowflake Posts: 676
From: The Crossing
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted September 03, 2012 08:30 PM
I think that if women wish to do it, then they should. I do agree with the separate tents/units, to protect women from possible sexual assault. In my view, it doesn't feel like there is true equality between the sexes, if women are not allowed to risk their lives as men do. This reminds me of emergency situations (such as the titanic), where women are given preference to escape ahead of men. I think both men and women are equal, and the risk to their lives shouldn't be calculated in terms of their sex. Might be controversial of me, but it is my humble opinion. If I want the freedom of a man then must be willing to see his life as valuable as that of mine or any other woman, and not want him to sacrifice his for ours only based on our sex. IP: Logged |
YoursTrulyAlways
Knowflake Posts: 3624
From:
Registered: Oct 2011
|
posted September 03, 2012 08:44 PM
There are already female Navy officers aboard submerged nuclear submarines on multi month deployments, sharing bunks and heads with men. OK. Give up the nonsense about separation. Modesty has no place in combat. What do you think medics do when a woman is shot? Cover her and wait for a female medic to treat?Did you not hear about the woman who got a Bronze Star dragging a man twice her size out of a burning HumVee in Iraq during a firefight? In the midst of battle, do you think anyone cares about who is providing suppressing fire? Women already serve in Naval Intelligence and fly F22 Raptors and B2 Bombers. Some are already master airborne qualified, and the only reason there are no Rangers yet is because they aren't allowed close to the 75th at Fort Benning. The one large sensitivity is SERE training. The enemy isn't going to sit women POWs down to tea. They're going to get water boarded, electrocuted and then sodomized, just like male high value POWs. IP: Logged |
aquaguy91
Moderator Posts: 4054
From: tennessee
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted September 03, 2012 08:58 PM
the only thing that concerns me about it is that most women are not up to the fitness levels that the military demands of men who go into combat roles. if women wish to be in the infantry, be it marines or army, they should have to be able to run as fast and do as many pushups as men etc. its either that or the military has to lower its standards and that would not bode well for our military at all.IP: Logged |
ail221
Knowflake Posts: 1082
From: Mary Margaret Blanchard's home
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted September 03, 2012 09:04 PM
There are female Olympians from all over the world. enough said. I can sense masochistic undertones coming. I'll make my exit. IP: Logged |
aquaguy91
Moderator Posts: 4054
From: tennessee
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted September 03, 2012 09:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ail221:
There are female Olympians from all over the world. enough said. I can sense masochistic undertones coming. I'll make my exit.
I know that. and omg all I said was the military doesn't have the same standard for women as they do men, that's a fact, its not sexism on my part. I am simply saying that women should have to go by the same standards as men. I'm promoting equality here. I have no doubt that some women can meet those standards. IP: Logged |
RedScorp
Knowflake Posts: 3096
From: GMT-5
Registered: Jul 2011
|
posted September 03, 2012 11:56 PM
quote:
I'll make my exit.
u and me both IP: Logged |
aquaguy91
Moderator Posts: 4054
From: tennessee
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted September 04, 2012 12:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by RedScorp:
u and me both
did you read what I wrote? apparently stating facts is sexist around here. the fact is that womens fitness standards are not the same as the mens, if any of you doubt me do some research or talk to a recruiter.mens physical fitness requirements are much tougher to make sure they are mentally and physically tough enough for combat. and that training has proven to be very effective. I'm suggesting that they make the womens fitness standards equal to the mens to make sure they are ready for it. I have no doubt that some women will pass with flying colors, now explain to me how I'm being sexist? I'm promoting equality. IP: Logged |
Venus
Moderator Posts: 1445
From:
Registered: Mar 2011
|
posted September 04, 2012 02:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by aquaguy91:
the only thing that concerns me about it is that most women are not up to the fitness levels that the military demands of men who go into combat roles. if women wish to be in the infantry, be it marines or army, they should have to be able to run as fast and do as many pushups as men etc. its either that or the military has to lower its standards and that would not bode well for our military at all.
aquaguy, these "facts" you are stating are useless in this context. physical ability isn't determined by genitals it's determined by training. not all men are cut out for the kind of physical excersion required by the army, similarly not all women are cut out for it either. IMO it's all determined in training, if the woman shows her potential than so be it. you are not being sexist yet you bluntly said that women in the army will lower the military standards. i don't get it. IP: Logged |
RegardesPlatero
Moderator Posts: 3808
From: Storybrooke, Mr. Gold's Shop
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted September 04, 2012 06:24 AM
I believe that women should be allowed to have any role that men can have in the military. That said, I am against mandatory service and am against a draft. I believe that all service should be voluntary. I also believe that, as more women go into the military, there needs to be more education and protection against rape, which is a major problem that women in the military face. In general, the military needs to do a lot more to care for the mental and emotional health of soldiers, especially when they return home and have to go back into society. Personally, I would never join any military of any country. It is not my own calling. But if another woman knows the risks and understands the consequences of joining, and wants to do it, she should be allowed to do that and should be able to make her own choice. IP: Logged |
aquaguy91
Moderator Posts: 4054
From: tennessee
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted September 04, 2012 08:17 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Venus:
aquaguy, these "facts" you are stating are useless in this context. physical ability isn't determined by genitals it's determined by training. not all men are cut out for the kind of physical excersion required by the army, similarly not all women are cut out for it either.IMO it's all determined in training, if the woman shows her potential than so be it. you are not being sexist yet you bluntly said that women in the army will lower the military standards. i don't get it.[/
QUOTE] hmm ok. that's not what I said at all. I said the military
has different physical standards for men and women,that's a fact. I never said women couldn't do it.
IP: Logged |
YoursTrulyAlways
Knowflake Posts: 3624
From:
Registered: Oct 2011
|
posted September 04, 2012 09:54 AM
Naturally, candidates must meet basic qualifications for the job.This is not basic training where there are bifurcated standards. There is no softball when it comes to specialist roles. In specialized vocations, there is only one minimum standard. For example, to be competitive in order to pre-qualify for BUD/S, one preferrably should meet the following standards back-to-back (minimum standards are slightly lower, but one doesn't hope to qualify with minimum standards): 500-yard swim using breast or combat side stroke in 10:00 minutes
79 push-ups in 2 minutes
79 sit-ups in 2 minutes
11 pull-ups from a dead hang (no time limit)
Run 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in boots and long pants in 10:20 The above would bring me to my knees even in my prime. And I have my US Ranger badge. If any woman can meet those standards, she deserves to qualify for BUD/S SEAL qualification, and would have my utmost respect. Even then, it's only to get into the qualification program and doesn't make anyone remotely close to being a Navy SEAL. IP: Logged |
aquaguy91
Moderator Posts: 4054
From: tennessee
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted September 04, 2012 10:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
Naturally, candidates must meet basic qualifications for the job.This is not basic training where there are bifurcated standards. There is no softball when it comes to specialist roles. In specialized vocations, there is only one minimum standard. For example, to be competitive in order to pre-qualify for BUD/S, one preferrably should meet the following standards back-to-back (minimum standards are slightly lower, but one doesn't hope to qualify with minimum standards): 500-yard swim using breast or combat side stroke in 10:00 minutes
79 push-ups in 2 minutes
79 sit-ups in 2 minutes
11 pull-ups from a dead hang (no time limit)
Run 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in boots and long pants in 10:20 The above would bring me to my knees even in my prime. And I have my US Ranger badge. If any woman can meet those standards,
she deserves to qualify for BUD/S SEAL
qualification, and would have my utmost
respect. Even then, it's only to get into
the qualification program and doesn't
make anyone remotely close to being a
Navy SEAL.
agreedIP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
