Then your government should probably rethink about how it trains soldiers. As far as I know, there is no special treatment given to anyone in bootcamp.
Don't think that just because they are women, if they're trained as soldiers they're still different from men. No. If they're trained the same way and if they passed the same tests then it's only logical that they are qualified to be on the battle field.
They wouldn't be deployed if they weren't.
Also, it's their choice to fight. The right to defend their country shouldn't be hindered because of a protectionist attitude.
Actually, allowing women to take on combat roles is just a formalization of what's already happening. Except that instead of women being unarmed when the shooting begins, they can have something to defend themselves and their fellow soldiers with.
The horror of the current war the US is embroiled in is that there are no real front lines, and skirmishes can happen even in so-called safe zones. Women, who are already deployed in conflict zones often find themselves in the middle of a fight. The only remedy to keep women out of combat roles would be to remove women from the military altogether.
There's plenty of women who could carry their male partners in combat, and there are also plenty who can put up with emotional scarring. Women actually have a higher tolerance for pain than men have, and I suspect their mental ability is no different.
Personally, I believe you're generalizing women as blubbering cowards. I would like to remind you that not all women act like thirteen and fourteen year old children.
In fact, I believe that most adult women can become just as strong as any man, physically and mentally. In this day and age, I have trouble believing that anybody could generalize women so much in just a few sentences. Perhaps I think too much of people.
Any-who, back to my original point. Did you know that on a factual percentage gay women are usually the best at what they choose to do in the armed forces?
One note regarding the extensive participation by Soviet women during the Soviet-German War (1941 - 1945). The Soviet authority mobilized millions of women, not because they had egalitarianism in mind, but because they were desperate. This becomes apparent once the horrendous Soviet casualties are taken into account. They lost an equivalent of their entire pre-war army within the first half year of the war. By 1944, most of their rifle divisions mustered only about 2000 men (equivalent to a weak regiment). Once the war was over, the number of women in combat branches shrank to insignificance, even though women combatants proved their worth many times over, and those who remained in uniform were mostly confined to support branches like signals and medicine.
I'm saying that it didn't take long after women were allowed into combat positions that politicians are starting to question the standards of training for said combat positions. That seems to inevitably follow every call for "equal opportunity" for such things (firefighting, police, etc).
See: my first comment. It hasn't even been a week since the ban on women in combat situations was lifted, let alone time for women to actually prove themselves in training. Why not save the idle assumptions for when there's some actual proof to work on.
The Selective Service System requires registration from all male citizens and legal aliens between the ages of 18 and 25 and living in the United States. Women are exempt. But that could change in the future. Now that the ban on women in combat is lifted and all citizens must be treated as equal does that mean that women should be required to register in case a military draft is needed in a future crisis?
Practically every single civilized nation in the world has women serving in combat roles. The only nation I can think of that has a specific law banning women from infantry/combat/front line roles is England. Which is a pointless law because they have women serving in positions where they get shot at just as much as anyone else.
This is a hard question for me to answer as I don't believe in war. On the one hand I'd like as few people fighting in wars as possible. However, I'm not daft enough to think that wars are going to be non-existent anytime soon. I think that if women can pass the test and are up to standard, then there's no reason for them not to fight in combat.
I think that in the name of perusing the ideal of equality, America has purposely often ignored certain realities (mostly because they're politically incorrect realities). Not everyone can/should go to college. Not everyone can be a millionaire. Not everyone can/should serve in combat. This last point applies to males as well as females. I know plenty of women I'd rather serve with over some men, allowing women as a category to serve in combat? Sure. However, in order to do so they need to meet the exact same standards expected of anyone serving in a combat role.
Women are already in combat. This is more of a formality then anything, and opening the way for women to reach jobs and ranks that aren't available if you haven't been in a "front-line combat" unit. Of course in today's battlefields with ambushes being the norm in the current combat zones, everyone's a front-line combatant. You think the bad guys are gonna not attack a convoy just because women are in it? You think the women are just going to sit by and get shot at? They're already fighting side by side with men. This just means that the government will finally give women the chance to join front-line units.
If a woman can meet the same physical requirements as men, then there's no reason they shouldn't join front-line units. Not a lot of women can handle it, but those that can should be allowed to. And quite frankly, your comments about women being too emotional is an insult to ever servicewoman to ever hold a gun and serve in combat and you should be ashamed of yourself. And the implication that men would react any different to a female soldier being shot in the head then a male soldier is equally insulting in multiple ways, because male or female, one of my fellow soldiers just got shot and I'm going to do my best to take out the SoB's who just shot my buddy until my CO gives me different orders.
I don't see what the problem is. Allowing women to fight in combat alongside men is a big step in promoting gender equality. If the consequences of it becomes an issue, then let those issues arise so that they may be solved, even if it means banning women from combat again.
Why do people see this as a good thing? Are the feminists really so eager to fight in war? Let me tell you that war is not glorious. The US is not being invaded, you are not protecting your homes and families by going to war. Those who go to war fight the opposite of what they cherish. War is about destroying the homes and murdering the families of innocents. This is the burden of US imperialism.
Just don't take my word for it. listen to the soldiers who have been to war and learned the truth. [link] [link]
The solution is to forsake war forever and take up peace. Make peace NOT war.
Hey don't stop there! We should stop women from working other jobs to! They'll just get sexually harassed and be emotional about everything! Women shouldn't be working in the medical field! they'll get disgusted easily and are too hormonal to hold medicine, and women can't pick up wounded men like you said, right?
"Also men can you picture fighting and suddenly the girl gets shot in the head?" You mean can we picture seeing another human being die in a war, which is a place with the highest risk of death? Or do you mean seeing the girls get shot in the head regardless if they are fighting, because war also effects civilians?
What are you, 9? Of course girls can put up with war, in fact, it's really annoying seeing that there's another person out there who still thinks woman are weak.
It is shown in studies that women are getting more smarter then men. (Boys don't kill me for that)
Are you dense or something?!?! It sickens me to see that people still think that girls are incapable of things like this. If they want to fight for their country, they'll do it with honor and courage. You should be applauding them for their trials.
Of course a girl can carry a gun or wounded man!!!! Are you saying she shouldn't try, because no one else has before her? Haven't you ever played video games? Geez,think before posting stuff like this!!!
I think shift in working-age demography is the key. Since the '70's, an increasing number of women have entered the workforce. Military, while its transition has been slower than its civilian counterpart, is no exception.
Some women are fully capable. But unless the majority of males that are fully capable stop being adequate, there is no need. Why should we waste money and resources training groups of women where a small percentage would actually qualify the same as an average man?
God designed me to protect my wife and children. And I would rather die than see them or any other woman or child be harmed. Call me sexist all you want. If that means I think women have a higher calling than dying in a trench, then so be it.
Why should we waste money and resources training groups of women where a small percentage would actually qualify the same as an average man?
Because they're volunteering to fight and die for their country. That should be more then enough reason. Besides, it's not as if women in the military don't already fight. This is just giving them the opportunity to join front-line units, a bit of a misnomer in today's combat environment since attacks come from every where at any time. Women are already fighting, this just gives them the opportunity to join the "front-line" units too.
God designed me to protect my wife and children. And I would rather die than see them or any other woman or child be harmed. Call me sexist all you want.
As opposed to your fellow men? I hope I never share a foxhole with someone like you who thinks men are expendable. And yes, you're a sexist.
"Why should we waste money and resources training groups of women" How would they take any more money than men?, in any significant form?
"If that means I think women have a higher calling than dying in a trench, then so be it." thats her decision to make, not yours. This is for women who want to be combat arms. If you feel the need to enforce what you need to force your world view on someone else, thats your problem.
I feel you have a higher calling in life than trolling internet message boards, does that mean I can legally get you prevented from doing so?
*** How would they take any more money than men? *** You have 100 male recruits that you train. At least 90 of them will be combat capable at the end of training.
You have 100 female recruits attempting the same training as the men (noting this has never been done). You believe you will get at least 90 of them combat capable as the same group of men in the same amount of time?
I simply don't believe that to be the case.
So why, if the men we are training are fully filling our combat needs, would we increase the failure rates of recruits in combat training on purpose? Just to satisfy some sexist agenda of artificially making women to be the same as men?
Doesn't make logical sense to me outside some liberal feel-good agenda.
"You have 100 male recruits that you train. At least 90 of them will be combat capable at the end of training."
bullshit. mabey 75-80%. Thats new army bullshit, it used to be around %75.
"You have 100 female recruits attempting the same training as the men (noting this has never been done)"
No you wouldn't. You'd have around 10-20. The agreement is they need to make the same physical requirements as men. We also have an all volunteer army. In the US Army, you pick your MOS. In all other branches that have combat, you have request, even demand the honour of a combat arms job.
Do you believe that among the women who deliberately seek out combat, will be of any different quality of men, who again, delebretly seek out combat.
Truth is, most men, and most women who join the military don't seek out combat.
Truth is also, America glorifies war heros. We glorify infantry. We glorify combat roles. We glorify this more than the european traditional role of wife and home maker. Even in its hayday. Its always been like this, and always will. The social status of a combat verteran has always been extremely high comp
"Just to satisfy some sexist agenda of artificially making women to be the same as men?"
No, to give the handful of women who want to play ball the same opportunity everyone else gets. Your abstracting the issue to wrap it around terms you want.
*** bullshit. mabey 75-80%. Thats new army bullshit, it used to be around %75. *** Lol. If you say so. I don't care to argue 10%. The point still stands. You are not going to get 80% of women to pass the same standards.
Why work towards more failure when you are already covering your objectives?
It would cost more. Period. It does not make any logical sense. Only political.
"You are not going to get 80% of women to pass the same standards. "
%80 of what? The women who sign up, or the women in the general population?
You won't get 80% of males combat age to pass either, general population. Only 80% who sign up.
Your point is worthless, because a far less percentage of women are going to sign up for combat arms to begin with period.
Its doubly worthless, because there is only going to be one standard anyway. If a women is capable of doing the same work as a man, and many are, why not let her. Or mabey you should meet some of the women who want to be combat arms. it might change your mind.
thats what we are arguing here. Your point only stands if you play games with numbers.