I dunno about that Rock, that compared to rotting blood Ehhh, I think that would smell way worse like a rotting corpse. Dead blood Uggggggggg compared to maybe some arm pits and bacon stripped undies lmdao. uhhhmm this is gross but uhhh some women are like real clotty Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww that is way nasty.

I think we win on stinch ROCK lol.

I just re-read the article that started this:

quote:

“What Congress is doing, and what I hope they will do, is say that the American people have a stake in this. The Army doesn’t get to make these decisions on their own,” Donnelly said.

Kind of a scary statement....just what type of other (US Army) decisions does she consider to be up to the American people?

And they said the Pentagon should undertake a study on women's role in combat. AND THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. Anyone with experience with Pentagon Studies realizes that this issue is now shelved for the next ten years. First, we'll have to define the parameters of the study, then we'll use big words like "paradigm", "gap analysis", and "synergy"...Nobody will know what these terms mean in relation to the topic, but they will be misquoted in countless chain emails throughout the study "focus group" (a term which is also mis-used). Then, we'll have to actually appoint someone to carry out the study (this in itself will be a long process). The appointed agency/group/whatever then will do a study on how best to conduct the study. Then, they will design the study and contact the agencies most likely to provide valuable input.
So, how is the study conducted? After all of this is done, the survey will be passed out. About a dozen E3-E5 military personnel will eventually be told to "fill this out and get it back to me" in 2015.

lol you may have a point. Or we can all just say well let them go. I think the sad things is though I can gurantee if we permited females to do exactly the same thing as men, especially put them in Sp. ops, that the day a female is taken and decapitated, sadly our gov. is going to get the blame, have the finger pointed at them by all those who griped, complained, whinned and wanted women to be in the front lines.........yeah they'll turn on every body saying " whatcha do that for, why didn't you stop it.....I mark my life on it that is what would end up happening.

Women who hold back other women cause more problems for females than men in this world. Choosing what you want to do but restricting yourself from the harder parts for lame reasons is nothing but slef serving.

But harry, don't you think pyshcologically it would be more traumatic to see we'll say a women have done to her what was done to johnson, or berg, or even getting severely hurt.

it is even a mans instinct to protect women/ a woman. I think mentally it would do a job on our nation, and her fellow team mates to see a female have that type of torture done to her.

But, I could be very wrong maybe it would not be. I just can bet though it would be slapped right back in the goverments face " that they allowed it to happen", in one way or another that is a sure thing.

I think women can really do an awesome job in the service we have some real KICK BUTT pilots who are omg, excellent target shooters, I think that is cool as H---L and they are to, I think that makes them bad as s--t <--that' means cool as heck lol. They make pretty awesome everything when it comes to being the military.

But I do feel they should NOT be in special ops and that should remain strictly for males, should a woman make it that far those PT, training test etc def. should NOT be lowered " just for a woman", it's been proven many times over that most men end up resenting it/her/them.

I guess time will tell when it gets that far if it does.

DOL wife.
Welcome ,can we have a bit more on your profile?
Pretty sparse...I understand PERSEC and all,but a little info,please?

i suppose you could say I filled in some of the blanks..Thanks.

Thank you.

Men and women are both responsible for giving women a hard time when they are in what is considered a man’s traditional occupation. It happens in the military and even more so in the civilian world. The women I served with while in the army were WACs and not treated as a real part of the Army in many, many ways. Thirty years has changed that in ways one could not have imagined.

Physical qualifications need to be realistic and in accordance with the needs of the job, no more and no less. Lowering them in the military is like lowering the qualifications for doctors – not a wise move. Disallowing someone because of gender is simply wrong on many levels and it will go away in the future and the military will do it first. Society is often behind the military in affording opportunities for the non-white males in our country.

Also, psychologically, more civilians (men, women and children) are generally killed in wars than soldiers. We have not had a modern war in our country since the Civil War and those were much difference times. People should always realize the true cost of war.

I suppose time and the future will tell us all what will be what, and where things will be as well as where they will go.

Stopping women ,never my vingence, combat, front lines the feds will do what they think is right whether we like it or not, in the end it will be nothing more than trial and tribulations.......and when a woman falls the public ends up not liking it things will just change again.

I think to that women who are of the Hear me roar nature, have grown up in the ERS of watching to many Video Games, where men constantly punch, deck, kick, beat and maime women all the time, as does the women back to the man, so maybe that is where alot of this stems from to much video game playing, killing also in those games.

Even I am guilty of being a video game nut LOL.especially when it comes to Boulders Gate, and Champions of Norath as well. those are two KICK BUTT games heheeh.

I am a female in the armed services.

I agree and disagree with many of the points made here on the forum already. However, I realize my views on the matter do not reflect the views of the majority of the females in the uniformed services.

There are many things to consider when discussing the role of women in combat and when trying to decide what jobs those women are allowed to have. Physical, mental, and emotional stability of the individual is what the military measures when qualifying us for any job we do ...or at least just part of the total calculation.

There are other, more important things (in this case) to consider. I think the psychological impact of war has been realized for centuries by many armies and military organizations; it is not fair to only consider that the military should make all things equal amongst men and women in its service. There are things that can be made equal, and there are things that cannot. Consider the larger picture:

We are one of the ONLY countries in the world who esteem women the way we do (and it is AWESOME AND GREAT, and its nice to be acknowledged as an intelligent, breathing, and respectable, equal human). Consider our enemies in this equation though.

Putting a woman on the battle field in ANY job has its only calculated risks. We're not talking about a girl who can pull her own, out does the casual marine in any physical exercise, and can shoot an 80mm cannon. Yes she qualifies. Yes, she is stronger than a lot of men. This is bad math though. We must also consider the psychological implications of employing her in certain combat situations.

Women are at high risk from the men in her own unit, let alone men from the enemy units. She is subjected to all sorts of humiliation, degradation, harrasment, and yes ...rape. This is by her own men, in her own squadron; the US armed forces. We all know this is already an internal problem. Now take these same women, put them in combat jobs with your typical testosterone flaunting guys, and send her to a serious combat zone. There will be those who are split on what they should be doing: protecting her, or fighting the fight. There are those who won't think twice about her getting shot at, and will carry on no matter the situation. And there are those who despise her.

Not to mention if said female is shot, injured, or captured. A few soldiers being captured with a female among them are likely to have said female used against them, resulting in harsher treatment and even harsher psychological repercussions. Western men are chivalrous for the most part.

Now none of this is to say women do/do not belong in combat. None of this is say that our men mistreat us. These 2 things are simply not what I am debating. I am debating the understated fact that there is a profound psychological impact of placing women too close to the battlefield--or worse, on the battlefield itself. It cannot be stressed enough that even though we are a modern fighting force, with civilized, and mature ways of dealing with the sexes in our services, and though we are highly evolved and very good at setting the tone for equality ...some things are simply not equal. There is a risk to be assessed here, that impacts our overal fighting force.

We should not discuss this issue without recognizing that most of us DO NOT believe women should not get any job they qualify for. Most of us believe those women should. It doesnt erase the fact that certain jobs being handed to females DOES have a heavy impact on the performance of our troops in combat zones. It is an added stress, and yes, those troops should take it with a grain of salt and learn to live with it and evolve. But while we're making statements like that, keep in mind what REALLY happens when a female is on the battlefield with our men. Keep in mind the REAL psychological impact this clearly has. Yes, we must learn to overcome. But in overcoming, we must not make the mistake of naively believing it is ok to just place qualified females in those positions because we *must* be equal in everything.

If we want to keep the combat superiority we have, we must make the decisions and carefully carry them out to bring us to our goal. If the goal is more women in combat, then we have to gradually get there. Not just slap a sticker on her that says "we are all equal" and shipping her to Afghanistan because she physically, psychologically, and emotionally qualifies.

There are more risks to calculate in that equation, and it is a very challenging problem.

Well said kboom2

Yes, well said. Society tends to hold back advancement at a slower pace that many would wish.

Another historical note:

General Winfield Scott was surprised in 1847 while on his little adventure in Mexico at how many women were found dead on the battle field. It appears that they traveled, even onto the battle field, with their men and died along side them.

Well,

There are certain qualities that a warrior needs to have to make them effective in the battle field. If we are hiring people to be just cannon fodder than women should stay away from those positions.. unless she has "i got bigger balls than you" tatooed on her fore head.

I can see how lots of guys wont listen to women when under fire.

If your gonna possibly die and your superior is a girl (who with all the social engineering that our culture has taught you, is weaker, dumber, and less capable) tells you to go around the side of a hole, that you just saw a bunch of bad guys hinding in, well your gonna challange her.

We dont need to have our G.I.'s having problems with orders at any time. If given by a woman, it runs a higher risk of not being followed during life and death situations than one given by a man.

If they want to change it than, grow all us up in a bubble away from the idea of a gender, strip away what makes us men, and women. Turn us into sexless robots, then i can see how it is advantageous to have women on the front line.

But dont tell me sending them there for the sake of making women feel better about themselves is good enough reason.

If my life depended upon a guy listening to his male commander in one unit vs. another guy listening to female commander in another unit. Well i would trust the male commander unit following orders over the females.

I trust have to trust everyone will do their job and follow orders. Throw women into the mix and i start to have worries.

It is just a basic problem with our gender and the socio-cultural impressions it has left to haunt us for eternity.

My sisters in the Calvary. And she's a captain. But she tells me that men brush her off all the time. They forget to salute, and other shit that cant take place in battle field.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Soltrinox,

There are two types of combat; offensive and defensive.

1. Offensive---conducted by combat arms MOSs from all branches. Offensive ground combat----conducted by the combat arms branches of the Army and the Marine Corps. These units have the responsibility to conduct offensive ground operations against the enemy which requires a standard that calls for the individuals to be assigned to these units to have a higher standard of physical ability to perform said missions. Missions that may require them to carry heavy rucks ranging from 60 to 100+ lbs and may require them to move those rucks by feet in all types of terrian and environments, in short periods of time for days, weeks and months and then making contact with said enemy and conducting combat operations against said enemy.

2. Defensive combat---conducted by support units in situations ranging from convoys being attacked to defensive bases being attacked. These units, when attacked, are required to defend themselves, beat back the enemy and then continue with their assigned missions. They are not required to continue in an offensive operation against such enemies and for the most part, do not have the firepower, the numbers or trzaining to continue an offensive operation.

I was an instructor that trained support personnel in the basic combat skills and task and found that during the training, less than 5% of females met the basic standard while the men ranged between 85 and 90%. In the advanced course, only 1% of females met the standards while the men were at about 75%.

The cost effectiveness of putting that 1% of females into the training pipeline for infantry and other combat arms MOSs and deploying them into units not broken, was not worth it. Further, the deployment of that 1% into these units would do little to enhance such units and do more harm than bring benefits.

The following links need to be read:

http://www.cmrlink.org/international.asp?docID=113


http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031020-122552-3754r.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27830

Thank you Goldenwings for putting it in a real prospective and not an emotional one.