Do women belong on the front line?

Posted in the Weird Forum

First Prev
of 11
Next Last

“My latest victim”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1 Dec 6, 2012
It's being asked on local news.

I was wondering what you thought.

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#2 Dec 6, 2012
Why not?
If they expect the same rights and pay why not the same responsibilities and risks?

Level 6

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#3 Dec 6, 2012
If we allow women to fight in combat with our male soldiers then we run the risk of them hitting on the gay men and perhaps turning them straight. We just can't have that!

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#4 Dec 6, 2012
Always Wary wrote:
Why not?
If they expect the same rights and pay why not the same responsibilities and risks?
Hi Wary. I went over this with some Sheeple person on another thread. There are any number of reasons why woman do not belong in infantry units. Regardless that they want to be there,think they could keep up with male troops or even get the same pay. Women just aren't physically capable for the extended operations sometimes demanded for a mission. Body armor(40+ pounds),combat gear(60+ pounds),the distances moved in a given time frame or the strength/agility for prolonged periods faced in a combat situation all combine to produce an enviroment where women would become combat ineffective(wounded/killed/exh austed)in a rapid manner to the detriment to unit cohesion and effectiveness.

Level 6

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#5 Dec 6, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Wary. I went over this with some Sheeple person on another thread. There are any number of reasons why woman do not belong in infantry units. Regardless that they want to be there,think they could keep up with male troops or even get the same pay. Women just aren't physically capable for the extended operations sometimes demanded for a mission. Body armor(40+ pounds),combat gear(60+ pounds),the distances moved in a given time frame or the strength/agility for prolonged periods faced in a combat situation all combine to produce an enviroment where women would become combat ineffective(wounded/killed/exh austed)in a rapid manner to the detriment to unit cohesion and effectiveness.
But not ALL women. Surely there are one or two that could keep up. That's a weak argument by itself.

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#7 Dec 6, 2012
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>
So are all enlisted men required to do this as well? My point is not everyone fits in the same box. I knew women that could kick almost any man's butt. I knew men that almost any woman could kick their butt. I will agree that certain types of people would be a detriment to an infantry group, but I will disagree that they are only female. I also understand the "knight in shining armor" syndrome and that the military thinks it could be an issue in combat.
Darn Automoderator!

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#8 Dec 6, 2012
EraserX wrote:
<quoted text>
But not ALL women. Surely there are one or two that could keep up. That's a weak argument by itself.
Womn on ships and planes or in combat support roles are one thing,direct involved combat is another. Combat support runs a *risk* of contact which would be of short duration. Direct combat involves closing with and destroying the enemy. Missions of this sort are of longer duration and in advanced areas. You don't sacrifice unit effectiveness for the possibility "one or two could keep up". Precombat training would weed out the weak and sorry to say that would include any woman who wished to try. Facts can't be changes by hopes,good intentions,attempts at being "fair" or leveling the playing field. Trust me,combat is THE ultimate field leveler. All that would happen would be a lot of women would be wounded and killed as well as the men whom would endanger themselves in attempts to "save" the girls. The best way to avoid trouble is not to court it.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#9 Dec 6, 2012
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>
Darn Automoderator!
I read your post to yourself.... LOL For my response see what I posted to exacta(?),It would be the same to you. After 16+ years in Combat Arms I know what I'm talking about.
ana

United States

#10 Dec 6, 2012
"Knight in Shining Armor" - decorated affects/effects aside..........combining Okimar and AW's logic,- would provide the framework for an agreeable solution.

Equal Rights/Equal Pay/ AND Uniform Qualifications Guidelines w/(uniform first rights of refusal; throwing refusal in ..guessing that won't be popular.)

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#11 Dec 6, 2012
Women can be very detail orientated. A woman who lies about having been in Vietnam, for example, would bother to have her age match up with actual combat during American involvement. This would be refreshing.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#12 Dec 6, 2012
EraserX wrote:
<quoted text>
But not ALL women. Surely there are one or two that could keep up. That's a weak argument by itself.
Heres another thing to consider.... IF a FEW women WERE able to make it in infantry units what is to stop a policy change that would open the door for ANY women to be assigned to an infantry unit(just like men)whether they want an infantry assignment or not(just like men). Think about it.....
Groover Norquist

