Should WOMEN Serve in Combat???
This is a rather interesting topic. I do think that women have the right to enlist in the military but I don't think that they should be allowed to enter combat on the front line. I know that women are mentally able to handle things sometimes even better than men. Physically, can a man handle the strain of childbirth? I really don't think so. A woman can even take on the physical abuse of a male abuser. I myself am into martial arts and can protect myself as a woman but I don't think that I would like to be in combat. Just the thought of what my captures would do to me as a woman. And I know that men can be raped as well but women have to contend with menstruation monthly and I don't think that the captors would care if the women p.o.w.s had acess to feminine products. They would probably just let them sit there in their own blood. No! I could never see that. Even the thought is utterly disgusting.
I do however respect and honor the women who feel like they have the courage to deal with whatever is thrust at them. My heart goes out to them.
I was going to bed when I typed my first answer.
I believe with the proper conditioning and training, a woman can compete. Yes, for the most part, women are smaller, slower, weaker.
It all comes down to training and being dedicated to continue your training.
I do think the element of surprise would tend to catch the enemy off guard.
The problem of pregnancy comes in....periods can be had 4 times a year rather than 10-14, as normal. If the young women were outfitted with Norplant or IUD, at least the pregnancy risk would be very low. The rate of pregnancy with an implanted device is less than 1%. Someone is always going to forget their pill.
As far as rape goes....if a woman signs up for combat, she is taking a risk. A risk will always arise when a man is present with young women. Rape counseling, detachment, etc. would have to be trained. These woman would have to understand the risks and how to cope with it during battle.
This is a very complicated issue. I don't know enough about the Isreali army, however, I cannot imagine that they ignore these issues.
Teaching women how to be strong, confident and synchronized is a difficult task. However, it can be done. Look at women's sports over the last 30 years. Major difference in confidence and ability.
It is only a matter of time before women will be requesting combat and sooner or later, they will be doing it.
BTW, my husband's first cousin, (only cousin AAMOF) is a pilot and now in the reserves. She has been called up. She flies fighter jets. She changed from a confident young woman to a strong, confident, physically and mentally rebuilt woman. We had her over at Xmas and she can lift weights near my husband's range and do a marathon.....she had run a marathon the week before Xmas.
She is an inspiration for women everywhere. She learned so much and is now so much more capable of everything (from changing a tire to determining her own fate) than when she started. She is a few years younger than I, so she had been to college, however, I have literally watched her grow before my eyes.
BTW, she is still slim and very pretty. She is just "tight".
JT, you need to change your view. I assure you that I know women that would not flinch when shooting your balls off.
while i will not argue that point, in fact i agree that there are women who would having no problem doingt that,
My view is based on fact, most men- in most cultures are conditioned to feel a need to protect women and with that component deeply engrained in the male culture-- i still believe that there are men who would give up information much quicker if they had to watch a female soldier being tortured.
with that being the case --do you think that will continue to prevent women from being in a combat role
the old guard at the Pentagon often time hold this view --if not publicly -they do so privately
in some of the local papers a number of ranking decision makers privately state that they believe Amercia could not handle seeing as one stated "A female soldier spread eagle"
while we know it happens everyday in some part of the earth to women that women are treated like dirt
one of the things that is constantly a concern of the miltary is the p sychological affects of "this or that" on soldiers
I just think that this psychological effect on men will continue to prevent women from being in combat for the fore seeable future.
The arguement that much of the miltiary is now high tech and not direct hand to hand is very true, but the final step will be as it has often been in most wars, direct hand to hand as it were
when they reach the capitol of iraq, all the planes, HumVees , guided missles will mean nothing -
it will be street by street, block by block, and now with reporters allowed to be right on the scene, i find it very hard to believe that the america public could deal with seeing a squad of 1-15 women penned down and taken.
so at this time i will have to go with a no combat for women
ain't it nice to be able to disagree and not be DFed smile
I think we should train women in divisions long enough so that their menstrual cycles sync up.
periods can be had 4 times a year rather than 10-14
I have wondered how this is handled, and if the women are given something to stop their periods. For some women it could be very difficult to take care of the necessities in a battle situation.
Normal elimination could be difficult too, unless they are just totally desensitized. Men can easily urinate, but a woman doesn't have that kind of equipment, although a Bible student of mine told me her little girls used toilet paper rolls so they could go standing up. I guess that kind of thing would work.
Don't I think of odd things??
Oh, sorry, I thought you asked if women should service men in combat!
that question is so 20th centuary!
Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but in the British army women are not allowed on the front line. I know this was definately the case a couple of years ago and i think it still is.
The argument was that it would distract the men from their concentration.
My concern is the gradual lowering of physical standards to allow women to serve.
On the other hand, if the feminists win this issue, then women should be required to be drafted just like the men are. However, the stuff I have read, they are against this. Why?
If a female feels that she is qualified to serve in any facet of the armed forces, the police, firefighters, or as Prime Minister, so be it. Many women have proven themselves to be as strong as any man could be.And I am talking about mentally as well as emotionally.
If a woman wants to , go for it! But if they do change the tests around like JT says then I don't think that is right.
Both Men and Women should take the same exact test!!!
Generally men are physically stronger than women.
Generally women are more sensative than men.
There are no doubt more women that couldn't handle this task than there are men wo can't, but that doesn't mean women shouldn't be allowed to join.
Personally, I would never want to go into combat. I am perfectly happy letting my boytoy protect me.
JT, I am surprised at you, dude!! What gives?
The "standard" that many herein have referred to is based on the male species. I really DIG the way (NOT) men apply this standard when it suits them.
For example, how many times do you see women working on a high-paying construction crew lifting a 50 pound bag of cement all day long? Almost never, right? Well then perhaps you could explain to me how it is that the same woman who can't lift a 50 pound bag of cement *somehow* qualifies to be a low-paid "Home Health Aide" where she can lift the elderly and invalid WEIGHING many times that amount ALL DAY LONG and not look back?
Men invoke the "Physical Strength Standard" when it suits them. The last time we had professional movers come in and move our belongings, I physically worked those men into the ground. The entire crew except for the Supervisor, who offered me a job (LOL) and told me he would never know by looking at me that I had that type of strength, stamina and endurance.
2. In the animal world, it is usually the female who is in charge of killing the prey and bringing it home while the male just nuts off and goes to spray his goop around town, marking his "territory." So who says women can't be vicious?
3. In ANY fight or flight situation, the adrenaline factor kicks in and imparts superhuman strength to man and woman. Many times the news has reported situations where a woman accomplished a superhuman feat; i.e., lifting a car off of her husband when the jack failed and he was being crushed. This is just one example.
4. As for getting your period? Give me a break. First of all, elite women athletes rarely, if ever, get their period because of the suppression of estrogen in their system. I'm quite sure [8>] that before a crew went into battle the logistics could be worked out. Perhaps a shot of testosterone or Depo-Provera. How ridiculous!
5. I can guarantee you that in countries where women are treated like third class citizens (not the US, mind you, where we are treated like second class citizens) they need a taste of this medicine. They need to get their nutz shot off by a blonde, brunette or whatever.
6. The Armed Forces has spent BILLIONS making technology the great equalizer. We don't want to have to have our troops endangered needlessly, period, be they man or woman. It doesn't take much strength to map coordinates on a GPS system and push "Arm."
Give me a *ucking break. Lop sided conversations like this one are just one of the reasons I left the board. Let women decide if they want the risk. Period. We don't need nor do we want to be 'babied,' thank you very much.