marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Women have lied about their gender and served on the front lines in just about every conflict. And some of those got pregnant too.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Military Commission Says: Put women in combat units
- Thread starter rotorhead
- Start date
Women have lied about their gender and served on the front lines in just about every conflict. And some of those got pregnant too.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
OK, we get it, women menstruate. What if women who wish to serve use birth control hormones which prevent (or eliminate for indefinite lengths of time) menstruation?
I mean, seriously, could you have referenced tampons and maxi-pads more in your argument? :lol:
No offense to any Russians on this board, but the Russian armies have had a problem of raping women everywhere they go, throughout their entire history. I mean, even as armies go, the Russians are notorious for this. They are so notorious that it indicates certain things about the discipline applied to cases of rape in the Russian military culture (i.e. none).
Last edited:
Tawnos
Regular Member
Will kick all of our asses and laugh about it: http://lh6.ggpht.com/DoubleTapper/SIjq2zMiNCI/AAAAAAAABes/mAiB3nLY0po/kotelidf.jpg?imgmax=512
Nevada carrier
Regular Member
I was on RSOP, while we were on mission, we worked hard, but once a site was secure, we had plenty of time to goof off. That's one of the reasons I didn't mind RSOP. We set up shop and we were on our own for days. Standard equipment for an RSOP crew was a football; you never, ever, leave without a foot ball.
Nothing says good fun like a sleeping soldier in his cot suspended 20 feet in the air from the GMT crane and some engineers tape.
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
I think that tampons are an tampon imperative part of tampons and maxi-pads. Sometimes tampons I think may be Maxi-Pads yet sometimes tampons are confused. When deploying check for tampons and maxi-pads, even ovaries.
Furthermore. Maxi-pad.
Birth Control does not effectively prevent it from occurring 100% of the time, and has massively varying effects on different women.
Eh, I never had a chance to play football during the initial days of the invasion. In fact, we were attempting to set up a pat-site in the wee-morning hours just outside of An-Nasiriyah when all that crap went down. That's how we got drug into it in the first place (Pulled security off the west berms, and our wrecker later brought broken bits and pieces out of there.).
HOWEVER!
We did play football later!
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
When one civlization is or has conquered another civlization, rape is part of it, historically--even in America as well as countries that American military have invaded, and occupied.
Rape is a common occurrence in all militaries, and wars.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Women have lied about their gender and served on the front lines in just about every conflict. And some of those got pregnant too.
Females have served in all American wars, posing as males. They were either discovered to be female and removed, only later to show up somewhere else under a different alias, or would be discovered to be female after they were killed in battle.
There are no hard numbers that I have ever been able to find of how many females fought in the Civil War, or any other war prior to the 1900's.
Females have always had the same stake in wars as the males who were allowed to fight in them. Life, freedom, and country were and are at stake; females should be trained to kill...it will make us a stronger nation IMO, even if many of those women are unable to become Green Berets or Navy SEALs.
I have a question: Would you prefer to invade a country where both males and females are trained to kill and fight in war, or a country where females are not permitted to be in the military, and are not trained to kill. Think about it, if women are not trained to kill, they are easier to subdue than a person who has been trained to kill. another example: would you rather get into a gun battle with someone who is without a gun or doesn't know how to use the gun they have, or would you rather fight someone who knows how to use a gun and has a gun.
Females in the military make a nation stronger. Hell, females being trained in firearm usage, and combat makes a nation strong, not only militarily, but on the streets.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Someone who is as acquainted with military history as yourself would know that the Russians have a particularly bad reputation for this.
For example, in WWII, there were a couple of French divisions that were particularly heinous, and the Russians were noted for raping their way across the countries they were "liberating", and then raping pretty much the entire population of Eastern Germany.
Sure, rape happens when militaries do their thing. This is why General Patton instructed the Sultan of Morocco to report any rapes that would, as he admitted, "inevitably" occur, so that the offenders could be promptly hanged.
I would argue that its a well-accepted historical fact that the Russians were the worst about this during WWII, in terms of scale and consistency. I suggest reading Armageddon: The Battle for Germany, 1944-1945, by Max Hastings.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
So let's address this productively.
