REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

'Valor knows no gender': Pentagon lifts ban on women in combat

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 02:56
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4167
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:04 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Declaring that it would strengthen both the military and the country, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday lifted a ban on women in combat and said that it was “the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation.”

“If they can meet the qualifications for the job,” he said, “then they should have the right to serve.” Lots more at http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16681072-valor-knows-no-gen
der-pentagon-lifts-ban-on-women-in-combat?lite
]
Well hot damn and huzzah! It's about fucking time; if Israeli women can do it, why can't we??

Hell, some of us already HAVE been, without the recognition:
Quote:

I just completed my first deployment to Afghanistan this past year. I worked as the Public Affairs non-commissioned officer in charge for an infantry brigade combat team as well as an ad hoc advisor for a security force assistance team that worked with the Afghan Border Police. I completed over 70 missions in 6 months and, on a few of those missions, I was the only female. Technically, I had a supportive combat role and the infantryman walking next to me had a combat role but I don't think the enemy would really know the difference if he decided to shoot.

I think there will be a small group of military females who will look at Mr. Panetta's decision as an opportunity to prove themselves in some feminist-based retort to the past 19 years of being told to stay out of combat roles. I have worked with some female service members that do possess the mental attitude and the physical strength and endurance to do exactly what their male counterparts are capable of and I believe these women will thrive in the newly-opened combat roles. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-914863?hpt=hp_bn1


There's more there, and she's honest about
Quote:

Most of us are not phyically built to carry heavy weapons. Where men lack in abdominal muscles, women lack in upper body strength. This is reflected in our physical fitness test requirements. For example, men are required to do more push-ups and women are expected do more sit-ups. Very few women I know can do pull-ups. We just aren't built for it. That doesn't mean that every woman can't do them... just the odds are against us.

I think there are MYRIAD combat roles where women would be fine--maybe not all of them requiring equivalent physical strength, but at least being recognized as "combat", since they're already out there dying. Than you, Mr. Panetta.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Bad idea.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:22 PM

BYTEMITE


Meet Zoe Washburne.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:25 PM

ARLO

-.-. ..- -- / -.-. .- - .- .--. ..- .-.. - .- . / .--. .-. --- ... -.-. .-. .. .--. - .- . / . .-. .- - --..-- / - ..- -- / ... --- .-.. .. / .--. .-. --- ... -.-. .-. .. .--. - / -.-. .- - .- .--. ..- .-.. - .- ... / .... .- -... . ..- -. -


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Bad idea.



Well that proves it! Well, maybe not it .... but something. =0)

sincerely, 1933

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:31 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by ARLO:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Bad idea.



Well that proves it! Well, maybe not it .... but something. =0)

sincerely, 1933



Keep standards the same for men and women, I say hell yeah, do it.

Lower standards to let some politically expedient types make it in... bad idea.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:59 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Keep standards the same for men and women, I say hell yeah, do it.


I have accepted that there are many women that I could not beat in a fight. That's a standard I can accept. Many men can understandably have a threat-reaction to this, no shame, no shame at all. It's a new Century.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:01 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Keep standards the same for men and women, I say hell yeah, do it.



Good thing they are not changing the standards for combat units.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:19 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Keep standards the same for men and women, I say hell yeah, do it.



Good thing they are not changing the standards for combat units.



That's not the way I hear it told.

When it comes to wall climbing and doing pull ups, women are scored differently than men.

If that's not the case, then fine.


Chris - absolutely there are women taller and more massive than I, and I'm not smallish either. I doubt I could budge them , even if I took a running start. But sheer bulk isn't the point here. They have to be able to carry , move, and lift themselves up over obstacles, not merely beat a guy in a fight.

Find a real life fighter like Lady Stark's body guard, and sign her up!


"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:12 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
That's not the way I hear it told.

When it comes to wall climbing and doing pull ups, women are scored differently than men.

If that's not the case, then fine.



That is true for current non-combat roles. Roles in which the fitness requirements are really secondary concerns.

Right now female fighter pilots have to meet the same standards as men.

If they did try and drop the standards even I would have a problem with it. I think any of the female combat soldiers who meet the current standards would have a problem with it as well.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:20 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Straights, gays, and women all together in the foxhole. Hey, it worked for the Rooskies when they pushed back and defeated the Nazis.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:43 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by ARLO:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Bad idea.



Well that proves it! Well, maybe not it .... but something. =0)

sincerely, 1933



Keep standards the same for men and women, I say hell yeah, do it.

Lower standards to let some politically expedient types make it in... bad idea.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "



They aren't. Just saw a news report on women already trickling into the special ops and officer corps boot camps, they're keeping up with the men out of sheer determination.

But then I've always believed both genders have equal capacity for muscle strength.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:46 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Straights, gays, and women all together in the foxhole. Hey, it worked for the Rooskies when they pushed back and defeated the Nazis.



Not sure if that's a jab against the incredible loses the Russians had...

But some of the Russians best fighters and snipers were women.

It's SAD how much their country has backslid on gender issues. I had to educate a Russian girl about her proud warrior woman history recently, she just thought the women stayed home, cooked, and cared for the kids in WW2 - they were in factories and on the front lines like the men were. And the women tolerate sexual harrassment, favours trading, and exploitation in the workplace.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:52 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

They aren't. Just saw a news report on women already trickling into the special ops and officer corps boot camps, they're keeping up with the men out of sheer determination.

But then I've always believed both genders have equal capacity for muscle strength.





Yeah, I'm skeptical about such reports. The timing of this seems rather... quick ? Suspicious ?
Gotta link?

If they're making it, then it's not merely determination. No more or less determination than the males have.

And I'm not sure that evolution agrees w/ you on the capacity for both genders to equally achieve the same muscle strength. Some individuals, sure, but not across the spectrum of male / female populations.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 5:07 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Straights, gays, and women all together in the foxhole. Hey, it worked for the Rooskies when they pushed back and defeated the Nazis.



Not sure if that's a jab against the incredible loses the Russians had...

But some of the Russians best fighters and snipers were women.

It's SAD how much their country has backslid on gender issues. I had to educate a Russian girl about her proud warrior woman history recently, she just thought the women stayed home, cooked, and cared for the kids in WW2 - they were in factories and on the front lines like the men were. And the women tolerate sexual harrassment, favours trading, and exploitation in the workplace.


The Russians were caught offguard when Germany invaded across a wide front. The army retreated back to Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad. In three years the Russians had defeated the Germans and sent them running back to the Fatherland. Russian troops met up with American troops at the German border on the Elbe River. Many of the Russians who were there were women officers and women combat veterans. It was decided by FDR, Stalin, and Churchill at the Teheran Conference that Russian troops would enter Berlin first. They decimated the remnants of the German Army and captured Berlin. The Russian men raped most of the women in Berlin, ages 8 to 80, and were also very busy performing mass executions of German officers and soldiers who had surrendered. Payback for what the Germans had done to Russian civilans in the Ukraine. American GIs drank vodka and danced with the Russian gals in celebration of VE Day, but many Russian female soldiers also got raped by their male Russian comrades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany






And these were white men, many of Christian and Russian Orthodox faith.


The Chinese Army and resistance fighters also included many women fighting the Japanese in WWII. Same in the Philippines. Female soldiers and female civilians....well I won't even go into any of that which happened to them.

Bottom line....be careful what you wish for. War is hell, but it can be a special hell for women.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:21 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

They aren't. Just saw a news report on women already trickling into the special ops and officer corps boot camps, they're keeping up with the men out of sheer determination.

But then I've always believed both genders have equal capacity for muscle strength.





Yeah, I'm skeptical about such reports. The timing of this seems rather... quick ? Suspicious ?
Gotta link?

If they're making it, then it's not merely determination. No more or less determination than the males have.

And I'm not sure that evolution agrees w/ you on the capacity for both genders to equally achieve the same muscle strength. Some individuals, sure, but not across the spectrum of male / female populations.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "



Don't quote me evolution, humans are born fighters regardless of gender. Wouldn't have survived otherwise.

I sense lingering doubts, so Ima try another tact.

Most of the instructors at the boots camps will be operating on the same notions you got, and working extra hard to drum out the female recruits, not wanting them to see combat because of a belief in combat inferiority.

The women who make it through that gauntlet will be unquestionable badasses of the first order.

in short:



Lifting 300 pounds: training



Marines: training

Doin' fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:23 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


Bottom line....be careful what you wish for. War is hell, but it can be a special hell for women.



We already have rape in our military against service-women and contractors who aren't in combat and aren't combat trained. They know the risks and they're willing anyway. Might as well give them that combat training.

The only way you could completely stop it is to not have women in the military at all. And frankly, if women want to fight, it's an offense to both men and women to say they can't and that only men can be allowed to die in combat.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Sadly this comes across to me more that they're running out of cannon fodder than they actually give a shit, you know.
Since nowadays they're having more trouble finding people DUMB enough to go slaughter other people they don't even know just cause someone tells em to in order to make us less safe and piss resources down a hole to enrich the military industrial complex.

As for the Russians, and women in combat, the badassery of the Nachthexen cannot be overstated.
http://www.seizethesky.com/nwitches/nitewtch.html

On the other side, the German equivalent of Chuck Yeager was a chick, I'll have you know, and some large portion of my ultralight maneuvers are adapted from hers as she was a very damn good glider pilot as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanna_Reitsch

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 2:55 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


In reality the military recruitment goals have been going down and they are being more selective of whom they take.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 4:41 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

The women who make it through that gauntlet will be unquestionable badasses of the first order.




Maybe, at first. And if that's truly the case, then fine. But I suspect, after seeing how our govt works, and the social engineering gurus that run it, over time, the push to allow more and more women in will be greater and greater. Opportunity is being denied them, merely because they can't make the cut... a disproportion number of women have been accepted, w/ regards to the population, will be touted, down the line, and the slide to mediocrity will commence.


And also, I am gonna quote you evolution. Because we're not dealing w/ individual cases or a few rare situations, but across the entire population. Males are bigger and stronger than females.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 5:36 AM

AGENTROUKA


I gotta agree that I think there is a trend of physiological differences between men and women and general and that on average, men are capable of achieving more muscle mass and upper body strength, as well as size.

I don't consider physiological differences to be a justification for discrimination, though, so the thought doesn't trouble me.

Since every human being is an individual, I don't think these averages should factor into anything when you have specific physical requirements that must be met. Those who can meet them, regardless of gender, are qualified.


As for rape during war time... ugh. Considering the case of Berlin, it hardly matters whether women are civilians or in combat roles. (Or, say, prepubescent children.) The Russian soldiers were nearly encouraged to take their wrath out on the civilian population wherever they advanced into Germany. Alcohol flowed freely in Berlin, which some say contributed to the problem to an extend.

If assault is condoned (as historically the tradition, yay) or not met with severe consequences then it is likely to happen, and not just to the enemy since female soldiers appear to be preyed on by their own comrades, as well. Which is just despicable on a special level.

The problem is misogyny and dehumanization of the enemy. (Though Nazi Germany did a pretty spectacular job of dehumanizing itself to the Russians.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 5:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



On the matter of rape, I'd have to think that there's all manner of atrocities which have been committed to our female soldiers in Iraq, but we'll never hear about it.

Hell, our own are raping their fellow female soldiers, and it goes under reported, or ignored.

Quote:

Sexual assault occurs at appaling rate says US Air Force chief

A US Air Force general has referred to sexual misconduct within the service as a “cancer”, shedding new light on the extent of the problem in wake of a sex scandal that occurred at the Air Force training headquarters.Gen. Mark Welsh, chief of staff of the US Air Force, disclosed disturbing sexual assault statistics at a congressional hearing on Wednesday. Sexual assault ranging from inappropriate touches to rape has been on the rise, with 2012 seeing 796 reported cases. Last year’s figures show a 30 percent increase from 2011, during which 614 cases of sexual assault were reported, according to AP.




Note the timing of this report, and then the announcement of the ban being lifted.

Make of it what you will.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 6:19 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


I gotta agree that I think there is a trend of physiological differences between men and women and general and that on average, men are capable of achieving more muscle mass and upper body strength, as well as size.



Because they TRAIN. There's plenty of scrawny guys who are scrawny because were never interested in sports or the physical activities that western society encourages boys to participate in and discourages girls. But the girls who refuse to be dissuaded can develop as much muscle mass and strength as guys. My aunt was a fairly average girl when she was younger, but in highschool, she was on the football team.

Also, there's indications that testosterone and growth hormone aren't actually the muscle adder that people think they are. They really only have an effect at unnatural levels obtained in doping. At normal hormone levels, exercise is what ultimately increases muscle-mass, and studies found that levels of testosterone and growth hormone do not change after rigorous exercise. What does change, surprisingly enough, is cortisol - which appears to have a role in muscle building, contrary to earlier consensus that cortisol breaks down muscle.

I'm willing to concede women might not be as tall, but height doesn't really do much in regards to strength besides adding mass.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 6:29 AM

STORYMARK


Ive never "trained" a day in my life, and still have more muscle mass than any woman I know who doesn't lift weights.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 6:34 AM

BYTEMITE


Did you play sports as a kid? Most girls don't.

There are societal influences that prompt men to gain muscle that are subtle, men might not even be aware of it. But just that little difference is I think everything.

The dimorphism in humans is actually fairly minimal compared to other species.

And ultimately, if women can train to lift 300 pounds, and men have to train to do the same as well, then the argument about whether women can keep up with men in military training is moot.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 6:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



I missed the part where all females are required to sign up for selective service, at age 18, as all males are.

Until that happens, they're not equal.

Just sayin'.



"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 6:41 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I missed the part where all females are required to sign up for selective service, at age 18, as all males are.

Until that happens, they're not equal.

Just sayin'.



"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "



I was unaware the draft still exists.

I agree that discrimination against women should be done away with and women should do everything men have to do - but moreso I think a draft simply shouldn't exist. You want to talk about deadweight, look at the firing percentage of the average man drafted to go into combat in WW2 - 2/3rds of our soldiers in WW2 never fired a shot.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 9:41 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Maybe, at first. And if that's truly the case, then fine. But I suspect, after seeing how our govt works, and the social engineering gurus that run it, over time, the push to allow more and more women in will be greater and greater. Opportunity is being denied them, merely because they can't make the cut... a disproportion number of women have been accepted, w/ regards to the population, will be touted, down the line, and the slide to mediocrity will commence.