Schaumburg, IL

#13 Dec 6, 2012
On the other hand, women- making 77% of what men are paid- would keep payroll down and make wars cheaper to fight. Keeping payroll low = BIGGER PROFITS! I know what you're thinking- ILLEGALS WOULD BE EVEN CHEAPER! True. But, women are already citizens and this fact would play better with the war-loving crowd at FOX than a buncha beaners would.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#14 Dec 6, 2012
ana wrote:
"Knight in Shining Armor" - decorated affects/effects aside..........combining Okimar and AW's logic,- would provide the framework for an agreeable solution.
Equal Rights/Equal Pay/ AND Uniform Qualifications Guidelines w/(uniform first rights of refusal; throwing refusal in ..guessing that won't be popular.)
In for a penny,in for a pound. You don't send ill qualified people to get killed to prove a point in "sexual equality" where in this particular case none exists. Women are certainly capable to perform many roles men used to do in the military. Infantry combat is where the kid gloves come off. IF women were to be able to be assigned,voluntarily at first,to infantry units how long before this becomes an INvoluntary requirement-no waivers. Remember,men aren't offfered them....

Level 9

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#15 Dec 6, 2012
A woman's body is not as muscular as men's and they have menstrual problems every month that could put a woman out of commission for a week.
I vote 'No'. Keep them off the front lines.

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#16 Dec 6, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>I read your post to yourself.... LOL For my response see what I posted to exacta(?),It would be the same to you. After 16+ years in Combat Arms I know what I'm talking about.
The post was a reply to you. It seems the word but can only have one t, not two.
Whether we agree or not is beside the point, we don't make the rules :) I do see it happening in the foreseeable future. Like ana said, I think it will have criteria they have to meet and it will be voluntary for women, at first....

To be honest I would prefer not another drop of American blood be shed on foreign soil.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#17 Dec 6, 2012
Groover Norquist wrote:
On the other hand, women- making 77% of what men are paid- would keep payroll down and make wars cheaper to fight. Keeping payroll low = BIGGER PROFITS! I know what you're thinking- ILLEGALS WOULD BE EVEN CHEAPER! True. But, women are already citizens and this fact would play better with the war-loving crowd at FOX than a buncha beaners would.
Didn't take long for the peanut gallery to show up..... Women are paid the same as men in the military,based on rank and service duration.

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#18 Dec 6, 2012
quilterqueen wrote:
A woman's body is not as muscular as men's and they have menstrual problems every month that could put a woman out of commission for a week.
I vote 'No'. Keep them off the front lines.
We can stop periods for months with medications or a shot. It's not a viable issue.
Groover Norquist

Schaumburg, IL

#19 Dec 6, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Didn't take long for the peanut gallery to show up..... Women are paid the same as men in the military,based on rank and service duration.
THAT's SOCIALISM!!!!!!!

And not cost efficient.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#20 Dec 6, 2012
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>The post was a reply to you. It seems the word but can only have one t, not two.
Whether we agree or not is beside the point, we don't make the rules :) I do see it happening in the foreseeable future. Like ana said, I think it will have criteria they have to meet and it will be voluntary for women, at first....
To be honest I would prefer not another drop of American blood be shed on foreign soil.
I hope not. I served with many women in 16 years,in two branches. They were in combat support(supply)bringing stuff close to the troops when on training exercises. They weren't happy about getting that close to the front in TRAINING. How would it be for the real deal? We saw supply units shot up in Iraqi Freedom and women were wounded/killed. One was even taken POW(Jessica Lynch). An unprecedented rescue operation was mounted to get her back. This wouldn't have been done for a man. It was a misallocation of assets out of preportion for results. Purely a PR stunt BECAUSE she was a woman..... I hope the day never comes when women are assigned to infantry units. You just can't put a sheep in wolf's clothing.....

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#21 Dec 6, 2012
Ferrerman wrote:
Women can be very detail orientated. A woman who lies about having been in Vietnam, for example, would bother to have her age match up with actual combat during American involvement. This would be refreshing.
Says the non-hacker... Well,well,well,look what crawled out from under it's rock. How ya been Fairyman? Still pulling in yo Obama money? Get it while you can. He's about to run out of other people's money and you'll have to get a job.

We really need to meet some time. I'm SURE there is LOTS we can straighten out.....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min DanFromSmithville 155,149
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 5 min TALLYHO 8541 8,134
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 8 min tiger_-_dad 139,798
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 9 min Doug77 31,207
News Man Could Win One-Million-Dollars If MSU Wins I... 14 min Marcavage s Trick 1
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 14 min Jennifer Renee 10,275
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 17 min Glory Be 8,231
Word Association (Jun '10) 39 min Mega Monster 27,008
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 1 hr please explain 245
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Grace Nerissa 40,015
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Roxie Darling 159,933
Goats Milk with Princess (Jan '10) 4 hr Denny CranesPlace 46,469
More from around the web