Females in combat zones/jobs. Good Idea? Bad idea?

[john9001]

Originally posted by ded
 
In order to put women full time on subs they would need to be totally redesigned to accommodate them.

you don't have to redesign your subs, you Americans have to redesign your puritanical ideas about sex.

[LEADPIG]

Jeez ya'll still talking about this?

Alright here's the protocol:

1. Women will be allowed to perform a military duty if allowed to pass said requirements for the job.

2. There shall be no seperate physical requirements for women than men to do the same job.

3. Women shall be allowed to perform any military duty which requires technological knowledge and requires very little in the way of physical differences to do said job between men and women.


It takes very little strength to push the missile fire button in a modern jet. Women have been seen to be able to accept the g forces better due to their physical construction.

However to load artillery shells at a rapid fire pace and pack all that up and move. It would very well be a hindrance and alow everybody to get killed.

Subs no, due to the living arrangements involved. Now if women want to use the same shower or head as the men, be my guest.

You could say redesign subs to allow it. But that may cause a few problems in modern submarines as they are designed to be small and have very littles space as is. To try to fit that extra space may cause problem that may jeopardize a subs main mission requirements. Now thats just on todays subs, something could be done i'm sure, is it worth the money when a subs main job is to kill and perform reconasance just to allow women i don't know.

Other than that it's no problem

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by LEADPIG
Jeez ya'll still talking about this?

Alright here's the protocol:

1. Women will be allowed to perform a military duty if allowed to pass said requirements for the job.

2. There shall be no seperate physical requirements for women than men to do the same job.

3. Women shall be allowed to perform any military duty which requires technological knowledge and requires very little in the way of physical differences to do said job between men and women.


It takes very little strength to push the missile fire button in a modern jet. Women have been seen to be able to accept the g forces better due to their physical construction.

However to load artillery shells at a rapid fire pace and pack all that up and move. It would very well be a hindrance and alow everybody to get killed.

Subs no, due to the living arrangements involved. Now if women want to use the same shower or head as the men, be my guest.

You could say redesign subs to allow it. But that may cause a few problems in modern submarines as they are designed to be small and have very littles space as is. To try to fit that extra space may cause problem that may jeopardize a subs main mission requirements. Now thats just on todays subs, something could be done i'm sure, is it worth the money when a subs main job is to kill and perform reconasance just to allow women i don't know.

Other than that it's no problem

Lead,

I reveiwed the US Armed Forces physical test requirements.

Just talking the guys now..

The older a guy gets the more of a break he gets on physical standards yet he does the same job as the younger ones.

Explain that...

TIGERESS

[LEADPIG]

Are you talking the exact same job? Maybe they are funneling the older guys into leadership positions and they are not exactly doing the same jobs.  

I know what you mean though, the older a pilot gets he can continue flying with worse eyesight. It's to keep the experience in that position in the military. It's very valuable.

However say if you are a woman trying to join the infantry. Off the bat, your're physical standards are likely too have not met the mens at first and will only get worse with time. Whereas the men met the standards they degraded over time. They want you too meet the standards at the onset. They know you'll get older. At which time they want too keep your experience for leadership reasons out on the field and you'll likely be funneled out of that in short time. Because of your experience they make slight exceptions. However if a woman didn't meet the men's requirements at first it's only likely to get worse by a much larger margin. Unless you are a female body builder.

[-tronski-]

Be a professional and there shouldn't be a problem - if you can't then its like every other profession/job in modern society - they should remove you not her. If they can cut it - and want to do the job, then they should. There are already plenty of woman already real contributions to armed forces across the planet...lugging a rifle around seems the last bastion.

As Cav already stated - sexual abuse of POWs is not limited to women

 Tronsky

[culero]

Originally posted by Tigeress
nuffin sweetie... splain it to me

But when you splain it, do so without referencing females or women, Ok?

TIGERESS

Wee-uns kin pee whurever we want and a heckuva lot easier!

(just trying to help )

[Coshy]

Originally posted by Tigeress
...snip... The older a guy gets the more of a break he gets on physical standards yet he does the same job as the younger ones.
 

I'm guessing you don't have much experience with the military. The older a guy gets, it is assumed he will increase in rank. With increase in rank comes less physical 'work' and more leadership skills.