The old slipperly slope argument...for those who have no valid argument.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 9:55 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Did you play sports as a kid? Most girls don't.



I wore a uniform under duress - that's about it. Otherwise, no.

And "most girls don't". Hmm, quite the stereotype. Rather false, as well.

Quote:

There are societal influences that prompt men to gain muscle that are subtle, men might not even be aware of it. But just that little difference is I think everything.



There are biological reasons, too.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 10:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yeah, well, what did you expect? "...the social engineering gurus that run it" pretty much says it all.

Women have been fighting and dying in our wars for some time now. They just aren't considered "combat":
Quote:

For Gen. Martin Dempsey, Thursday's move to open combat units in the U.S. military to women had its roots nearly a decade ago, on the streets of Baghdad.

Dempsey took command of the Army's 1st Armored Division in June 2003, when Iraqi insurgents were starting to target American troops with sniper fire, grenades and roadside bombs. As he prepared for a trip outside his headquarters, he took a moment to introduce himself to the crew of his Humvee.

"I slapped the turret gunner on the leg and I said, 'Who are you?' And she leaned down and said, I'm Amanda.' And I said, 'Ah, OK,' " Dempsey told reporters at the Pentagon.

"So, female turret-gunner protecting division commander. It's from that point on that I realized something had changed, and it was time to do something about it."

Thursday, Dempsey -- now chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff -- sat alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as both men signed a directive that will open front-line posts to the roughly 200,000 women now serving in the active-duty military.

Panetta said the move is a bow to reality on the battlefield, where women in what are technically non-combat units already find themselves fighting alongside their male comrades.

Women made up 67 of the nearly 3,500 Americans lost in hostile fire in Iraq and 33 of the 1,700-plus killed in combat in Afghanistan; more than 600 in Iraq and 300 in Afghanistan were wounded.

The ban on women in specialties such as armor, artillery and infantry dates back to 1994. The Pentagon loosened some of those restrictions in 2012, and Panetta said the result "has been very positive."

"If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job -- and let me be clear, I'm not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job -- if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation," he said.

Several U.S. allies, including NATO members France, Canada and Germany, allow women to serve in combat posts. Earlier this month, the U.S. Army opened the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment to women, and it has begun recruiting female pilots and crew chiefs. The Navy put its first female officers on submarines in the past year, and certain female ground troops have been attached to combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon must notify Congress of each job or unit as it is sent up to the secretary to be opened to women. Then the Defense Department must wait 30 days while Congress is in session before implementing the change.

It is a marked difference from the way the military ended the exclusion of gays serving openly, or the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In that case, there were no stipulations attached to openly gay service members. There was no staggered approach that integrated openly gay troops into units. It was instead done all at once, across the board. Much more at http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women/index.html?hpt=hp_t4]
Note above underlined, which should put that to rest. All the "exclusion" has done is place women at a disadvantage for promotion, period.

For more:
Quote:

Former troops say time has come for women in combat units

"The first death I experienced was a woman, within the first few weeks I was in Iraq," she said.

It was June 25, 2007, and her outpost in Nasir Lafitah came under mortar fire. In the attack, Army Staff Sgt. Trista Moretti of South Plainfield, New Jersey, was killed. Moretti, 27, was assigned to a support battalion.

Days later, Weckerlein came under mortar fire again. This time, her comrade -- a cameraman -- was injured.

Even though her deployment orders said Qatar, she spent weeks in the summer of 2007 shuttling between bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like many women in the military, Weckerlein didn't get the additional combat training because she was in what was considered a support role.
Much more at http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/23/us/women-combat-troop-reaction/index.htm
l
mom fought alongside combat troops in Afghanistan

Kimberly Bratic hauled her gear up Afghan mountains. She went into areas where Taliban lived. She grieved when fellow soldiers were blown up by a suicide bomber. She missed her family for a year, and heard the worry in her sons' voices when she got the rare chance to call home.

She lay awake, thinking, "What if I don't make it home?"

The only difference between the 39-year-old single mom and the men she went on 70 missions with was their job titles. The guys were combat infantry. She was a public affairs specialist, the person who documented their experience training Afghan military and police.

"I don't think the enemy would really know the difference if he decided to shoot," she wrote in a CNN iReport.

"Mr. Panetta's decision is just unchecking a box," Bratic told CNN. "Because we're already out there and just as likely to get shot up."

She understands that men and women have different strengths and many women won't be able to endure the physical demands of training for combat positions.

But she's worked with several women, including female Afghan soldiers, who definitely could.

"They want it? Give them the chance to go for it," she said.

That is all the sergeant wanted when she enlisted two and a half years ago. More at http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/woman-combat-afghanistan-profile/inde
x.html


There are, of course, always neanderthals like Rap who imagine things which have not happened and won't happen:
Quote:

Jonn Lilyea, one of the founders of the military blog "This Ain't Hell," wrote that he thinks it was an "ill-considered decision."

