Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

www.foxnews.com

Women in all branches of the military soon will have unprecedented opportunities to serve on the front lines of the nation's wars.

Leon Panetta, in one of his last acts as President Obama's defense secretary, is preparing to announce the policy change, which would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war, the Pentagon confirmed Wednesday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Listen, I know all this "women are equal" crap (and it is crap) is running it's course. And I will come out and say right now that I honestly believe that men and women will NEVER be equal. Do you know why? Because we aren't wired to be "equal". Men and women are equal in their own ways.

Now that's not to say that I think women shouldn't be given the same educational or leadership opportunities that a male is given, yes women should vote and drive and everything else, but the fact is ladies, you are simply not built to carry 100lb blocks on a daily basis. Both women AND men need to understand that we are equal, but in completely different ways.

I'm really not good with words when it comes to explaining my position on things like this, and I honestly mean no offense, but simply look at what feminism has done to the family in the developed world. Did things need to be changed? Yes. But ask yourself is it now borderline supremacy rather than equality?

To the point of the topic, even the Romans wouldn't allow women on the front lines and the majority of their population consisted of slaves. The male body was created to protect the female. Not only in human culture but it's seen throughout the animal kingdom. What is being proposed is directly against nature in every sense of the term.

We do not need our women on the front lines. We sign up to the military to protect our women and children. I really have nothing else to say...

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

dude, you just opened a BIG can of worms...
forget can, more like a 55 gallon OIL DRUM of worms

Feminists firing back in 3...2...1...

thru out history, only cowards and communists sent women into battle.

i thought the whole point was to protect your daughters and wives from war, not send them to it.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Someone had to say it...

reply to post by Heisenberg59
I agree with you 1000%.

If women feel the need to be on the front line, here are the conditions they should meet:

1) Pass a physical that is identical to the ones men have to take.

2) Understand if they are ever captured, raped, knocked-up and maimed by our opposition, they should not expect any extra sympathy because they are women. This is serious business and as such, tremendous consequences come with it.

That's all.

didn't there was a ban.

so be it.

reply to post by Heisenberg59


If a woman can physically do the job, why shouldn't she? Simply because she doesn't have a penis? Is a penis necessary for the job?

Bravo, Panetta!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yes, when it comes to war, simply because she does not have a penis.

posted here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

always was for equal rights and opportunities when I was in. and by equal, I mean carrying the same load, day in and day out, doing the same PT tests and exercises, enduring the same hardships, and living the same lifestyle as myself and my male counterparts.

the problem comes in that for every one woman who can do that, there are an awful lot of them that can't, and thats a lot of wasted time and money to try and get to that one who can't. the Corps sent two females through their infantry officer's course, and both washed out in a matter of days. combat doesn't account for 'gender norming' and neither should training for it. i have no interest in having somebody who can flexed arm hang for 30 seconds being the one behind me trying to climb over a wall.

and sorry ladies, this isn't a wild baseless attack on your gender, its an opinion formed by years of dealing with women, combat, and women in combat.

reply to post by Heisenberg59


OMG.. I am so not even going to respond to this absolutely sexist bit of dung...except to say this is the twenty first century, not the seventeeth.....

reply to post by Shamrock6


It's not just years either. This has been tested through human history. It's never worked out. Even when female soldiers do make the cut, how many male soldiers go out of their way to be heroes to try and impress them? There is a psychological side to this as well as the physical aspect.

reply to post by vkey08


Read my above statement.

reply to post by Heisenberg59

 

Yes, when it comes to war, simply because she does not have a penis.

And what part does the penis play in going to war?

FYI: I think women should have to pass ALL THE SAME tests as men to get the same jobs. I don't approve of making their loads lighter and their tests easier.

reply to post by HomerinNC


He didn't set off the feminists.

He set off everyone that can spot a angry sexist moron from a mile away.

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by vkey08

 

Read my above statement.

Sorry Can't get past this line of yours....it sums up how wrong you are.. If this is how you think, then I should turn in my job right now and give it to some more deserving MAN.. I am so sick of it, both of my jobs, men seem to think I don't belong, even doing CGI they don't think it, it took 4 years just to prove I was every bit as good as they were pushing the polys, and don't get me started on my regular day job.. if it wasn't for the fact that I could probably take any one of my co-workers down with one shot, I'd probably have gotten the same sort of treatment there too. .so yes this line, can't get past it..

Yes, when it comes to war, simply because she does not have a penis.

I dont really see what the issue is. If a penis is considered as needed, modern medical technology is more than capable of attaching a penis on a woman. You could even make them more menacing than the men in the frontlines - give them 2 penises.

reply to post by Heisenberg59


no to take away from your point, i simply don't give a damn about the psychology of it all. the majority of the people on the other side of this arguement point to 'well if she can do it, why shouldn't we let her?' and my point is that the ones who can do it are few and far between, and its hardly cost effective to train scores of failures to find one passable.

to put a point on it, i'm not against the idea of it, provided women are held to the exact same standards as men. problem is they likely won't be, at least not long term. it may start off that way, then people will complain that the tests are too tough and not fair to women, and then there begins the downward spiral.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'd say the same reason you don't place women in a male prison. There are psychological problems that need to be dealt with. And even with the current rules in the military, we already see instances of rape and other inappropriate behavior between male and female soldiers. This is not the workplace. The military is about war... so unless you're proposing a military based solely on female soldiers, this can never work.