Pentagon halts the advance of fighting women

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 11/02/2001 | Toby Harnden

[VaBthang4]

[browardchad]

No offense, but it's not a very comforting notion, for those of us above fighting age, to think of our daughters defending us in hand to hand combat with the Taliban...

[Thorn11ACR-Jr]

Last time I saw a women "fit for combat" she had a small cigar hanging out of her mouth, a tatoo on her arm, a butt the size of New Hampshire, and an attitude about men that would put a rabid pit bull to blush.

When she mentioned something about "carpet munching" I figured it was time for me to find another place at the bar...

Yes, there is a place for women in combat, and this women could fill several of them (including mine).

[Lizavetta]

Since when does any woman's "wish" override the safety and security of a military unit.

Say it again, brother!

Say it again!

[ChemistCat]

If you think women have never had to deal with bloody, broken, burnt, and battered bodies, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. We're not Strawberry Shortcake. I've pushed three babies into this world, which is far bloodier, more physically demanding work than anything you've done.

[VaBthang4]

I dont give a heck if you pushed a hundred babies into this world....you dont have what it takes to fill a combat billet and if on the rare chance that you did...

You would still present discipline and unit cohesion problems within any line unit you served. That in turn affects unit performance and security.

Ramble on all you want about your feminine exploints....doesnt change the facts.

[Oberon]

Fighting for your freedom is.

That's incorrect. Men are better at fighting than women, no matter what the prize is. Therefore, "fighting for freedom" is not a gender-equal arena.

You should understand that I don't mean "fighting" in the figurative sense, like when you fight to succeed, or fight to get a candidate elected; rather, I mean literal fighting, where you shoot, stab, punch, kick, and bite in an effort to survive and destroy the enemy. The idea that women are equal to men at this is a romantic notion, and the sooner you are free of it the better.

[VaBthang4]

"which is far bloodier, more physically demanding work than anything you've done."

LOL...I missed that.

[kdf1]

Let the old girls have him. First, let the men try to keep each other alive while they go get him (and his friends). When the Challenger blew up, two kids didn't miss a hero; they missed their mommie. Combat is not about giving women what they want if they want it. It is about defeating the enemy with as little sacrifice as possible.

[ChemistCat]

I don't know how anyone who can read and write can be so dense. Look: I don't believe women ought to be placed in combat roles. I do believe they can defend this country in non-combat roles, and that if circumstances put them at the front lines, they can rise to the challenge if they have to. You are constructing a strawman of my argument. Attack what I say all you like--otherwise you're arguing like a liberal.

[Orion78]

"No offense, but it's not a very comforting notion, for those of us above fighting age, to think of our daughters defending us in hand to hand combat with the Taliban...

None taken, but is also not very comforting to think of our sons defending us in hand to hand combat with the Taliban. Any loss of life is a tragic one. If your daughter (assuming you had one) sincerely wanted to fight to protect America, would you deny her the right to do so?

[VaBthang4]

Then you and I agree.......support roles.
:o)

[Orion78]

"Since when does any woman's "wish" override the safety and security of a military unit."

Please... The problem is easily solved with an all womans military unit.

[Castlebar]

But is your position, "Women shouldn't be in the military at all" or "A single woman on a submarine is trouble"? Mine is somewhere in between. Israel had to fight for its existence from the day the UN voted to recognize it. Arabs swept down upon the fragile cities, colonies, and kibbutzim with armor and infantry as modern as anything we had at the time..........A bullet from my gun will kill an enemy just as dead as a bullet from yours, and if I'm fighting for my babies I am pretty sure I'll be considerably more dangerous than you will.

My position is that the military should be as effective as possible in killing the enemy and destroying his or her ability to make war. No credible person can make the case that a campaign to push females into combat roles would, at this point (or at any any point in any other credible scenario), make our military more effective at that role.Yes, women fought alongside men in the Palmach and Hagnagh in 1947 and 1948. It was an unimitigated disaster in the occasions where it occurred, since Israeli men acted more to protect their female comrades than to to kill their opponents and achieve their objectives. The Israelis have been wise enough not to repeat that mistake in 1956, 1967, 1973, or any other wars.

You claim that a bullet from your gun would be as effective as a bullet from my gun, and you would be more effective in combat than I since you would be fighting to defend your babies. Hmmmm...., Well, leaving that aside....are you under the impression that infantry combat is conducted as a sharpshooting contest on a rifle range? One of the most critical infanty skills of today, yesterday and forever is the ability to dig a hole quickly. This is a fairly upper-body-strength intensive exercise. It also helps to be able to carry a nine pound rifle, many pounds of ammunition, grenades, and possibly mortar rounds or mortar parts, and possibly anti-personnel mines, along with 16 to 23 pounds of body armor, and more various and sundry pieces of gear (satelite communication equipment, crypto, rations, etc) in extreme conditions for ridiculous lengths of time, up hill, sometimes double-timing it, sometimes sprinting. Sorry, its not like on TV.

[VaBthang4]

That was so cute....then the Taliban, HELL the sandinistas could conquer the United States.......LOL.

[okie01]

"fighting for your freedom has nothing to do with what kind of genitals you have."

No. When it comes right down to the last line of life and death resistance. But, until then, participation in armed combat has a lot to do with the physical strength and endurance that is generally associated with those genitals. And whether it is necessary to make special accommodations for one's genitals.

Some men aren't qualified for military service, either. My eyes disqualified me. And I didn't consider myself a victim of "ocular discrimination".

Men and women are different, I remind you. For reasons that should be perfectly obvious. Our culture has chosen to make the appropriate distinctions, with respect to the division of combat labor. Simply stated, we don't ask our women to go toe-to-toe with the thug in the bar fight.

"Try a new arguement or post elsewhere."

Coming from a man, those would be "fighting words", wouldn't they? Which is why you used them, I suppose. You may, or you may not realize that, as a gentleman, I'm constrained from inviting you to "go outside". So, I suggest you climb down off your feminist high horse and try a more civil approach. It can work wonders.

[Orion78]

Haven't I heard your argument before, but about African-Americans in WWII?

[ChemistCat]

One of my friends has a married daughter in the Air Force. She has two "big kids" (9 and 7, I think) and triplet toddlers. Yes, five kids. She's basically using the Air Force as a social welfare program. Most of her last hitch was spent on bedrest, on maternity leave, and on extended maternity leave as she had lingering complications from the triplet pregnancy. Now she gets substantially reduced childcare costs, free housing, free medical care, and frequent time off for all the myriad errands of doctor's appointments, sick kids, etc. THAT kind of servicewoman is a huge mistake and a huge drain on readiness. She should have been "out" when she decided not to put the first baby up for adoption. That's where I draw the line--mothers have a prior obligation to their babies, period!!! And the military ought not to be a social welfare program that lets these mothers pretend to serve in exchange for benefits men don't get. (In fairness, my husband got a lot of time off when our kids were born, and sick, etc, but generally it was time off from his leave balance, not free time off.)

But the kind of disrespect toward women, mothers or not, that I see on this thread really does belong to the Taliban. If they don't like living in a free world, they can always defect...some Freepers would look just fine in a towel.

[VaBthang4]

Here we go.....

Everybody break out your slide rules...while Orion defies the laws of physics while connecting issues.

What next boring one? Fruit Loops in the Military?

How'bout children? I mean they have a right to choose dont they?

[ChemistCat]

I probably define "support role" more broadly than you do.

The Air Force is a different world than the Marines. I know this. The women who served with my husband served just as well as the men did--in the Air Force. Moreover, he says they didn't cause the discipline problems the testosterone-soaked guys did and they stayed focused on the mission better, too. I'm pinging him to this thread and I'll turn it over to him. He's no feminist. He's a realist, and he's served with, over, and under women. He's even married them--TWICE, and he's raising two of them.