Lilyea, a former sergeant who fought in Desert Storm, wrote that he is opposed to women in combat units, not because women are a distraction but because he thinks the Army and other services will be required to accept more women than are qualified or can be trained.

"If we're doing this to make the military better, fine, but if we're doing it just to beat our collective chest and show how just we are, then that's how a lot of body bags are going to get filled," he wrote.


But there always will be. The fact that women are already serving and dying, but only "officially" non-combatants, says it all.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 11:13 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


There are biological reasons, too.



Like "testosterone"?

I just addressed this.

Fine, *I'M* the one making stereotypes that girls aren't as strong as men versus trying to point out that they totally can be. Whatever.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 12:03 PM

CATPIRATE


Yep, the same old song "Israel does it". They understand that they are
surrounded by Arabs. But the women you have in the service are way out of shape. Ok you might find some and I mean some who could hang. But they are to small, to weak, and lacking a killer mindset. That is what combat is. If I am wrong then why are there so many rapes not sexual assaults done to them now in our military. Come on be real. Don't the libs always talk about kids being killed. Well now it's going to be 18 year old girls. I am sure they hunted, played physical sports, and just all around want to prove how macho they are. The good thing is when they are captured the Arabs will bang the men first. Once again the US miltary is used as social experiment for the weak of society. Hey the Gay Airman magazine is out isn't that wonderful for the Air Corp. Good example ever seen a bush pilot that is a woman nope just the fly by wire jets. Anything hard women can't cut. Hey were is all the bricklaying babes and chics in mines. Yeh their equal all right. All I see in the military is free loading women and minorities on a socialist paycheck. The truth hurts. Any man that disagrees is whipped at home.

Don't worry about grammar stick to the subject.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 12:16 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I was unaware the draft still exists.



Not the Draft. I said selective service. Not (exactly) the same thing. I had to do it, when I turned 18.


Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18 thru 25.

Women still do not register. (January 24, 2013)


http://www.sss.gov/default.htm


Quote:



I agree that discrimination against women should be done away with and women should do everything men have to do - but moreso I think a draft simply shouldn't exist. You want to talk about deadweight, look at the firing percentage of the average man drafted to go into combat in WW2 - 2/3rds of our soldiers in WW2 never fired a shot.



While that may be true, I fail to see how it relates the the issue of women being required to sign up for selective service.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 12:17 PM

BYTEMITE


Then that should be changed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 12:20 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Yeh their equal all right. All I see in the military is free loading women and minorities on a socialist paycheck.


If that is what you think then don't you think they should be MADE to fight? It is what they signed up for, theoretically.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 12:30 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Also, there's indications that testosterone and growth hormone aren't actually the muscle adder that people think they are. They really only have an effect at unnatural levels obtained in doping. At normal hormone levels, exercise is what ultimately increases muscle-mass, and studies found that levels of testosterone and growth hormone do not change after rigorous exercise. What does change, surprisingly enough, is cortisol - which appears to have a role in muscle building, contrary to earlier consensus that cortisol breaks down muscle.



That's interesting news! I'm willing to accept that the level of difference that is purely down to biological, rather than social, factors might be quite small. I'm not sure I'm quite willing to complete let go of it but I just googled around a little and it seems that female performance at the Olympics has been approaching male performance over the past decades, currently hovering at about 90% on average. It's not certain whether women will entirely close that gap in the future, but it's certainly a steeper level of improvement than I expected.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2013 12:56 PM

BYTEMITE


People believe in testosterone as a natural driver for muscle mass in men, but I think that's one of those things no one really questioned or tested, they just assumed due to preconceived ideas about greater natural male strength and attributed it to the sex hormones.

Yes, in large doses testosterone does bulk up muscle mass, but those aren't exactly natural levels. At natural levels the effects of testosterone in men on muscle mass really seem to vary. Something else seems to be going on.

I see no reason why women shouldn't be able to keep up or perform as men do, apart from the lingering belief that they can't.

In regards to the Olympics, they've had to slowly reevaluate what qualifies as doping in regards to testosterone, and whether people who look like women are actually men by chromosome, and whether people who look like men are actually women according to chromosomes. Crazy stuff. Gender really isn't as straightforward as commonly thought - and physical strength as a purely masculine trait isn't exactly accurate.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:23 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I think anyone who is capable, can behave themselves well enough, wants to fight and meets the requirements/standards for abilities should be allowed. I don't see why not.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 3:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
I think anyone who is capable, can behave themselves well enough, wants to fight and meets the requirements/standards for abilities should be allowed. I don't see why not.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya



Not to take away from your point, but there ARE some very real world issues to take into consideration. The military isn't just another 9-5 job, or your standard career path.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 4:40 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
I think anyone who is capable, can behave themselves well enough, wants to fight and meets the requirements/standards for abilities should be allowed. I don't see why not.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya



Not to take away from your point, but there ARE some very real world issues to take into consideration. The military isn't just another 9-5 job, or your standard career path.



