Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Penetta removes military ban on women in combat

99 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

[quote name='stirs' timestamp='1358976130' post='2112195']
Okay, preface this with the fact that I am twice your guys age, but I do not want women in direct battle.

Having a man hostage is bad enough, what will it be to have a woman on camera, black eyes, rape,
[/quote]

For a lot of women soliders, that'd be [url="http://servicewomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Final-RSASH-10.8.2012.pdf"]more of the same.[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

95% of the women in thr military cant go on a ruck without falling out. This is a bad idea..
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Not-Awesomeness' timestamp='1358976528' post='2112204']
95% of the women in thr military cant go on a ruck without falling out. This is a bad idea..
[/quote]

What's the % of men that fall out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If they want to serve in a combat MOS, then doing more than 19 pushups in 2 minutes should be required. This isn't a male vs female problem this is a standards problem. If they want a mans job, they need to be able to handle a mans requirements, body type be damned. A unit's combat effectiveness will be severly damaged if only 75% of the soldiers can meet the military standard. I sure as heck wont go down range with a woman or man that couldn't meet the basic physical standards. That needs to be the arguement, not whether or not a chick can go 11-B.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='g5jamz' timestamp='1358977069' post='2112210']
What's the % of men that fall out.
[/quote]
I think the statement you responded to was pretty much based off of crappy guessing. From what I can tell, there is no study showing "how many soldiers fall out of a forced march."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm just asking because I'm sure the army has an acceptable level of forced march fallouts...but if someone can't do the march, they are a liability and shouldn't make it. Or use them as cannon fodder. I know...we don't do that anymore...but you get the gist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Here's my 2 cents on all this.

I am all for women in combat roles because I believe in certain situations they can succeed...However

Captain Zoe Bedell who was part of the lawsuit filed against the military was attached to my unit in 2009. She was a young 2nd Lt and obviously lacking in experience.

Let's just say there was an incident where she left Marines behind and was replaced as my Platoon commander (THANK EFFIN GOD!).

She is the wrong person to be the face behind the lawsuit! She claims that restrictions on combat roles limited her advancement. BULL$hit, your incompetence got you replaced for almost having my young Marines killed.

That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='g5jamz' timestamp='1358978191' post='2112231']
I'm just asking because I'm sure the army has an acceptable level of forced march fallouts...but if someone can't do the march, they are a liability and shouldn't make it. Or use them as cannon fodder. I know...we don't do that anymore...but you get the gist.
[/quote]

You have 4 hours to complete. There are no "acceptable" levels of fallouts. If you can't complete them you are OUT of the Army and can't even be in a combat. If a woman is in combat, she already did her 20k march up to standard. Good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Gazi' timestamp='1358978536' post='2112241']
You have 4 hours to complete. There are no "acceptable" levels of fallouts. [b]If you can't complete them you are OUT of the Army and can't even be in a combat.[/b] If a woman is in combat, she already did her 20k march up to standard. Good?
[/quote]

Is that new? Because when I was in, they'd just recycle you.

ETA: As far as the OP, If they can meet the physical requirements, I'm fine with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Panthers_in_Afghanistan' timestamp='1358977242' post='2112213']
If they want to serve in a combat MOS, then doing more than 19 pushups in 2 minutes should be required. This isn't a male vs female problem this is a standards problem. If they want a mans job, they need to be able to handle a mans requirements, body type be damned. A unit's combat effectiveness will be severly damaged if only 75% of the soldiers can meet the military standard. I sure as heck wont go down range with a woman or man that couldn't meet the basic physical standards. That needs to be the arguement, not whether or not a chick can go 11-B.
[/quote]



Yeah, this really only opens up 11B entirely. 31B (military police) have had women for a good long while now. The field duties have them in combat zones a lot anyway. 31B really is a combat MOS when you look at it. That's what I'm enlisting as, anyway. But I'm with you. As long as they meet the standards, I'm cool with it (and I know it can be done. I remember in high school there was a JROTC chick who was hot as hell, in crazy shape, and could knock out 78 pushups in 2 minutes). They fall short of the standards, they can try something else with their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Remove the ban then require women to sign up for the Selective Service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think women should definitely be held to the same physical standard for combat.

For general enlistment, the military cannot afford to be picky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites