Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Agreed because think of this scenario: you are a man and captured behind enemy lines. You are also with 3 other fellow soldiers. After months in captivity, you have found a way to escape. The time to run is now. Only 1 problem - all 3 of your fellow soldiers are women and they were all raped and now in their 3rd trimester of pregnancy before delivery. Great problem to have if you need to run 1/4 mile to safety for a quick helicopter rescue.

You see the implications?

Probably because they'll take orders well without question, kind of part of their evolutionary traits in a way?..
Also because they've been kept away for so long, it will make it all the more tempting for some women..

Running the military like a business almost...win-win except for our humanity.

It just seems like the timing is eerie, they'll have this huge resource at their disposal for all kinds of things now...

remember all the front line soldiers who were tested?? I wouldn't put it past the government to use women now to test things like creating super solider babies etc...

reply to post by vkey08


one shot of what? espresso? hahahaha sorry, between that line and your 'coffee czar' sig, that joke had to be made. seriously though, private msg me or something bc i'd love to know what you shoot

Course, the OP will pretend that women were ever provided a chance while then citing some of the most notoriously sexist cultures in history as proof that equality won't work.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Men and women have natural roles...it's not political. Woman are nurturing and caring...the Army Nurse Corp in history is not sexist but natural. Women are allowed to be prison guards and they routinly get raped and murdered and toss in the dirty laundry. That's what happens when you politicize nature.

reply to post by Heisenberg59

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
we already see instances of rape and other inappropriate behavior between male and female soldiers.

Yes, we ALREADY see that... So, because men can't contain themselves and think it's OK to attack women, the woman should suffer, right?

My questions was "What part does the penis play in war"?

A man's inability to control himself isn't a good enough reason. HE should be punished, not her.

And how many people that are spewing venom at you been in a combat situation and know what it takes?

Plus there's a little problem with feminine hygiene that has been a huge talking point when I discussed this with military females who have admitted they could never make it as a grunt.

Women have had it easy all along in the us service. Time they start putting their life on the line also....
Putwomen on front line beast idea ever. They are just as capable as males.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Physical testing is lighter for women in a lot of jobs including the police. Testing should be equal for there to be true equality.

I have no problem with a woman getting the job. That said the woman should not get the job or equal pay if she cannot pass the same testing as a male counterpart.


As for this issue, if the woman wants to go fight a meaningless war for the mega companies and banks that run the U.S. let them.

Raist

reply to post by type0civ

Originally posted by type0civ
Woman are nurturing and caring...the Army Nurse Corp in history is not sexist but natural. Women are allowed to be prison guards and they routinly get raped and murdered and toss in the dirty laundry. That's what happens when you politicize nature.

No offense meant to anyone, but not all women are nurturing and caring! Some are more macho than 75% of men. And some men are so nurturing and caring they're practically a breast.

Keep your stereotypes.

reply to post by Raist


I agree 100%. Didn't I say that earlier? Women should pass the SAME tests as men to do the same job.

Originally posted by gangdumstyle
Women have had it easy all along in the us service. Time they start putting their life on the line also....
Putwomen on front line beast idea ever. They are just as capable as males.

And will these women be tested along the same guidelines as their male counterparts?
What happens when the female soldier is captured and raped?
What happens when the male soldiers wants to be a hero to impress the female soldiers and gets both of them killed?
What happens when the female soldier was passed based on a watered down test and proves unworthy in the thick of battle?

I want these questions answered. There is a reason why females through out human history were never placed on the front lines. These issues are just a few...

They can load the weapons and set up a portable field kitchen for the men

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I was not disagreeing with you. Yes you said it earlier, no need to go on the defensive. I would just like to see true equality since it is all about equailty.

I was simply backing up what you said by saying it should be that way all over the job market.

Raist

A bit of history...

Russia deployed an all-women battalion in the 1914 war against Germany. The results were mixed but interesting.

Called into action against the Germans during the Kerensky Offensive, they were assigned to the 525th Kiuruk-Darinski Regiment and occupied an abandoned trench near Smorgon. The battalion pushed past three trenches into German territory, where the trailing Russian army discovered a hidden stash of vodka and became dangerously drunk. The newly-promoted Lieutenant Bochkareva ordered that any further stashes be destroyed.

And then...

Outnumbered and unsupported, the battalion met stiff resistance from the Germans and were repelled. In honour to those women volunteers, it was recorded that they did go into the attack; they did go "over the top". But not all of them. Some remained in the trenches, fainting and hysterical; others ran or crawled back to the rear

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


This is really not about sex with me. If I had it my way, women would be empowered to the point that they were able to completely defend themselves in every sense of the word. I want to help uplift women and stop the "poor me" damsel in distress garbage. We need MORE strong women in our lives.

This, however, is a completely different issue. There are real problems with letting women on the front lines with male soldiers.

And then in 1917...

A subdivision of 2nd company (137 soldiers) participated in the defense of the Winter Palace during the Bolshevik Revolution on October 25, 1917, having been called to the palace square for a review before being sent to the front, but when they arrived the commander of the Petrograd Military District ordered the women soldiers to defend the Provisional Government. Despite their resistance, they were overwhelmed by the numerically superior pro-Bolshevik forces and defeated and captured. Some of these women suffered verbal, physical, and sexual abuse at the hands of Red Guards and soldiers.

The members of the women's battalion were arrested but released shortly thereafter. The British military attaché in Petrograd, General Alfred Knox, credited their release to his own intervention. The women of the unit returned to their encampment outside of the city.

Ending sadly with...

The 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death, commanded by Bochkareva, was still at the front after the revolution, but disbanded shortly after as a result of increasing hostility from male troops.

In other news,

BIG SIS: 'If You Must Shovel Snow, Stretch Before Going Outside'...

Thanks Captain Obvious.

reply to post by Juggernog


What happens when the ideals of freedom and equality we uphold are actually represented where ever the american army goes?

What happens when females in the middle east who are being beaten and molested by their relatives see female soldiers getting respect as an equal and kicking %$#.

This is exactly what that part of the world needs.

reply to post by Wertdagf


At what cost?