One giant step Backwards?

ginshun

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
809
Reaction score
26
Location
Merrill, WI
I believe that it really has to be judged on an individual basis, but I also believe that the majority of the time men are better suited to serve on the front lines in a war.

I can't agree with this proposed legislation though.
 

BrandiJo

Master of Arts
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
14
i think its wrong for them to try and make laws about it. If ladys want to go off to war and the front line why not, what makes our life more valuable then that of a mans life? to me the law is BS
 

Ping898

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
3,669
Reaction score
25
Location
Earth
I think it is a bad law. It to seems like they are saying women are too weak or delicate to handle front line combat. It denies women the opportunity at better jobs too cause the unit might be front line. Actually with the current war more women are seeing combat because the front lines are so blurred and last time I checked they handled themselves with as much professionalism and honor as their male counterparts.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
I do think that this is going the wrong way. It's unfair, and it's the wrong time for it to boot. Let them compete fairly for what are, after all, still jobs. If they can do it, they can do it.
 
OP
A

Andrew Green

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
8,627
Reaction score
452
Location
Winnipeg MB
For clarification, this is not about "front line combat", women aren't allowed to do that alread. This is about service and Support personal that aid those on the Front Line.

It got dumped btw, the army wouldn't be able to do it as that would men restaffing 22,000 jobs when they are already having recruitment issues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm

But it does sound like it got put into law that women can't serve as front line combatants.
 

ginshun

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
809
Reaction score
26
Location
Merrill, WI
I am still torn on the issue really. I don't think it is fair to all out deny women the right to fight on the front lines. All I know is that if I get into a high stress, life and death situation, I can think of a lot more guys that I know that I would want with me that I can think of women. I am trying to not sound sexist here, and I am sure there are plenty of women who can handle those types of situations just fine, and I am also sure that there are plenty of men who would freak out. It just that in general women tend to be more emotional and physically weaker than men. I know these are stereotypes, but as general rules, I have never seen anything to contradict them. If I am in a tough situation I would want the physically and mentally strongest people behind me. Whether that is a man or a woman makes no difference, thats why I think people (soldiers) have to be judged on an individual basis.

I don't know, maybe I am way off here. Whatever.
 

MA-Caver

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
312
Location
Chattanooga, TN
ginshun said:
I am still torn on the issue really. I don't think it is fair to all out deny women the right to fight on the front lines. All I know is that if I get into a high stress, life and death situation, I can think of a lot more guys that I know that I would want with me that I can think of women. I am trying to not sound sexist here, and I am sure there are plenty of women who can handle those types of situations just fine, and I am also sure that there are plenty of men who would freak out. It just that in general women tend to be more emotional and physically weaker than men. I know these are stereotypes, but as general rules, I have never seen anything to contradict them. If I am in a tough situation I would want the physically and mentally strongest people behind me. Whether that is a man or a woman makes no difference, thats why I think people (soldiers) have to be judged on an individual basis.

I don't know, maybe I am way off here. Whatever.
Well, anyone can be trained to handle extreme stress. This is what basic training is for. Funny thing is no-one knows exactly what they will do when they get into a for-real combat situation. Live fire excercises on the training course not-withstanding it's a different situation when there is someone who is actually trying to kill you and not just firing live bullets to teach you to keep your head down.
In WWII; Russian women proved themselves on the front lines at Stalingrad, Moscow and other places the Germans pushed themselves to. It is being male stereotyping to apply the weaker-more emotional sex moniker these days.
Still society dictates the norm. Eventually wars and battlefront lines will cross into our own home territory again and it is probably then that the mettle of combat trained women will be shown.
 
OP
A

Andrew Green

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
8,627
Reaction score
452
Location
Winnipeg MB
But all soldiers are required to complete training courses for their jobs. These courses are pass / fail. So if someone can't pass the course, they can't get the job.

Military courses are designed to test the thing you need to have for the job, including working under high stress conditions, I'm sure anyone that has been through any course has seen someone "loose it" as a result of the pressure put on by the course and instructors.
 

Sapper6

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
940
Reaction score
31
Location
The land of misery
Andrew Green said:
But all soldiers are required to complete training courses for their jobs. These courses are pass / fail. So if someone can't pass the course, they can't get the job.

Military courses are designed to test the thing you need to have for the job, including working under high stress conditions, I'm sure anyone that has been through any course has seen someone "loose it" as a result of the pressure put on by the course and instructors.

i agree with that.

pick any 100 female soldiers you want, put them in sapper school, jump school, air assault, and pathfinder school. see how many make it out with all GOs.

i don't like the legislation either. if the female soldier can pass the standard, let them be whatever they'd like.

i'm sorry but there are just some things the female soldier is not up for.

as for combat service and support. females will excel in that area.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Same here....as long as the same standards are met, let them at it. Fair is fair.
 

