Gays and/or women in combat

Volpa · Post by **Volpa** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:25 pm

I realize, <b>CyberEd</b>, that was a rebuttal to whomever brought up the PMSing point. I didn't intend to be taken seriously.

If the standards for getting into combat are the same, I don't see why women who are able (or gays, or men, what have you) should be exempted from it.

D-Mac · Post by **D-Mac** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:04 pm

I agree. Equal rights means equal responsibilities.

I think the major issue is with integration. I'll hedge from saying women aren't up to the task. I won't bring up PMS or anything like that because I start feeling like it's a way of putting women in their place. I agree with MB on this issue, where there should be uncompromising requirements you must meet to join as a man or woman.

On the other hand, I don't want to force the Military to change policies they implemented with reason. I think we can all agree this issue is complex, and sensitive. Adding women to the front lines should be done, but it must be done with delicacy.

Accer · Post by **Accer** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:12 pm

Don't worry Deacon. If he had said, "adding [more] men to fighting units is just not worth it...to the men " or something along those lines, I would have said the *exact* same thing. It's a statement against the dedication of soldiers, the group is arbitrary.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:16 am

[quote="Accer";p="433068"]It's a statement against the dedication of soldiers, the group is arbitrary.[/quote]
What does it have to do with the individual's dedication? You can be 5 years old and dedicated as all hell, but you still won't benchpress 800 pounds and win an olympic medal for it...

The real world doesn't give a shit about how dedicated you are or whether you gave it your best shot. There are no A's for effort. Results are all that matters. This is magnified many fold when it comes to soldiers in a live firefight in a war zone.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:05 am

Deacon, you're right to say that its about results. So, assuming a woman can get those same results, why are they not allowed in certain types of units? Women are still not allowed on submarines in the navy and are not allowed to serve in line-combat units (No one has shown me any source that proves their service in delta force but if they're there I'd guess that they are part of the aviation unit simply because thats pretty much the closest to line-duty that women are allowed by the military).

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:16 am

[quote="naval_aviator_2040";p="433106"]So, assuming a woman can get those same results, why are they not allowed in certain types of units?[/quote]
Depends on the unit. Your ability to do a certain number of pushups is not always the only consideration.

Women are still not allowed on submarines in the navy

Bullshit. Source?

and are not allowed to serve in line-combat units

Such as? And again: source?

(No one has shown me any source that proves their service in delta force but if they're there I'd guess that they are part of the aviation unit simply because thats pretty much the closest to line-duty that women are allowed by the military).

*cough*

Accer · Post by **Accer** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:05 am

Deacon, I think you missed my point again. He's talking about assuming how much an experience will be worth to a person. I'm arguing against someone ever saying, "For your own sake, don't do it, because you won't like it." This is a really terrible argument, no matter what the subject matter.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:54 am

Ah, ok.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:05 am

[quote="Deacon";p="433111"]

Women are still not allowed on submarines in the navy

Bullshit. Source?[/quote]
Women in the Navy Active Duty Assignments as of 30 April 2004

"About 91% of Navy billets are open to women. Billets closed are those on Submarines, due to the prohibitive cost of habitability modifications, and those associated with SEALS and Marine Corps support, in accordance with the direct ground combat rule."

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:12 am

[quote="Deacon";p="433111"]

Women are still not allowed on submarines in the navy

Bullshit. Source?

and are not allowed to serve in line-combat units

Such as? And again: source?
[/quote]

my source? "All communities in the Navy are open to women officers with the exception of Submarines and SEALS. Enlisted women are assigned to all but three ratings, all Submarine associated: MT, FT and STS." US. Navy's website buddy
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/peo ... fact1.html

Edit: MT means missile technician FT means fire control technician, and STS means sonar technician(submrine) all three of these are open to women not in subs (STG instead of STS for surface warefare)
Source: US Navy Bluejacket's Manual anyone who has done anytime in the navy since 1812 has owned an edition of this book

Post by **Martin Blank** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:13 am

I just posted that.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:22 am

sorry buddy you musta been quiker on the draw then me

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:30 am

[quote="Martin Blank";p="433197"]"About 91% of Navy billets are open to women. Billets closed are those on Submarines, due to the prohibitive cost of habitability modifications, and those associated with SEALS and Marine Corps support, in accordance with the direct ground combat rule."[/quote]
How long has this been in place? Unless Navy friends and the Discovery Channel and such have been lying to me, it's not always been this way.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:43 am

i don't think women have ever been allowed on subs but there have been some spec ops and spec warfare women but not any more apparently.

and about physical differences, women are specially suited towards aviation because since they tend to be shorter than men the blood in their body doesn't have as far to go to get to their brain meaning they're less suceptible to blackouts under high G-forces
source: my naval science teacher who is a pilot

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:38 am

Accer, I wish someone told me I woudn't like it before I joined the army...
now on the subject at hand.
show me one person who would wilingly want to kill people and be in a constant feer of death. that person should be hospitalised in a mental institution ASAP.
as for serving your country - after a while that idea wears off, and the soldier just does as told (in the good scenario) and tries to survive - want to know exactly how soldiers think and feel ? read "catch 22" or see MASH - these may be parodies but they represent a sad truth.

now back to the subject at hand: try putting yourself in a commanders position.
lets say you command an infantry troop.
now all of a sudden girls are added to this troup which means that:
1. you'd have to kill half your budget on logistics.
2. you'd have to worry about discipline.
3. you'd have to make sure (more than before - since you have a big group who's statistically aint up for the job) everyone's up for the job.

I would chose to avoid having women on board - just for these 3 reasons.

btw, I'd be glad if someone from the US military (or someone with info) would enlighten me about womans service. regarding point (a) of me first post - it would just be unprofitable to train a woman here. how about the US military ? how long do women serve ? how long are they on reserves ? what happens if a woman gets pregnant ?

Real Life Forums

Gays and/or women in combat

Re: Gays and/or women in combat

Re: Gays and/or women in combat

Re: Gays and/or women in combat

Who is online