women in combat roles

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

User avatar

tough old man
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Hell

Re: women in combat roles

Post by tough old man »

Because you wouldn't protect your brother in arms at all cost?
Nate and I had been friends since boot camp, ITS, ARS. I knew his whole family. We spent 3 weeks several times at his parents Texas ranch pig hunting and were basically inseparable away from base.
I most certainly would have.
"I am the author of my own misfortune, I don't need a ghost writer" - Ian Dury


"Legio mihi nomen est, quia multi sumus."


TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: women in combat roles

Post by TerryB »

I thnk women shouldn't be online, but I've no problem with them serving in combat roles.

The main problem you sexists have identified is not really the women themselves. It's a problem with how they're treated by the men in charge.

Everyone would agree that women should be held to the same standards, subjected to discipline the same as anyone, reuqired to follow mission standards regarding field hygiene, etc. The ones that can do that should be fine soldiers. The ones that can't should be removed. How is this some problem that is unique to women because of their vagina and different hormonal makeup?

And some of the 'arguments' above are hilarious. You tough macho SOBs, all field-hardened from your times in SPECOPS, are worried that...they smell bad? LMFAO Or that, they're hormonal? But men aren't, of course. Men are always rational and sane, and never experience mood swings or periods of irritability, anger, moodiness. No, no. That's womens' stuff!

Oh, and while you despise non-naked women in your daily lives, you'd suddenly fight to the death, ignoring the mission and your discipline, to save some random female's life on the battlefield? And that's going to ruin our military effectiveness? This is stupid, misguided, and warmed-over sexism really. Again, the problem isn't the women, it's the attitudes of the men around them.

Get a fucking grip. Women do all the jobs men do, except combat jobs. Now, they're going to do those too. Those that can, should. Those that can't, should be removed. Simple as that.

I'd also suggest that maybe some of the 'affirmative action' that we see toward some women in the military might actually go away if they were treated as completely equal to the men. By separating them, we create this idea that they aren't equal, they are "special" etc. Fold them in 100% and they become just like everybody else.
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image


Andy83
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2650
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:07 am

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Andy83 »

The ones in the Marines even wear different dress hats and skirts. WTF is that? Do they get their laba lips sewed together too?
Obama's narcissism and arrogance is only superseded by his naivete and stupidity.

User avatar

johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7901
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: women in combat roles

Post by johno »

The purpose of the US military used to be to crush the enemy, drive them before it, and hear the lamentations of the women.
Now, apparently, the purpose is to provide promotion opportunities to the minuscule number of female officers* who have stars (general's stars) in their eyes. And Equality.

Random thoughts:

1 - The Obama Admin did this without adequate Congressional & military input. And without adequate experimentation. The proper way to consider the female combat option would be to see if even a teensy, Leg-type infantry battalion could be staffed & could operate, 100% female. It doesn't look promising, given that both women candidates failed to complete the Marine Corps Infantry Officers' Program.

2 -There is a Warrior Ethos. It is a male ethos. It might not be good to destroy or dilute it.

3 - In Iraq/Afghanistan, the ratio of males to females killed was 50 to 1. To say that some women served in combat situations & died honorably there, does not mean that the military policy of trying to protect women failed. It just wasn't perfect.

4 - Maybe men & women are different. Certainly, men show a greater capacity for personal violence. Maybe there's a clue?

5 - Many men, especially those who volunteer for military service, strongly believe that women are to be protected. PTSD will be worse when these guys see their sisters die in 50 X greater numbers.

6 - Sex is a more powerful force than SOP's & regulations.



*Very few female enlisted are interested in serving in combat units.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar

Holland Oates
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 14137
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:32 am
Location: GAWD'S Country
Contact:

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Holland Oates »

For every GI Jane there are 1000 GI Stress Fracture PT Profile. This will only increase the distaste for women in combat roles. Nothing builds esprit de corps like working your ass off to complete a road march in full kit while your female counterpart rides in the truck or does it in running shoes and fatigues only. Fuck em. Make 100% female combat units and send them in first. Let them prove themselves.
Southern Hospitality Is Aggressive Hospitality

User avatar

johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7901
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: women in combat roles

Post by johno »

And to those who say, "Let women in to combat roles, as long as the standards aren't lowered,"
THE STANDARDS ARE ALREADY LOWERED FOR WOMEN, YOU CLUELESS DUMBASS!!!
People who make that argument are already disqualified for lack of basic knowledge of the subject.

http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fi ... -standards
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar

tough old man
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Hell

Re: women in combat roles

Post by tough old man »

And to those who say, "Let women in to combat roles, as long as the standards aren't lowered,"
THE STANDARDS ARE ALREADY LOWERED FOR WOMEN, YOU CLUELESS DUMBASS!!!
People who make that argument are already disqualified for lack of basic knowledge of the subject.
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
Its not like they are all the chick from aliens.
"I am the author of my own misfortune, I don't need a ghost writer" - Ian Dury


"Legio mihi nomen est, quia multi sumus."


Thatcher II
Top
Posts: 1706
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:02 am

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Thatcher II »

I would not like to face a female combat unit in the field. Bitches be krayzee. No telling what shit they would pull. They be unpredictable, vindictive, manipulative and ROOFLESS. Fuck that shit. Al Qaeda be shitting themselves.
It's great to be first at last

User avatar

johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7901
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: women in combat roles

Post by johno »

EZ Ed makes a great point.
IF a female can meet the minimum standard to enter an elite unit, most likely she will be at the bottom of the unit's strength & abilities. She will always be the weak link in the unit.
In a twelve man unit, somebody always has to be #12 (in whatever dimension you're measuring). But consider the morale/personnel issues when the #12 is a woman 80+% of the time.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar

Holland Oates
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 14137
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:32 am
Location: GAWD'S Country
Contact:

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Holland Oates »

I was never active duty but going from an all male basic to having to deal with females at medic school made me a card carrying member of the he-man woman hater club for a long time. I've never seen so many motherfuckers who wanted to be "soldiers" wearing running shoes and dodging PT. Not to mention not being able to actually carry a fucking litter much less another soldier.
Southern Hospitality Is Aggressive Hospitality

User avatar

johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7901
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: women in combat roles

Post by johno »

tough old man wrote:
And to those who say, "Let women in to combat roles, as long as the standards aren't lowered,"
THE STANDARDS ARE ALREADY LOWERED FOR WOMEN, YOU CLUELESS DUMBASS!!!
People who make that argument are already disqualified for lack of basic knowledge of the subject.
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
Its not like they are all the chick from aliens.
VASQUEZ! I love that girl.

...in the movie.
Image

Problem is, military policy is being driven by people whose military experience is based on Aliens & GI Jane.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar

Dunn
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6786
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:06 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Dunn »

Ed Zachary wrote:I was never active duty but going from an all male basic to having to deal with females at medic school made me a card carrying member of the he-man woman hater club for a long time. I've never seen so many motherfuckers who wanted to be "soldiers" wearing running shoes and dodging PT. Not to mention not being able to actually carry a fucking litter much less another soldier.

Same here. On the drill field you are only as strong as your weakest link....which is a woman 98% of the time. A female FF friend of mine is pretty spot on when she says that this isn't a profession for most women. You either have to literally man up and get stronger or you are risking your team's lives.

User avatar

the fearless freep
Gunny
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:49 pm
Location: Trying to find where I fucking parked.

Re: women in combat roles

Post by the fearless freep »

johno wrote:Now, apparently, the purpose is to provide promotion opportunities to the minuscule number of female officers* who have stars (general's stars) in their eyes.
This is precisely the political (-caly correct) justification for this.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

User avatar

Chessman
Top
Posts: 1465
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:12 am

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Chessman »

Ed Zachary wrote:For every GI Jane there are 1000 GI Stress Fracture PT Profile. This will only increase the distaste for women in combat roles. Nothing builds esprit de corps like working your ass off to complete a road march in full kit while your female counterpart rides in the truck or does it in running shoes and fatigues only. Fuck em. Make 100% female combat units and send them in first. Let them prove themselves.
Bingo. I went through the second wave of integrated basic training and on the 12 mile road march, I carried two full packs, 2 M-16s, and the platoon radio for a reason. We were told that the platoons radio, M-60, etc. were going to make it to the end of the march even if the females couldn't make it. We carried their gear and weapons and our own. We had one GI Jane type that carried her own weight and we had no problem with her. But I wouldn't go to war with the others. If they couldn't handle a road march in basic...
Image


Topic author
tzg
Gunny
Posts: 726
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: women in combat roles

Post by tzg »

I just want to pop in again and say that Aliens was a damn good movie.

User avatar

Cave Canem
Top
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:24 pm
Location: Somebody's dog house somewhere.

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Cave Canem »

But think of the sammiches.........
Tantum validus superstes

User avatar

baffled
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8873
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:56 pm

Re: women in combat roles

Post by baffled »

This is sort of making me want to start a thread with a bunch of naked chicks wearing combat boots, holding "assault weapons" etc.

A real change of pace kind of thing.
"Gentle in what you do, Firm in how you do it"
- Buck Brannaman

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21247
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Turdacious »

Chessman wrote:
Ed Zachary wrote:For every GI Jane there are 1000 GI Stress Fracture PT Profile. This will only increase the distaste for women in combat roles. Nothing builds esprit de corps like working your ass off to complete a road march in full kit while your female counterpart rides in the truck or does it in running shoes and fatigues only. Fuck em. Make 100% female combat units and send them in first. Let them prove themselves.
Bingo. I went through the second wave of integrated basic training and on the 12 mile road march, I carried two full packs, 2 M-16s, and the platoon radio for a reason. We were told that the platoons radio, M-60, etc. were going to make it to the end of the march even if the females couldn't make it. We carried their gear and weapons and our own. We had one GI Jane type that carried her own weight and we had no problem with her. But I wouldn't go to war with the others. If they couldn't handle a road march in basic...
Lemme guess-- they all graduated.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule


Protobuilder
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5038
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:51 am

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Protobuilder »

protobuilder wrote:And some of the 'arguments' above are hilarious. You tough macho SOBs, all field-hardened from your times in SPECOPS, are worried that...they smell bad? LMFAO Or that, they're hormonal? But men aren't, of course. Men are always rational and sane, and never experience mood swings or periods of irritability, anger, moodiness. No, no. That's womens' stuff!
I generally smell rather good and am not prone to mood swings so your arguments are invalid.
johno wrote:The purpose of the US military used to be to crush the enemy, drive them before it, and hear the lamentations of the women.
I remember when the military worshiped Crom whose authority was unquestioned.
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.

User avatar

Chessman
Top
Posts: 1465
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:12 am

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Chessman »

Turdacious wrote:
Chessman wrote:
Ed Zachary wrote:For every GI Jane there are 1000 GI Stress Fracture PT Profile. This will only increase the distaste for women in combat roles. Nothing builds esprit de corps like working your ass off to complete a road march in full kit while your female counterpart rides in the truck or does it in running shoes and fatigues only. Fuck em. Make 100% female combat units and send them in first. Let them prove themselves.
Bingo. I went through the second wave of integrated basic training and on the 12 mile road march, I carried two full packs, 2 M-16s, and the platoon radio for a reason. We were told that the platoons radio, M-60, etc. were going to make it to the end of the march even if the females couldn't make it. We carried their gear and weapons and our own. We had one GI Jane type that carried her own weight and we had no problem with her. But I wouldn't go to war with the others. If they couldn't handle a road march in basic...
Lemme guess-- they all graduated.
Pretty much. The only ones who didn't were the two female vegans. Their bodies simply couldn't take the pounding even with us carrying their gear and they were at least half broken when we started.
Image

User avatar

powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7976
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: women in combat roles

Post by powerlifter54 »

the fearless freep wrote:
johno wrote:Now, apparently, the purpose is to provide promotion opportunities to the minuscule number of female officers* who have stars (general's stars) in their eyes.
This is precisely the political (-caly correct) justification for this.
Sad but probably very close to the truth. The sexual assault problem in the military that they can't deal with because of the road that puts them on, i.e. womyn are impacted greatly by being raped and are not exactly like men mentally, physically, or emotionally, makes the womyn in combat agenda an easy throw away to the vocal minority of senior womyn officers.

Don't fool yourself, standards will be compromised. The Tier 1 guys will be able to fight this off but straight infantry units and the like are screwed.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex


Andy83
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2650
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:07 am

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Andy83 »

Oh fuck it already on this subject. Just put em out front and let them blow the mines and IEDs. Put medals on their caskets and be done with it.
Obama's narcissism and arrogance is only superseded by his naivete and stupidity.


TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: women in combat roles

Post by TerryB »

Chessman wrote: We had one GI Jane type that carried her own weight and we had no problem with her.
And I bet she hates the shitbagging women that can't hack it, too.

The problem isn't that women are somehow inferior or genetically ill-equipped for combat. The problem is coddling and promoting anyone that isn't ready and cant' carry his or her own. There are shitbags, pussy men in the Army too. They should'nt be there. They can't carry their own. They drag down their unit. They should get kicked out. And the same standard should apply to everyone.

If the military is so fucked up that it is promoting anyone that doesn't deserve it, that's a much bigger problem. But don't blame the women that sign up, although I'm sure that's easiest for most of you.
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image

User avatar

Holland Oates
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 14137
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:32 am
Location: GAWD'S Country
Contact:

Re: women in combat roles

Post by Holland Oates »

protobuilder wrote:
Chessman wrote: We had one GI Jane type that carried her own weight and we had no problem with her.
And I bet she hates the shitbagging women that can't hack it, too.

The problem isn't that women are somehow inferior or genetically ill-equipped for combat. The problem is coddling and promoting anyone that isn't ready and cant' carry his or her own. There are shitbags, pussy men in the Army too. They should'nt be there. They can't carry their own. They drag down their unit. They should get kicked out. And the same standard should apply to everyone.

If the military is so fucked up that it is promoting anyone that doesn't deserve it, that's a much bigger problem. But don't blame the women that sign up, although I'm sure that's easiest for most of you.
True knowledges. The hackers fucking hated the fakers.
Southern Hospitality Is Aggressive Hospitality


TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: women in combat roles

Post by TerryB »

I was in the armed forces of these great United States (specops, obviously), and we had one girl like that. Specialist Booth. She was a wimply soldier generally but pleasant and competent enough to do her non-demanding job. She got a nice Division coin for participating in something or other when nobody else did. Everybody except her knew it was horseshit.

She needed a ride to the mall one day so I helped her out. Turns out, that favor should have earned me a BJ according to other guys up and down the hall. FML Always a bridesmaid....
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image

Post Reply