Rick Wade

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
1,089
Reaction score
24
Location
Norfolk, va
I see it everyday Women doing a great job. And don't kid yourselves women are being put in harms way everyday in Iraq and coming through with flying colors. There is this lady I know we will call her Jessica she is watching me write this (get off of my shoulder) anyway they were in a convoy and hit and IED (Improvised Explosive Device) and then started taking fire. They pilled out and returned fire (Jessica included) and kicked butt. In today’s modern warfare there is no such thing as clear front line. I think it should be strictly voluntary for them If they want to go to the front let them but don't pull them back from where they already are it will cause nothing but more strain on an already over-burdened military.

V/R

Rick

P.S.

Jessica says Hi
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
Andrew Green said:
"Republicans in the US Congress are trying to pass legislation which would keep female soldiers out of combat."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm
I'm a bit confused. Why is it that the very same people who say NO AMERICAN soldier should be in combat in Iraq, are the same one's whining about keep women out of combat in Iraq. Is it possible that the political left has a bit of a paradox in thinking going on here?
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
Sapper6 said:
i agree with that.

pick any 100 female soldiers you want, put them in sapper school, jump school, air assault, and pathfinder school. see how many make it out with all GOs.

i don't like the legislation either. if the female soldier can pass the standard, let them be whatever they'd like.

i'm sorry but there are just some things the female soldier is not up for.

as for combat service and support. females will excel in that area.
I agree, Sapper, if they can make the physical and mental grade, I can't really make the argument. However, if politics are allowed to degrade the standard to make a certain quota, someone should be hung for it. I don't know many women who could pass the sapper course or the ranger course. Much less, any GI Janes who could, in real life pass UDT/SEAL training.

That's not the same as saying women should be restricted from any combat roles. Many women have performed admirably in Iraq by all estimates. If they continue to do so, I see no reason to remove them. But each unit should be evaluated individually to determine if it is fit for mixed gender personell.

Close combat units still require large upper body strength. If we look at Fallujah, we saw US marines carrying 80 pound packs, plus weapon and ammunition, slogging for hours at a time, kicking in doors, dragging out comrades. Very few women have the physical structure to perform these duties. Men are physically designed differently, that is no secret. They have great lower body strength, but far less upper body. Men were made for physical combat. Further, the most aggressive and self-assured men (the ones those kind of units attract) have a level of physical and mental aggression far greater than any woman. That isn't to say there aren't aggressive women, but the top 5% of women in physical and mental aggression, don't even approach the top 5% of men, which is what they will be compared to.

That isn't the same as driving a tank, a humvee, operating a fixed machine gun or flying combat aircraft, all roles many women are well suited to do.

So, I guess, as long as they can do the job, keep on doing it.
 
OP
A

Andrew Green

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
8,627
Reaction score
452
Location
Winnipeg MB
sgtmac_46 said:
I'm a bit confused. Why is it that the very same people who say NO AMERICAN soldier should be in combat in Iraq, are the same one's whining about keep women out of combat in Iraq. Is it possible that the political left has a bit of a paradox in thinking going on here?
Two completely seperate issues.
 

Sapper6

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
940
Reaction score
31
Location
The land of misery
great post sgtmac...couldn't have said it better.

men=combat killin machines

women=pretty little nurse waiting to give you an IV in the penal vein after a hot breach. (no pun intended)
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Hmmm, I don't know much about "sapper school"--Marines, right?

Whether we should be in Iraq and what the U.S. Army should look like are separate issues.
 

Sapper6

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
940
Reaction score
31
Location
The land of misery
arnisador said:
Hmmm, I don't know much about "sapper school"--Marines, right?

Whether we should be in Iraq and what the U.S. Army should look like are separate issues.

no the Sapper's are not Marines, we are Army. Sappers are the most highly skilled warfighting combat engineers on the battlefield, but im partial :)

Sappers are the most underrated asset in the warfighter's toolbox. check out the Sapper Leader's Course website for more info. :asian:

from the website:

The Sapper Leader Course trains selected combat engineer unit leaders in leadership skills, combat engineer and infantry battle drills, and the specialized engineer and infantry techniques required to perform as members of a Sapper Battalion. The course is also designed to build cohesion and esprit de corps by training soldiers in troop leading procedures, demolitions (conventional and expedient), mountaineering operations, aerial operations, airborne operations, foreign weapons, land navigation, waterborne operations and contingency threat. The course culminates in an intense field training exercise that reinforces the use of the battle drills and specialized engineer techniques learned throughout the course
.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Ah, OK. That was something I thought of also, but I was thinking of this sense of the term:
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/d9233b3aa0ce7f2585256b1f00325ec7/f4e7c0ce1114c5d585256fea0064c063/$FILE/sapper.txt

"Sapper school's purpose is to push the junior combat engineer Marines through the course to understand the concepts of foot mobile breaching, demolition handling and dealing with improvised explosive devices," said Staff Sgt. Shaun A. Anderson, chief instructor of Sapper school.

Although Sapper school training focuses solely on combat engineering techniques, Marines don't have to be combat engineers to sign up.

"Basically most Marines in the combat arms (military occupational speciality) field can sign up for Sapper course," Dill said.

Signing up for Sapper school is an informal procedure, he added.
 

Latest Discussions

Top