So they should NOT take people who want to join and who meet all the requirements? That would basically prevent them from taking anyone, wouldn't it?

What real world considerations do you mean, specifically?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 5:18 AM

BYTEMITE


Well, based on the previous conversation, if I had to guess, I would say the rape is the concern. Although that brings up the question as to why all these soldiers are so much more rape happy than the rest of the population. We're fighting against some of the least woman friendly cultures in modern time, that punish rape victims for adultery, so you'd think that MORE danger would exist to women serving in the military from outside our armed forces than within them.

Not so long ago, the military discharged anyone showing any signs of homosexual inclinations, I'm presuming because there were mistaken beliefs in the chain of command that gay men couldn't control themselves and would start raping the other men in their units. But it appears the military has a similar belief about the straight men in the ranks in regards to women, but does less about that. AURaptor, would you care to speculate why?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 5:29 AM

BYTEMITE


I seem to recall that black soldiers had a high rate of being lynched by their white peers from the first time they were allowed to serve in the civil war, up until well after world war 2.

More interesting, it appears desegregating units eventually decreased racial violence in the military, though there was a spike early on.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 7:07 AM

AGENTROUKA


If rape is the issue, then the real problem is, indeed, not whether or not women are allowed to serve in combat positions (I mean, it would really make no difference at this point since women in the military are already being assaulted) but rather what the hell kind of culture within the military is the cause of that.

Do they attract an unreasonably large percentage of criminally inclined people and not screen that?
Do they encourage a culture of sexual objectification, bullying and male privilege?
Do they not have proper channels for reporting assaults and apply swift and severe consequences?

If any of this is true, then you've got to agree that sexual assault of female soldiers is merely a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous issue.

The argument can't be "Girls, don't join the army because your fellow soldiers will rape you" without taking a horrified look at what the hell is wrong with those fellow soldiers and addressing THAT.

Semi-related:
I recently read the wikipedia article about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and this Charles Graner dude who had a large part in it had this sincerely troubling history being accused of prisoner abuse before and assaulting his ex-wife. WHY was he ever allowed to guard prisoners to begin with? (Not to mention I can't figure out why he wasn't in prison for assaulting his ex-wife, but whatever.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 8:02 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by ARLO:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Bad idea.



Well that proves it! Well, maybe not it .... but something. =0)

sincerely, 1933




According to the NRA, a gun makes a 90-pound woman the equal of a 240-pound man.

So they're all the same in combat, right?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 11:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA



AgentR
Quote:

If rape is the issue, then the real problem is, indeed, not whether or not women are allowed to serve in combat positions (I mean, it would really make no difference at this point since women in the military are already being assaulted) but rather what the hell kind of culture within the military is the cause of that.

A very, VERY screwed up and dysfunctional one, there's a reason I call it Military CULT-ure, after all.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/SonofTzu.shtml
Quote:

Think about this for a moment. Suppose that your boss at the lab or law firm or newsroom demanded that, when he entered the room, you leapt spasmodically to your feet, stood rigidly erect with your feet at a forty-five degree angle like a congenitally deformed duck, and stared straight ahead until he gave you permission to relax. You would think, correctly, that he was crazy as a bedbug. If he then required reporters to stand in a square so he could inspect their belt buckles, you would either figure he was a gay blade or call for a struggle buggy and some big orderlies. This weird posturing is not normal, nor are those it appeals to.

Suppose you showed up for freshman orientation at Princeton and your professors bellowed at the tops of their voices, three inches from your face, “Your shoes ain’t shined good, puke. Get down and give me fifty.” (Pushups, that is, which in the military doesn’t mean the better sort of bra.) You would decide that the loon had lost whatever mind he had ever had, and call Domino’s for a cheese pizza, double Haldol.

Should you be so unwary as to suggest the foregoing in print, the response will usually be that militaries need discipline. True, and so do newspapers. However, there is a distinction between discipline and ritualized lunacy. At every publication for which I have worked, the editor was clearly and absolutely in charge. Yet I, seldom senior, could say, “Yeah, Wes, but if we do that, won’t thus-and-so bad thing happen?” His decision was law, but he was happy to hear from subordinates, who might know something he didn’t. Editors do not require vaguely sadomasochistic submissiveness.

This hoopla is not of use in combat. The Taliban seem to be doing rather well. Do you suppose their commanders check their beds to be sure that a quarter will bounce from their blankets?


Of course the insanity goes MUCH deeper than just that.

Quote:

Do they attract an unreasonably large percentage of criminally inclined people and not screen that?

Oh hell yes - in fact one of the reasons I signed up in the first goddamn place, and I fully admit this, was because I was a nihilistic sumbitch crapped on at every turn by every aspect of our society and thus kinda wanted the human race wiped off the planet, or at the very least to drown my hate in blood and get PAID for it - mind you I got better, but they signed me up knowing I was a monster, and gave me bonuses for it.
One can imagine just how pissed off I got when most of my daytime activities revolved around cleaning, painting, and dishwashing... whoooooo, man, if I wanted THAT I woulda went and worked for the local roach motel!
Which is of course, how that bastard Lindyear got his hooks into me to begin with.

Quote:

Do they encourage a culture of sexual objectification, bullying and male privilege?

Oh fuck yes, not to mention casual racism and religious intolerance, which was at least back in my day part and parcel of the training/conditioning.
Ironically one of the better commanders I had was female, and quite shockingly pretty - which lead to a hilarious incident when she was first assigned to us and walked past in civilian clothes, leading to the inevitable wolf-whistling and whatnot from everyone BUT me cause even in my psychotic spiral I *still* found that crap offensive....
Five minutes later there she comes in uniform with captains bars all shining, and cue bricks being shat, and then she points and me and goes "YOU! go somewhere else!" and tears a serious strip of hide off them dumb bastards, with me laughing up my sleeve the whole time.
As many learned to their chagrin, and my amusement, looks don't mean shit - she was seriously, viciously DANGEROUS, and although we hated each other bitterly after the whole survey-incident, both of us valued competence above all things, so I kind of wound up her go-to flunky when she needed something done right, something neither of us cared for - she was hostile cause gender and looks limited her career, and she'd gone and screwed mine cause of my ethics.
Nobody is innocent.

Quote:

Do they not have proper channels for reporting assaults and apply swift and severe consequences?

On paper, in principle ? Yes.
In point of fact ? No.

Just like all the fluff and bullshit about illegal orders, what is on paper, what they SAY, differs so radically from the reality it's an outright joke.
This culminated in the incident which landed me in the brig, by the by - you see, when one refuses an illegal order, they can't charge you with that, oh no, so they charge you over the MANNER of your refusal, that usually being insuborination - which frankly one coulda charged me with at any point in time anyways cause I am by nature an insubordinate bastard, but I digress...

Basically a training NCO ordered a female trainee to perform oral sex on him and then busted her for insubordination when she refused, and this pissed me off (and to be completely honest, gave me the excuse I was all but WAITING for in regards to that asshole) and I barged into his office and got right into his face about it, and when he laid his hands on me... well, lets just say I found myself in the brig, only to wind up presented with an assignment that needed someone like me instead of facing charges.

Quote:

If any of this is true, then you've got to agree that sexual assault of female soldiers is merely a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous issue.

The argument can't be "Girls, don't join the army because your fellow soldiers will rape you" without taking a horrified look at what the hell is wrong with those fellow soldiers and addressing THAT.


Amen to that, the whole CULT-ure is a form of deliberately self-inflicted collective psychosis, and IMHO detrimental to their effectiveness as a whole, at ANYTHING.
Here's a good article on the topic.

The Widening Gap Between Military and Society
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/07/the-widening-gap-b
etween-military-and-society/306158
/

Of course that article tries to be sympathetic to it, which I myself am not, not one bit.
And if you REALLY wanna understand the absolute proto-fascist perversity of it, you should read Robert A. Heinleins Starship Troopers - the BOOK, mind you, which is all about his lameass attempts to celebrate and justify that kind of radically authoritarian Fascism with what I feel are some very flimsy and untenable excuses.
(Disclaimer: I think Heinlein is a punk, and this book's the reason)

Quote:

I recently read the wikipedia article about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and this Charles Graner dude who had a large part in it had this sincerely troubling history being accused of prisoner abuse before and assaulting his ex-wife. WHY was he ever allowed to guard prisoners to begin with?

You fail to understand - that's WHY they put him there!
They knew it, wanted it to happen, and didn't want to take any blame, easy peasy, problem solved!

Hell, folks like Lindyear are a dime a dozen even now, we have PLENTY of hired psychos we can just drop on the enemy and cut the leash of - I hear tell they did that in Falluah and just shelled the whole operations area (with them in it, cause they're expendable) to cover it from the media.

That's part of the reason I have zero respect for "the troops", due to the depraved, psychotic CULT-ure they exist within, they are every bit as much a threat to us as anyone else, cause we're not THEM, you see ?
And a lot of them are just ITCHING to show us "dirty little commie/terrorist-symp weakneed pansyass liberal civilan scum" who's boss, and a lot of them are in the Dirty 3d, stationed HERE, in the US, on active duty, just waiting to be unleashed on US.

Fuck "the troops".

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 11:28 AM

CHRISISALL


As usual, good post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 11:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
According to the NRA, a gun makes a 90-pound woman the equal of a 240-pound man.

So they're all the same in combat, right?


Absofuckinlutely.

This was a big issue with me when they kept loading the training curriculum towards phsyical conditioning (yay, exhaustion and sleep deprivation make minds more malleable, don't you know?) at the expense of important things like tactics and marksmanship - I don't care if you are 300lbs hulking brute muscle and could pick your teeth with me, I slam a 7.62mm chunk of lead through your goddamn skull from half a mile away, YOU ARE STILL DEAD.

Mind you, that philosophy was totally vindicated in my direction in regards to our misadventures in the middle east, as Marines recieve more marksmanship training than regular Army goons and this translated directly-exactly into better survival ratios, whereas physical conditioning mattered not one whit.

This kind of stupidity persists though, instead of focusing on speed, tactics and marksmanship, they went with armoring them up, requiring even MORE phsyical conditioning to carry all that shit, slowing them down and making them even EASIER targets, along with the insistence on carryin a battle rifle of very dubious reliability and effectiveness (that being the mighty-mattel-piece-o-shit, aka M16/M4) in a situation which calls for a submachinegun or shotgun.

Same thing with the stupid Humvees, which are basically jeeps, personnel transport - you want a tank, bring an Abrams, you want an AFV go find a goddamn Bradley, but no, they keep upping the armor till it wrecks the suspension, deprives it of the speed and maneuverability which is WHY THEY BUILT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, and improves its survivability by teaspoonfulls, cause it's the wrong tool for the job.
Using a Humvee in an AFV role is like using an SR-71 for strafing trenches.

Anyhows, if you can make it to the combat zone with your gear, and can put holes in the other guys, that's good enough in my book - this ridiculous obsession with physical conditioning is the baliwick of the same kind of command which never got beyond hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle for tactics, which worked SO well at the Somme... and hasn't yet realized the days of epic ground battles and bayonet charges have gone the way of the dodo bird - fighting in an urban environ with 110lbs of extra gear (in the desert sun, no less) and a goddamn battlerifle is suicide.
From a tactical perspective light class II armor and a submachinegun or shotgun would do a whole hell of a lot better job, but it conflicts with their rigid inflexible mindset, they're like morons who use a screwdriver as a hammer.

Hell, my loader was a weasely lookin effeminite fellow they dumped on me half in hopes I would strangle him cause he didn't fit their macho bullshit mold, he was MAYBE 110lbs, at best, and since he was carryin half my ammo, I set him up with a reduced gear load - it wasn't so goddamn funny no more when I taught him how to use an M-79 grenade launcher to flush out targets for my M60.

So all this bru-hah-hah about physical conditioning is just bullshit and excuses anyway, and I think we all know it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 11:48 AM

CHRISISALL


Frem, you're on a roll here as far as I'm concerned.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 12:08 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

As for rape during war time... ugh. Considering the case of Berlin, it hardly matters whether women are civilians or in combat roles. (Or, say, prepubescent children.) The Russian soldiers were nearly encouraged to take their wrath out on the civilian population wherever they advanced into Germany. Alcohol flowed freely in Berlin, which some say contributed to the problem to an extend.

If assault is condoned (as historically the tradition, yay) or not met with severe consequences then it is likely to happen, and not just to the enemy since female soldiers appear to be preyed on by their own comrades, as well. Which is just despicable on a special level.

The problem is misogyny and dehumanization of the enemy. (Though Nazi Germany did a pretty spectacular job of dehumanizing itself to the Russians.)



Yeah, not being in the military was hardly a defense against being brutalised in mid 20th century total war conditions.

Being trained to kill your fellow human is a brutish activity. If that floats your boat, then you should be allowed to do it, regardless of gender.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 2:39 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

- fighting in an urban environ with 110lbs of extra gear (in the desert sun, no less) and a goddamn battlerifle is suicide.
From a tactical perspective light class II armor and a submachinegun or shotgun would do a whole hell of a lot better job, but it conflicts with their rigid inflexible mindset, they're like morons who use a screwdriver as a hammer.




More likely they use a hammer as a screwdriver, but point taken.

And I think a fair number of our troops would be better served in an urban environment with a semi-auto shotgun and a semi-auto handgun with extended magazine.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 28, 2013 5:02 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


My definition of capable factors a few things in, things which I think are important. But if people are capable thusly, want to do it, are able to do it, then go for it. Your sex isn't important, your sexual preferences aren't important, your ancestry isn't important. Just do it.

Frem I think you make a reasonable point about the needs regarding physical fitness, maybe that stuff isn't as important as it used to be. I still think there should be some standards, but I'd be willing to change things in that regard if it was a viable plan. We must adapt after all. All the other stuff you said I see as over the top to a point, but I recognize that you have some valid points and you are basing your opinions on your experience and one's experience is what shapes one's opinions so I support your right to your opinions. I would consider you to be too unkind to the Everyman here though. If you want to talk trash about someone, do it to the higher ups rather than the little guy. But as I said you have every right to your opinion and I'm glad that you have a place you can express it either way.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 20:53 - 446 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 20:37 - 52 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:42 - 851 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL