War on Women, or Women in War

Meh, none of those are extremely heavy, the m203 on an m16 is about 15 lbs or so but it's not about that. Shooting is shooting, you can either do it or you cant. Boots in the mud, carrying your own food, water, ammo and clothes and still be able to shoot, straight, is a different story.

 

Again I think the better question is should women be in combat at all? Just because they can or its legal isn't a reason to do something.
Are we better off as a society if women join men in the pursuit of a vocation that hones the path to violence and reducing human lives value in battle? I think not.
This is not to cast any negatives to those who stand in defense of our country. They are making a tremendous sacrifice. However will any of you who have been in battle and served in Iraq and Afganistan tell me it was/is anything but hardening?
I think we can be a better society if women were captains of industry rather than captains in combat. Better if women were leaders of countries (not HRC) rather than leaders of platoons in battle.

 

There are a lot of veterans from Vietnam to Iraq I to Iraq II to Afghanistan with post traumatic stress who struggle to readjust to normal society. We don't need to doube the problem by having women with the same problem.

Even back to caveman days men were the hunters and warriors and women were the gatherers. There are biological reasons for this.

 

I spent 20 years in the Air Force including a year in Nam. I retired in 1986. I'm old school, but I hope I'm smart enough to recognize and understand that the military I spent 20 years in is night and day different from todays armed forces.
My personal feelings are that I would prefer that women be excluded from ground combat positions. However in today's armed forces if a woman is qualified in all phases for a combat position, then more power to her. It's up the senior NCO's and the officer leadership of the outfit to determine that and whether or not it detracts from the units ability to perform its mission.

 

Here's a theory....some of the best snipers have ADD. Men are far more likely to be ADD and pursue that one singular activity that makes them successful compared to women.

It's not about distraction. It's about instinct. Let me give you an example....Michael Murphy, MoH recipient and a movie made about the story, Lone Survivor. Murphy made the decision to let the goat herders go because he couldn't verify any hostile intent. 16 personnel on a Chinook dispatched to rescue them were killed by an RPG and Murphy along with 2 SEAL teammates were killed. Murphy did what he thought was right, he followed his instinct. There are SEALs who wouldn't have hesitated to follow their instincts and kill the goat herders, hostile intent or not. Leave no witnesses. It's how a SEAL survives.

The very basic reality is that a huge majority of service personnel these days come from and serve on bases in the South. The reverence for women and the instinct/desire to protect women is far more prevalent in Southern culture. A man is likely to make certain decisions not because he is distracted, but because it's "normal".

No. Men and women are not equal in this situation. That's it. It's okay to say so and not use other people's lives and safety to prove some point of alleged equality.

 

Been out of the loop for awhile, so tell me if something changed, but...

There are 2 physical standards. Male and female. In a 2 minute timed event, men are required to do more than women of the same age group. All branches, across the board. It is the physical standard. That standard conflicts with performance integrity when the same expectations are there to evaluate individual job performance. You simply cannot degrade physical performance and yet, maintain a performance standard that does not degrade. The 2 different standards argue and blame the other for lacking overall unit success.

It works for finance and JAG types but it is a significant design flaw when the physical demands define overall unit performance.

 

Red can you give a good reason why? What does it do to make the armed forces better? What does it do to make society better? What does it to to improve our species. Again I ask, is just being able to do something reason enough to do it?

 

I don't think he is arguing for it. I agree, they can be pilots and mechanics and those type of low key things. I don't think they belong in an artillery unit but other rear echelon cs or css jobs are fine, they have been there for years. I think he agrees that they don't belong in front line boots on the mud units.