War on Women, or Women in War

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LaSalleAve, Sep 10, 2015.

  1. Tiger Exile

    Tiger Exile Long time lurker

    I'm sure it has changed a lot as well since I left but my feeling is with VBall on this one. Are they really doing the same things? Our basic and technical training had different physical requirements, no big deal for the most part or I didn't think so at the time. Fast forward to when I was a SSgt with a fire team and I had a female assigned to me. She was good at the training, followed orders and could shoot the M-16. Problems: couldn't be a 60 gunner or 2nd (ammo lugger) on extended patrols. We deployed to Panama and she and the other female in our unit got waivers regarding showers and bathrooms and did not go. I was a "man" down which really sucked for my team. We worked with the Army and they had females in camp so it really depends on how the standards and treatment are applied. I have worked for some great females in the corporate world.
     
  2. LSUMASTERMIND

    LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

    from what I understand two females made it in Ranger training, how about Seal training? Are females able to fight or pass the test in regular unit training?
     
  3. uscvball

    uscvball Founding Member

    The Navy hasn't allowed women to attempt it and it's clear they don't want to be forced. Physically it would be nearly impossible but as with other bell ringers, it will be the mental challenge that will defeat a woman.
     
    LSUpride123 likes this.
  4. LSUMASTERMIND

    LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

    i know the Seal training is the hardest, but the two ladies that did the Ranger training, just sheer determination?
     
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    But it hasn't worked that way, has it? The women are required to qualify for the SOF jobs and how many have done that? Two. What motive does the pentagon have to "foist" women upon themselves?
     
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    What? What does farting have to do with a woman being allowed to compete fairly for a combat job? Most of them can't hack it physically or emotionally but those that do will no longer be rejected because of their gender alone.
     
  7. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Even putting the "ability to compete" aside, mentally, they are different.

    They should not be in combat. At all.
     
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Based on what?

    Still dreaming about army cranks, eh?
     
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Be honest, you had to put up with a lot of chickenshit male officers, too, didn't you. If she hadn't been a chickenshit rules type, what was left was "smart, capable and able and not far off from tactically sound. She had done her homework and had a good grip on a clue."
     
    shane0911 likes this.
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    This is why I think it is important that women must qualify on the same standards as men, realizing that this reduced the women in combat to very few. Just like the corporate world, if they can hack it on a level playing field, they deserve a shot. Not carte blanche, but an opportunity to show that they can get it done.
     
    Tiger Exile likes this.

Share This Page