Ban on women in combat to be lifted

[Copelius]

Standards will be lowered. To few women will meet the current standards, so they will be lowered eventually. Women will introduce unhealthy dynamics in front line forces. Sexual tension between men and women, competition between men over a woman, chivalric impulses, etc.

Having been there, this is my main concern. There is already a different standard for the physical fitness tests. Rather than having double standards the standards may be lowered service wide resulting in a lower degree of readiness. I served in combat support and in combat arms.

There were women in combat support that didn't pull their weight and you could not use the same disciplinary methods on them as were available to you in the combat arms to men who didn't pull their weight. I am not talking code red here, just the walking on eggshells that happens due to the prevalence of harassment claims that are filed by sub-standard female soldiers.

That said, there were female soldiers that could run circles around me in the jobs they had and I had as much, if not more, respect for them as their male counterparts.

The sum of my ramblings is that if it can be done without a change to the standards or a disruption of the training methods that has made the US Armed Forces the greatest in the world, then tally ho. However I have my concerns that full integration can happen without said changes or disruptions.

[wuapinmon]

This is something I'll not offer an opinion on because although I've got soul, I'm not a soldier. If the military commanders want this, then we should do it.

The only thing I think that needs answering now is, Selective Service for all?

[venkman]

The military is the last target in the left's long march to take over all of our institutions. Too conservative, too religious, too patriotic. The "fundamental transformation" has begun!

[venkman]

This is something I'll not offer an opinion on because although I've got soul, I'm not a soldier. If the military commanders want this, then we should do it.

The only thing I think that needs answering now is, Selective Service for all?

Do we know what they want? Theyr'e not exactly at liberty to publically disagree with their civilian commanders.

[Eddie]

When I watched Starship Troopers I learned that women are every bit of capable as men in combat.


It seems like (at least in the past) there has been a philosophy that wounding a combatant causes more harm to the enemy than killing them. Wounded soldiers take resources to protect until removed from a combat area, resources to care for while healing, etc. Not to mention the psychological effect on other soldiers of seeing one of their own go through it all.

So part of me wonders about the psychological effect on men of seeing a woman wounded. It seems like all of the above would be exacerbated by the societal stereotype/norm of men having the role of protecting women. And while this is a complete stereotype - I suspect that many who volunteer to be in the infantry have a higher than normal regard for their own masculinity and their ability to meet societal stereotype expectations.

This isn't to say that women shouldn't be in combat. Just that I think there is the potential for it to lead to greater issues - at least until folks adjust to it over time.

[Devildog]

This is something I'll not offer an opinion on because although I've got soul, I'm not a soldier. If the military commanders want this, then we should do it.

The only thing I think that needs answering now is, Selective Service for all?

Military commanders?

IMO civilian administrators with higher political ambitions want this.

If it's just about numbers for combat... so be it.

If we really wanted the strongest force possible on the battlefield... well, now that's a different story. Just like any team, you will break at your weakest positions first.

[YOUTUBE]q9Mmuzi1mPw[/YOUTUBE]

[Sullyute]

I'm not interested in weakening our infantry forces (which is what I think this will do) so that women can get into higher military positions.

Standards will be lowered. To few women will meet the current standards, so they will be lowered eventually. Women will introduce unhealthy dynamics in front line forces. Sexual tension between men and women, competition between men over a woman, chivalric impulses, etc.

I realize I'm hopelessly old fashioned but I just don't think women belong in combat.

Those are valid reasons. A "weakening" is subjective. I hope that the standard is not lowered, but even if it is lowered for physical requirements, women may bring an increase in intelligence, strategy, decision making, etc that could increase the overall strength of the military. Time will tell.

P.S. Agree that the military needs to continue to address the issue around sexual assult in the military as it is way too high (as was posted earlier). Part of the issue is making it easier to report the crime and have the crime taken seriously (by those in authority and by the soldiers themselves). Most important, men simply need to control themselves. No means no.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Boo. You are a sexist pig.

[Devildog]

Boo. You are a sexist pig.

You are being a thin skinned little crybaby. Combat? Are you freakin' kidding... you can't handle a picture.

[Sleeping in EQ]

As long as they meet whatever standards the military has for someone (man, women or gay) qualified for combat, I wouldn't care.

I agree, and hope the military finally takes the problem of female soldiers being raped by male soldiers seriously.

[RC Vikings]

Will this affect the way other countries look at fighting against the U.S.?

[Devildog]

Are you guys prepared to have your daughters included in selective service registration?

What if a draft were to become necessary? Should it include women for mandatory combat operations just like men?

Why different standards?

Speaking of standards... do you really think physical standards can remain exactly the same? Nonsense. Have you ever tried to fireman's carry a 200 pound dummy? I have, lifting that dead weight to get it in position is very difficult. I've watched many women try, haven't seen much success.

I've seen the different standards at work in the military. The whole she can't do it, so she doesn't have to thing. Different standards has a way of creating it's own separations within a group dynamic. Not good for unit cohesion and esprit de corps.

One example of a thousand on the top of my head, we had to suspend a scout qual evolution once because a female driving a Humvee had to pee. We had just hiked over ten clicks, up a mountain in the rain, carrying 60 pound packs, with 5 hours of sleep over two days at that point, and we had to wait while she drove down the mountain to a restroom. It didn't draw a lot of sympathy.

[Mrs. Funk]

Will this affect the way other countries look at fighting against the U.S.?

It'll probably depend on the country. I'm not sure that countries that think armies of children are OK have much room to judge.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You are being a thin skinned little crybaby. Combat? Are you freakin' kidding... you can't handle a picture.

Your photo says nothing about combat. I stand by my comment. Maybe you can explain to me how that photo is not sexist.

[wuapinmon]

Military commanders?

IMO civilian administrators with higher political ambitions want this.

If it's just about numbers for combat... so be it.

If we really wanted the strongest force possible on the battlefield... well, now that's a different story. Just like any team, you will break at your weakest positions first.

[YOUTUBE]q9Mmuzi1mPw[/YOUTUBE]

English, do you speak it?