Explaining women in combat arms
- Thread starter SR_
- Start date
Thanks, Howey!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The argument against gays was primarily about morale not physical fitness. Gays were always in the military so it was a case of recognising something which was already the case anyway. Oh and gays don't get pregnant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19657646
Last edited:
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
But we know they will. Do they ever go for the whole enchilada at one time?
Forget whether they can do it or not, which I even question. Do we as a society really want to put our women in the kinds of positions men are placed in while in combat? Do we really want women having the emotional and physical ramifications that come along with it?
This isnt about equality. It is about slowly tearing down the greatest fighting force ever. Again look at what is happening on air craft carriers.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
society doesn't want to put either men or women in those positions....but someone needs to do it and we use those that are willing and seek it out......it is foolish to say that some aren't capable because they are women.....how many minutes would it take to find a YouTube video of some woman who could take out every man on this board simultaneously.....and probably with one hand tied behind her back.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
are planes falling off the edges?.....
SR_
Junior Member
Society DOES want to put fellow citizens in a position between themselves and those who would do them harm. This isnt hypothetical.
You say its foolish to say that women arent capable... and then you base this belief off your search ability of finding a woman on YouTube that could take out every man on this board...simultaneously?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Very interesting article about this.
Here is an excerpt (but it's fascinating and you should read the entire piece):
During her second deployment to Iraq, Staff Sgt. Stacy Pearsall of the Air Force found herself attached to an Army ground unit that was clearing roadside bombs. They had just found their 26th device of the day when one of their armored personnel carriers exploded. An ambush was on.
The chaos that unfolded over the next few hours was not a typical day for Sergeant Pearsall. But under the Pentagon’s decision to allow women into front-line combat units, officially announced Thursday, it could become much closer to the norm for women in American uniforms.
As Sergeant Pearsall tells the story, her vehicle came under intense fire that day in 2007, near the city of Baquba. The male soldiers in her carrier had already dashed out to join the fight, so she jumped onto the machine gun and began returning fire.
Outside a soldier lay unconscious. Sergeant Pearsall opened the rear door and crawled to the man, who was 6-foot-2 and more than 200 pounds, twice her weight. From behind him, she clasped him in a bear hug and dragged him toward the vehicle. She fell once, then again. Somehow, she hauled him into the armored safety of the carrier.
After tearing off his protective vest, she realized his carotid artery had been torn by shrapnel. As blood spurted all over, she closed her eyes, stuck her fingers into his neck and squeezed. He screamed, and she thanked the heavens. He was still kicking.
What happened next seemed almost cinematic. Emerging from a purplish haze outside, a medic jumped into the carrier and set his kit beside her. “Are you a medic?” he asked.
Heck no, Sergeant Pearsall replied. “I’m the photographer.”
The question that now looms over the Pentagon as it moves toward full gender integration is whether female service members like Sergeant Pearsall, for all their bravery under fire, can perform the same dangerous and physically demanding tasks day in and day out, for weeks at a time, as permanent members of ground combat units like the infantry or armored cavalry.
Here is an excerpt (but it's fascinating and you should read the entire piece):
During her second deployment to Iraq, Staff Sgt. Stacy Pearsall of the Air Force found herself attached to an Army ground unit that was clearing roadside bombs. They had just found their 26th device of the day when one of their armored personnel carriers exploded. An ambush was on.
The chaos that unfolded over the next few hours was not a typical day for Sergeant Pearsall. But under the Pentagon’s decision to allow women into front-line combat units, officially announced Thursday, it could become much closer to the norm for women in American uniforms.
As Sergeant Pearsall tells the story, her vehicle came under intense fire that day in 2007, near the city of Baquba. The male soldiers in her carrier had already dashed out to join the fight, so she jumped onto the machine gun and began returning fire.
Outside a soldier lay unconscious. Sergeant Pearsall opened the rear door and crawled to the man, who was 6-foot-2 and more than 200 pounds, twice her weight. From behind him, she clasped him in a bear hug and dragged him toward the vehicle. She fell once, then again. Somehow, she hauled him into the armored safety of the carrier.
After tearing off his protective vest, she realized his carotid artery had been torn by shrapnel. As blood spurted all over, she closed her eyes, stuck her fingers into his neck and squeezed. He screamed, and she thanked the heavens. He was still kicking.
What happened next seemed almost cinematic. Emerging from a purplish haze outside, a medic jumped into the carrier and set his kit beside her. “Are you a medic?” he asked.
Heck no, Sergeant Pearsall replied. “I’m the photographer.”
The question that now looms over the Pentagon as it moves toward full gender integration is whether female service members like Sergeant Pearsall, for all their bravery under fire, can perform the same dangerous and physically demanding tasks day in and day out, for weeks at a time, as permanent members of ground combat units like the infantry or armored cavalry.
cawacko
Well-known member
Darla, this is the first post I've seen you make on this subject (my apologies if I have missed previous ones). You tend to be outspoken on women issues so I was surprised you haven't spoken more about this. Do you not have a strong opinion on this issue one way or the other?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I am particularly interested in some of the claims made on another thread, which I was unable to respond to, regarding fears of women combatants being captured and raped. This was interesting to me for three reasons.
1) I never forgot reading an interview with a woman soldier who had been captured during (I believe) Gulf Storm. She had been raped. She stayed anonymous. She stated outright that she did not want to talk about the rape in capture for many reasons, one being that other torture methods had been worse.
2) It seems beyond obvious to me that in a post-abu ghraib world we should all know that sexually abusive tactics are being used against male prisoners. We use them ourselves. Some of these tactics include anal penetration of prisoners with light bulbs. That's rape my friends. And it is NO less traumatic for men.
3) Women in the United States military are right now, today, experiencing epidemic levels of rape and sex assault. At the hands of guess who? That's right. Male United States soldiers. Many of whom are rapists. These rapes are covered up by MALE commanding officers, some of whom are committing the rapes themselves. So we fear the rape of these women? Or we only fear the rape of these women by Muslim men?
1) I never forgot reading an interview with a woman soldier who had been captured during (I believe) Gulf Storm. She had been raped. She stayed anonymous. She stated outright that she did not want to talk about the rape in capture for many reasons, one being that other torture methods had been worse.
2) It seems beyond obvious to me that in a post-abu ghraib world we should all know that sexually abusive tactics are being used against male prisoners. We use them ourselves. Some of these tactics include anal penetration of prisoners with light bulbs. That's rape my friends. And it is NO less traumatic for men.
3) Women in the United States military are right now, today, experiencing epidemic levels of rape and sex assault. At the hands of guess who? That's right. Male United States soldiers. Many of whom are rapists. These rapes are covered up by MALE commanding officers, some of whom are committing the rapes themselves. So we fear the rape of these women? Or we only fear the rape of these women by Muslim men?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Billy the Butthurt King bans me from his threads because I said months ago that I thought he was a sucky mod. So I was unable to contribute to that discussion.
My feelings on this are complicated because, it's like when they allowed gays in the military (openly I mean). So, okay, now gays can kill too. Yay?
But, women are there now, they are fighting now, they are dying now. And they are being prevented from rising in the ranks.
This is not only unfair, it has a lot of repercussions. For instance, what would a military with an equal number of women in command positions look like to rape victims in the military? I think it'd look very different.
I know many women Id chose to be by my side over many men I know if I were in battle.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Anyone who has ever served in actual combat conditions would never want a woman to have to go through that.
Aren't we a better society than that?
Pathetic. Will be bad for women and bad or the military
Aren't we a better society than that?
Pathetic. Will be bad for women and bad or the military
The language was how they are getting around it. Women are already "attached" to infantry units, instead of assigned.
They are already are in the line of fire, like you stated, they just arent getting credit for it. It was the way the military was able to get around the restriction.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yet you have never been into battle so you haven't got a clue what it's like!!
I dont want anyone to have to go through that, but it someone does, why does it matter what the person's gender is?
It is the same. It's been the same old "unit cohesion" excuse for sixty years...since the services were integrated. Anyone who's not straight and male is in incapable of performing at the same heightened testosterone level as the big boys.
We've hopefully grown from the days of "They'll (the blacks) spread veneral diseases and aren't smart enough to fight alongside us" to "They'll (gays) nelly out on the battlefield and start crying" or "We don't want them to look at us showering" to "They'll PMS on the front line and get us all killed" and "They're too emotional to fight"; the straight white male feels threatened that they may lose some vestige of the maleness fighting alongside women, blacks and gays.
It never happened.
Great point. The "good ol' boys" are still in the military. It's time they got their collective asses thrown out.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I don't have any real objections if the standards are not relaxed but I doubt that will be the case.
Who says we still need those standards?