You assume as a guy gets older he has to do the same amount work as a younger soldier/sailor/marine/airmen. Generally speaking, he doesn't. The 'job' changes with increased rank. To compare a First Sergeant to a PFC is like comparing apples and oranges. They may both be 11B, but rarely will they be required to do the same work. The PFCs JOB is to fight his way up the hill, running, climbing, carrying, shooting, etc is his WORK. The First Sergeants JOB is to get that PFC up the hill, his WORK is traning the PFC in his job.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by LEADPIG
Are you talking the exact same job? Maybe they are funneling the older guys into leadership positions and they are not exactly doing the same jobs.  

I know what you mean though, the older a pilot gets he can continue flying with worse eyesight. It's to keep the experience in that position in the military. It's very valuable.

However say if you are a woman trying to join the infantry. Off the bat, your're physical standards are likely too have not met the mens at first and will only get worse with time. Whereas the men met the standards they degraded over time. They want you too meet the standards at the onset. They know you'll get older. At which time they want too keep your experience for leadership reasons out on the field and you'll likely be funneled out of that in short time. Because of your experience they make slight exceptions. However if a woman didn't meet the men's requirements at first it's only likely to get worse by a much larger margin. Unless you are a female body builder.

Hi Lead,

Well... women do not get assigned the top 5% physically demanding jobs in military; those jobs that are the most physically demanding such as... no direct ground foot soldier combat meaning females are not assigned to the infantry, no commando units, no special ops units, no tank duty, etc.

I know of very few, if any, women who could lug a 150lb ruck sack all day every day for miles. They are not given a 75lb ruck sack; they simply are not assigned those duties.

With that said, the point is... there is no "one physical standard for all" for service people and never will be.

The standard is different for different people depending on age and gender.

Also looking at the standards for the youngest age group, the differences between male and female are not all that different.

According to military SOPs, military regulations do not allow assigning people to jobs they are physically unsuited to perform by virtue of gender related physical ability limitations.

Thanks, by the way, for not being an overt sexist. I mean that!

hugs

TIGERESS

[DREDIOCK]

After some though on the matter
I've decided to change my position somewhat.
Women should be allowed to serve in front line combat units one week out of the month.
That week being PMS week.

Just give em a gun. Point at the enemy positions and tell then its their fault.


The could fill in the role of berserkers very well I think and any battle would be over and one in a matter of minutes.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
After some though on the matter
I've decided to change my position somewhat.
Women should be allowed to serve in front line combat units one week out of the month.
That week being PMS week.

Just give em a gun. Point at the enemy positions and tell then its their fault.


The could fill in the role of berserkers very well I think and any battle would be over and one in a matter of minutes.

Love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Coshy
I'm guessing you don't have much experience with the military. The older a guy gets, it is assumed he will increase in rank. With increase in rank comes less physical 'work' and more leadership skills.

You assume as a guy gets older he has to do the same amount work as a younger soldier/sailor/marine/airmen. Generally speaking, he doesn't. The 'job' changes with increased rank. To compare a First Sergeant to a PFC is like comparing apples and oranges. They may both be 11B, but rarely will they be required to do the same work. The PFCs JOB is to fight his way up the hill, running, climbing, carrying, shooting, etc is his WORK. The First Sergeants JOB is to get that PFC up the hill, his WORK is traning the PFC in his job.

Hi Coshy,

While I understand your thinking, a Sergeant's ruck sack weighs as much as a PFC's ruck sack. Yes? No?

Also, rank and age are not directly linked. A PFC can be any age legal for military service. Yes? No?

Sergeants are assigned to the infantry and go in harms way alongside PFCs. Yes? No?

Again... females are not assigned to infantry duty as combat soldiers.

Point is... there is not, nor will there ever be, a "one size fits all" single set of physical requirements for all people in the armed services that Lead and others have been espousing.

TIGERESS

[Rolex]

Equality is the law of the land, and I see no reason why the military should be exempt from that. I also think women should not be exempt from registering for selective service, or given preferential disposition in child custody, child support or alimony.

[lazs2]

I don't think it is a good idea to blur the sexes and their roles too much.

I think it is the women who do the blurring tho and then run back to their femininity when it all goes bad (don't hit me I'm a girl).  t

They are the ones who want to cross dress and not be called crossdressers.. they are the ones who want to work with men but not be subject to rough men.

They are the ones who want to be tough but cry when the hormones kick in.  

They don't mind getting extra rights but cry foul when they can't make it fair and square.

tiggress.. should all sports be co-ed?  football games mix the men and women... boxing by weight only say?

Are men and women different other than some genitals?    If they are different..  other than that.. can we say so?  can we make rules based on that..

Or is it all fair game now?  if one mouths off..  I can knock her block off.. hell... she might even be a combat vet right?  she is "equal" right?  or can I only do it when she is dressed like a man?

it is all so confusing.

lazs

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by ded
During my time in the service I was glad that there was no women on my submarine.  When we had 1 female civilian contractor rider for a few days things were a royal pain in the ass.  She had to have her own head (there are only 2 enlisted heads) which made things a bit awkward for the other 90 or so enlisted guys.  

In order to put women full time on subs they would need to be totally redesigned to accommodate them.

Now as far as standing watch goes, they could do most tasks required with a few exceptions.  Like for instance I would not want them to be a torpedoman if the hydraulic systems failed.

Females don't serve on US submarines, so the issue is moot to the subject of this thread, imho.

With that said...

There is already a seperation of people onboard submarines.

The seperation is by rank; officers and enlisted.

I am neither an advocate for, nor an opponent against, assigning females to serve on US submarines.

I simply look on to watch the debate and the results.

Thank you for your service to the country.

TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think it is a good idea to blur the sexes and their roles too much.

I think it is the women who do the blurring tho and then run back to their femininity when it all goes bad (don't hit me I'm a girl).  t

They are the ones who want to cross dress and not be called crossdressers.. they are the ones who want to work with men but not be subject to rough men.

They are the ones who want to be tough but cry when the hormones kick in.  

They don't mind getting extra rights but cry foul when they can't make it fair and square.

tiggress.. should all sports be co-ed?  football games mix the men and women... boxing by weight only say?

Are men and women different other than some genitals?    If they are different..  other than that.. can we say so?  can we make rules based on that..

Or is it all fair game now?  if one mouths off..  I can knock her block off.. hell... she might even be a combat vet right?  she is "equal" right?  or can I only do it when she is dressed like a man?

it is all so confusing.

lazs

Hi Lazs,

Male roles and female roles are social constructs.

A male who dresses his infant daughter for the day or prepares his daughter's meals is no less male than a prize fighter on the basis of the role he is performing. It does not make him a female.

I can fully envision George Foreman changing his daughter's diapers and rocking her to sleep.

Prior to the Civil War, the role of females who were black was slave.

Society changed... grew up as it were...

In WWII, black men in the navy were relegated to non-combat assignments because their "role" was deemed to be service duties such as mess cooks.

Again society changed... grew up as it were.

Society, like a teenager, continues to grow up.

A servicewoman is no less female than a homemaker; a homemaker is not more female than a servicewoman.

A female should only be limited by her abilities and her decisions and not by men who perceive females as being role bound.

Whether a female decides she wants to become a homemaker or a fighter pilot is her decision and up to her abilities... it is not up to men to make that decision for her.

With all this said, the majority of females are not, and will not be, inclined to be in the military, by their own choice.

With all this said, the majority of males are not, and will not be, inclined to be in the military, by their own choice.

The underlying difference here is the draft in times of all out war.

Females must not be drafted into the military unless.. this country is on the ropes and females serving in the military as draftees will prevent the country from being overrun by the communists or the islamists or whom ever the enemy may be that spells the end of this country.

Pride goeth before the fall... just ask the USSR who put females into combat because they had no choice and ultimately prevailed against Nazi Germany.

TIGERESS

PS: To quote my Father, a 30-year career Army Air Corps/USAF serviceman, "It takes a special breed of cat to choose to be in the military." Interestingly, cat is not gender specific.

Not meaning to put you on the spot... you are 60 years old thus I am curious, did you serve in Viet Nam or during the Viet Nam War? Eight service women were killed by the enemy in Viet Nam... all were officers and all were volunteers. They were nurses.

My Dad volunteered for military service and was there in Viet Nam and also WWII and Korea and served with distinction... a 35 mission B-17 crewman and was awarded many metals for his service.

We were so proud of him and he was given a military funeral not too many years ago with full military honors including a firearm salute.