US mulls ban on women in combat... Ladies.. What do you think??????????????

[rhino 0]

US mulls ban on women in combat... I'm interested in knowing how the ladies feel about this???????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4560847.stm


US mulls ban on women in combat
By Adam Brookes
BBC News, Washington

Private Jessica Lynch at her homecoming
Private Jessica Lynch is one of the US' best-known soldiers
Republicans in the US Congress are trying to pass legislation which would keep female soldiers out of combat.

The measure is being considered now by the House Armed Services Committee.

Advocates of the proposal want to stop women from working as drivers, medics and logistics specialists in teams which provide back-up to combat units.

They say the women get too close to the fighting. But the US army is opposed to the plan at a time when they are having problems with recruitment.

Senior officers have said if it passes into law, they will have to pull out 22,000 female soldiers from their current jobs and replace them with men.

No front line

Women who serve in the US army are barred by law from fighting on the front line.

Uncle Sam recruiting poster made famous during two world wars
The US army faces recruitment problems
But in Iraq, the US is fighting an insurgency - which means there is no front line.

About 9,000 women are serving in Iraq and 35 have been killed.

Combat can happen anywhere at any time, and women have frequently been caught up in it.

Republican lawmakers in the Congress now want to pass a measure which would keep women out of units called Forward Support Companies.

The army is deeply opposed to the measure.

Underlying the army's opposition are the problems it is having recruiting new troops.

For the last three months, the army has failed to meet its recruiting targets. At the moment it looks set to miss its annual target by 15%.

Further limiting the roles women can fill in the military will make its task even harder.

[nbblood 0]

Well, I'm not a woman, but I this subject is very relavant to me. I don't think this will happen. First of all, to remove women from combat zones would mean to remove them from the armed forces. In the contemporary operating environment, there really is no place that is not a combat zone. In Iraq it starts 1 inch north of the Kuwait border, and don't count on it staying in Iraq either. Second, the problems we're hearing about in the news, typically, are the stories of mishaps, failures, and bad performance. These are the exception to the rule. Not every case results in mothers calling their daughters home out of the National Guard, or deriliction of duty by a high ranking officer, or an enemy ambush disaster for a wayward unit. Which leads me to my final point, women are in combat every day and the bottom line is they are getting it done. They've very much proven their worth in the service. They've been involved in firefights, they're part of cordon and search operations, you name it they're getting it done. To remove them from the battlefield would be a tremendous step to the rear about 20 years. As a leader in the Army, I can say that I have experience dealing with this issue first hand. I've seen some females that shouldn't be in the service and I've seen some that are top performers. In other words, no difference from males. What I say is support them the same as any other troop, because they are. Give them the respect they deserve and lets lose this ridiculous notion that they don't belong in service. I still believe that there are jobs in the service that nearly all women are not capable physically of performing, but I think the status quo deals with that adequately. But if you're an infantryman, don't be surprised to have females side by side with you on a cordon and search or raid. Anyway, my .02.

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[jshatzkin 0]

Well said! I am a woman, a military spouse, and 7 year Army veteran, so I couldn't resist replying. Women sign the dotted line to protect their country just like every military man does. With that comes risks. Service members, regardless of sex, understand that risk. War has a new face, and is being fought in a protracted guerilla way and there is no front line. This proposal to remove women from these jobs is degrading. It does not safeguard women, though it is being propsed as such. I think the underlying implication is that women have made huge strides in the military in different jobs and rank. God forbid women threaten the male dominated force! That would only soften it right? I say we create a brigade of infantryWOMEN. I know many who would willingly do this, and probably kick ass. If women want TRUE equality, we have to be willing to have equal work, including the risks. I think many women are more than willing to do that. I am positive this is about military image. If a male soldier gets killed,..well that was his duty and it was an honor (loosely speaking from a military viewpoint). If a female soldier gets killed, then pretty pictures (not the standard military photgraph) are posted and everyone is upset by the children she left behind (or the like) and it should have never happened. What kind of message does this send our women fighters? Okay, enough of my tangeant. I made my point. If a woman signs the dotted line, she is willing to take every responsiblity and risk that comes with that. For government to try to "safeguard" her simply because she is a woman, is an insult to all women,...and all soldiers,....male or female.

Jen

[bobsled92 0]

Equal rights/ equal fights =same pay
I'm a telephone Tech and we have a problem with equal pay in effect yet only guys are required to go to certain areas of the city and not get granted help on the job when requested.

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

[jshatzkin 0]

An afterthought about this equality thing:

Why isn't there a "Men Only" Forum on this site?

Jen

[lawrocket 3]

Everybody's secondary MOS is 11B, including women...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rhino 0]

Quote

Why isn't there a "Men Only" Forum on this site?

Damn Good question.. I guess discussing Jock Itch just isn't in the master plan for Dropzone.com.. LOL

[crozby 0]

Where to live if you want gender equality. The top 10 and bottom 10 countries according to the World Economic Forum:

1: Sweden
2: Norway
3: Iceland
4: Denmark
5: Finland
6: New Zealand
7: Canada
8: United Kingdom
9: Germany
10: Australia
..
17: USA
..
49: Venezuela
50: Greece
51: Brazil
52: Mexico
53: India
54: South Korea
55: Jordan
56: Pakistan
57: Turkey
58: Egypt


Full study here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16_05_05_gender_gap.pdf

[Guest]

The biggest problem is that it's really bad on men's morale to see women KIA.

Another problem is that boys will be boys and girls will be girls.

This equal rights stuff is a bunch of crap where war is concerned.

This is the same as having female firefighters. People have died because weak female firefighters couldn't do the job that a man can.

The sexes ARE DIFFERENT - GET OVER IT.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Alias 0]

IMHO, Front line and serious combat should be restrcted to men only - but to limit women from support roles, excluding medical applications, is ridiculous.

I've been impressed by more then one woman fighter pilot.

There can be roles for both sexes in defending their country - doesnt mean they have to equally deployed in a combat

Carpe Diem

[crozby 0]

Quote

This is the same as having female firefighters. People have died because weak female firefighters couldn't do the job that a man can.

And unfit/weak male firefighters might not be able to do the job that a strong fit male firefighter can. Solution: have a strength/fitness test and set the pass mark the same for both men and women applicants.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

have a strength/fitness test and set the pass mark the same for both men and women applicants.

It's amazing how much resistance a simple, common sense, requirement like that gets.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

have a strength/fitness test and set the pass mark the same for both men and women applicants.

It's amazing how much resistance a simple, common sense, requirement like that gets.

The standards for men and women were as different as night and day when I was in. It totally sucked trying to get promoted ahead of an entire group who had practically no standards on top of competing with all your peers.
In my opinion, set ALL standards equal and let women serve as they are able or just get them out completely.

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Quote

have a strength/fitness test and set the pass mark the same for both men and women applicants.

It's amazing how much resistance a simple, common sense, requirement like that gets.

I've said the same thing about driver's licenses... (Just like anything else requiring skill to operate) you should have to re-cert every five years or so... God forbid the AARP would let that happen...

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[Kinaa 0]

Quote

The biggest problem is that it's really bad on men's morale to see women KIA.

I don't see how that would be bad on moral? We had women medics serving in our infantry units, fighting better than some mens. Fortunatly no one of them got KIA (although some of them were heavily wounded) but if so, it could only get us fight harder.

[billvon 3,116]

>Front line and serious combat should be restrcted to men only . . .

>I've been impressed by more then one woman fighter pilot.

So you wouldn't consider a fighter pilot engaged in air superiority missions to be on the front line? "Sorry, you're the best pilot we've got, but you might get hurt. We'll send out the B squad."

If something is too dangerous for women, it's too dangerous for people. period. They are not weaker or helpless - and they are not any more 'deserving' of life than men are. If a war is worth the cost, then it is worth the cost in both men _and_ women's lives. If it's not - then find an alternative to war.

[Frenchy68 0]

Kitchen. Sammich. Now!

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[nbblood 0]

Quote

Front line and serious combat should be restrcted to men only - but to limit women from support roles, excluding medical applications, is ridiculous.

If you can show me where the front line is in the contemporary operating environment, I'd be real interested. "Front Line" is a term associated with the old Soviet threat style war where large formations met on a battlefield. That simply is not the case today. There is no "rear area" that is behind a "front line". All soldiers must prepare for and expect combat situations. In fact, support type units are much more vulnerable to enemy contact because the enemy chooses not to engage combat forces that severely outmatch him. Instead the enemy chooses more vulnerable targets. Point being, there is no defining line for front line or serious combat. It is a multi-dimensional battlefield.

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[Alias 0]

Quote

>Front line and serious combat should be restrcted to men only . . .

>I've been impressed by more then one woman fighter pilot.

So you wouldn't consider a fighter pilot engaged in air superiority missions to be on the front line? "Sorry, you're the best pilot we've got, but you might get hurt. We'll send out the B squad."

Maybe I should have elaborated more in regards to what I meant about front line combat. I was referring more to Infantry/armor/artie applications. Again where strength plays a major role.

Quote

If something is too dangerous for women, it's too dangerous for people. period.

My opinion has nothing to do with "danger" - which is why I gave credit to the bad ass female pilots I have met.

Quote

They are not weaker

Bill, c'mon now. You really do not realize the physical strength differences between the avg male and avg female?

I agree with past comments in regards to physical requirements. if I were to agree that women were needed in front line infantry/armor/artie combat-

One test - same standards

Carpe Diem

[Alias 0]

Quote

Quote

Front line and serious combat should be restrcted to men only - but to limit women from support roles, excluding medical applications, is ridiculous.

If you can show me where the front line is in the contemporary operating environment, I'd be real interested. "Front Line" is a term associated with the old Soviet threat style war where large formations met on a battlefield. That simply is not the case today. There is no "rear area" that is behind a "front line". All soldiers must prepare for and expect combat situations. In fact, support type units are much more vulnerable to enemy contact because the enemy chooses not to engage combat forces that severely outmatch him. Instead the enemy chooses more vulnerable targets. Point being, there is no defining line for front line or serious combat. It is a multi-dimensional battlefield.

Blues,
Nathan

Agreed - but you would also agree that there is a difference in combat exposure for, lets say, a Stryker Force compared to a medical unit operating in a "war zone"?

Carpe Diem

[nbblood 0]

Quote

The biggest problem is that it's really bad on men's morale to see women KIA.

I've got news for you. It's really bad on men's morale to see men KIA too. I don't think soldiers make a distinction, as much as made out to be, between male and female fellow soldiers. Does a distinction exist....yes.....to the extent many people believe.....not at all.

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[nbblood 0]

Quote

Agreed - but you would also agree that there is a difference in combat exposure for, lets say, a Stryker Force compared to a medical unit operating in a "war zone"?

Yes I would agree. A support unit is MUCH more likely to be engaged by the enemy than a combat unit. They simply will not take on a force that they know they can't win against. Our combat forces are engaged when we are on offense at the time and place of our choosing. But the enemy is not going to attack our combat formations. That would be stupid.

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[Lindsey 0]

You really do not realize the physical strength differences between the avg male and avg female?

True...but the average female can build up some pretty impressive strength with some time in the gym. My friend Lauren (bodybuilder) is hands-down stronger than most men I know. She works at it. Women do not have the hormonal advantage toward physical strength that men have, but to believe that the average woman is incapable of adequate strength to perform in combat is a little patronizing. I'm offended...lol .

linz

[rhino 0]

Quote

Kitchen. Sammich. Now!

LOL

I know some women that are stronger than I am. I am for women in combat. Just make the physical requirements the same across the board.

In the Marines Men had to do regular push ups. Women did them from their knees men from their toes. That shit needs to stop. Equal is equal. Either we all recognize and act like we are the same or we realize and act like we are different.

Rhino

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Women did them from their knees men from their toes.

Alex, I'll take women on their knees for 300.

(Boy, i'm trying hard to make female friends tonight!)

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."