Are you suggesting that perhaps women stay out of combat units, but are trained in the same manner?
I'd be interested in hearing some well thought out solutions on how to get over the myriad of concerns that I, and many like me, have about women in combat roles.
I feel women should not be 11B's or 0311's or any primary combat role.
I also feel somewhere along the way, TRADOC has gone soft, and it's resulting in some people slipping through the cracks into roles where they really shouldn't be serving.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I agree.
As to specific roles within military service, duty should be limited by capability. If a women is capable, as were evidently all those women who disguised their gender in history, then she should be allowed to carry out a given function. This will mean that some jobs are restricted predominantly to men, just as some jobs are restricted predominantly to the very strongest (and otherwise fittest) 1% of soldiers. However, in every instance it ought to be a individual consideration, as I have met women of impressive physical capability to match that of any average male, who could doubtless occupy a position which would be generally be held by men.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
You can alleviate the problem, don't let people who are unable to make it through through. Women should be offered the same opportunity for making it to the front line...if they don't cut it, they are gone, just like any man that doesn't cut it.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Good grief *rolls eyes* Sow hat you are saying is that when one group of people rape only a dozen women, and another group of rape 1200, one is worse than the other. Ok, quantitatively, yes, the 1200 is greater that 12, but raped none-the-less. I was just saying that rape is part of war.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Yes, duty should be limited to capability, heterosexual, homosexual, female, male, black, Caucasian....you get what I am saying.
It's about equal opportunity, not about equal outcome--that is determined by ability.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Neither of which should have replaced basic map reading skills- learning them AND practicing them on a regular basis
I hear you. We had the same requirement to always know where we were, and where we were going. It's hard enough keeping a manual chart-reading DR backup to the PLGRs at all times while navigating across featureless terrain at night, but it's as difficult when one is 300 feet off the ground while knocking around at 260 kts. A little more eyeball distance, but it's dark out there, even with NVGs, and we were cooking. Still, when the systems hit they fan, as they sometimes did over there, it was still my job to get there while avoiding the threats.
25sierraman
Regular Member
I'm still on active duty and I know from first hand experience that Pregnancy is an excellent way to get out of a deployment. Probably about half of our females in my company prior to deployment got pregnant and our manning suffered as a result. A pretty good chunk of the females also got pregnant in theater to go home early. This was a blatant violation of General order number 1 but if a commander would prosecute that it would become a media nightmare. One other thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet is why not hold them to the same standard as the males? I think its crazy that some of these females wear the same rank as me but they aren't as physically capable. I've seen my fair share of hardcore females but unfortunately I've seen many more just become a burden or source of distraction. Why does our civilian leadership keep trying to fix a system that is not broke. I think it's great that we want to ensure that everything is fair and everyone goes home with a trophy saying they won but lets be serious here. Women should be afforded all of the rights and opportunities as men but there are physical differences between the two.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
OK, and I was just poking fun at the Russians' history of military exploits.
I just thought it was funny when the Russian army, of all things, was pointed to as having a problem with rape of their female soldiers. Seems like a no-brainer.Then again, maybe rape isn't a funny topic in the first place.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Nail, meet hammer.
The only problem with holding females to the same standard as males is that, with today's "diversity first" policy, once enough females fail to achieve the standards, the standards will simply be lowered.
While it may help the EO numbers, it would do nothing to sustain a ready force capable of winning battles.
Bingo!
This is the very element my long winded initial post was trying to get at.
NRAMARINE
Regular Member
Correct. Also, here's a theoretical scenario for you. Two men get captured by the Taliban, one is beaten and the other forced to watch, the Taliban want intel. The man being beaten yells "Keep your trap shut no matter what! That's a FRACKIN ORDER!!!!" I'm not sayin $#!+.
#2 One man and one woman are captured by same Taliban scum, the female is going to be raped while the male watches. She orders you not to talk............... let your imagination wander.................................. is there any one who doesn't see the conflict here? For those of you who don't know what these people do to American women, it's a fate I would wish on no one. Getting beat up and raped is horrible, no doubt about it. But what they do is simply inhuman, and if she survives, she'll be hollow at best. I couldn't allow that.
Last edited: