Related Information to G.I. Jane - Women Soldiers

G.I. Jane - Women Soldiers - Page 2

QUOTE

Forget my earlier statement - 'I have not seen any women on the news with regards to current wars' - it looks like they are dug in just like the rest of guys. From CS Monitor: The expanding role of GI Jane American women are more fully engaged in warfare than ever before. By Ann Scott Tysonhttps://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0403/p01s04-woiq.html

Yeah, and they will shoot at you, too! ;D

Soldiers Women Jane GI

QUOTE

Yeah, and they will shoot at you, too! ;D

I guess Pvt. Lynch reinforced that point big time.
It seems that she held off the Iraqi soldiers with small arms fire, killing "several", until she ran out of ammo.

Which is probably why she wound up with two broken legs, and arm and a back injury.

HOO RAH for her!

G.I. Jane - Women Soldiers History & Civil Business Politics

I served, for almost 10 years in the military.  3 months of that was in a war zone, although significantly behind the lines, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  However, people in my unit were at Kafji (sp?) the small town on the SA, Iraq border that was handed back and forth a couple of times.

I worked with, and for, several women while in the military, so perhaps have some little insight.

What always bothered me the most, and still does, is that the standards were relaxed for women.  For example, if men had to run 1.5 miles in less than 15 minutes, women were given 18 minutes (can't remember the exact times, but the point is shown).  If men had to be able to lift 120 lbs, women only had to lift 75.

I'm sure that women are, or can be, psychologically able to handle combat.  Women are probably at least as capable as men to deal with the modern, technical aspects of combat.  But they aren't as capable (in general) physically to deal with the rigors of war.

War requires incredible physical exertion.  For the last 3 or 4 decades, the physical requirements of military life have been continuously relaxed, with the possible exception of the Marines.  This is one of the stupidest things to happen in the US.  When people are involved in combat, some will get injured and/or killed, and others will have to get them out.  Very few women have the body strength to pick up even an average-sized man in a fireman's carry, and get them out of danger.  From experience, I can say that it is very difficult even for two men to carry a single man in a litter.

Having women in the military, at least in the US, is an exercise in "social engineering" by the Left.  The question should not be "can't a woman serve in the military as well as a man?"  It should be, "will having women serve in the military increase the capability to complete the mission?"

The purpose of the Army (Navy, Air Force, and especially the Marines) is to kill people and break things.  I have yet to see any type of evidence that having women in the military enhances, in any way, this mission.  Especially if they are in harm's way.

NightHawk

Page 2 Soldiers Women Jane GI

I agree with you fully Nighthawk (I think that is a first? lol). Anyways, I think if women are to be in a combat role then it should be behind some piece of equippment like a plane, helicopter, ship or just pushing the pen rather than front lines. I know men are naturally prone to help a woman than they are other men, especially at great risk which may in itself be a risk to a mission.
[offtopic]I just started a board called, 'All Environment Survival' that will be good to have your input in. Thanks.[/offtopic]

Soldiers Women Jane GI

Sorry, but I disagree with a lot of what Nighthawk says and since JB agrees with him completely, I disagree with JB as well.

QUOTE

Having women in the military, at least in the US, is an exercise in "social engineering" by the Left.  The question should not be "can't a woman serve in the military as well as a man?"  It should be, "will having women serve in the military increase the capability to complete the mission?"

I was in the Marine Corps.  I still have a friend who happens to be a woman in the Marine Corps.  I certainly believe I contributed to the role in which I was assigned.  Whether or not I can handle combat doesn't mean there are not other noncombat roles I can handle which then frees up more men for the combat roles.  

QUOTE

The purpose of the Army (Navy, Air Force, and especially the Marines) is to kill people and break things.  I have yet to see any type of evidence that having women in the military enhances, in any way, this mission.  Especially if they are in harm's way.

Do you not think nurses and doctors saving the lives of soldiers enhances the mission?  Many nurses in the military are women and have been for decades.  Many women even during the Vietnam War were in harms way without being on the front lines because they were in Vietnam.  Many lost their lives even though not as many as men obviously.  Also, like I said, when women are put in the noncombat roles it leaves more men available to fill the combat roles.  If you were to remove all women from the military today, you would find quite a shortage of people to fill necessary roles.  I don't believe we turn away large numbers of men trying to enlist, so who would fill those roles?

Now, as far as being able to handle combat, I think some women could and some couldn't.  I also think this is true of men.  As far as strength, I can not lift and carry as much as a man, but there are combat roles which do not require this.  I do not have any desire to go to combat and I do not really want women to either, but my reasons are discriminatory by nature.  I don't want to hear of women being abused - yet I don't want to hear of men being abused either - so there ya go!

Anyway, I actually am violent by nature, especially if I feel threatened so you wouldn't need to worry about me trying to nurture the enemy.  In fact, most women would defend to the death those they love.

Don't take this post as an indication that I am for women in combat.  I don't know if I am or not, except if they want to be and if they can meet the same standards as men are required to meet, then I think it should be allowed.  I don't know how I feel about compelling them.  However, I don't like or agree with most of the reasons that have been put forth for why they shouldn't be.  Hence my response.

G.I. Jane - Women Soldiers

QUOTE

I was in the Marine Corps.  I still have a friend who happens to be a woman in the Marine Corps.

Oppsss... looks like trouble now *backs out so Nighthawk can deal with this*

QUOTE

Now, as far as being able to handle combat, I think some women could and some couldn't.

Well I believe this is my point. If we are going to have women taking on front line roles then how do we weed out those capable and those that are not? Surely some of the women will cry dirimination and others will say it is another set of time and money when they could just train men?
[offtopic]Tenaheff, whenever you say, 'I disagree' it makes me smile, because I know I have to be on my 'Ps' and 'Qs'. [/offtopic]

G.I. Jane Women Soldiers - Page 2

QUOTE

Oppsss... looks like trouble now *backs out so Nighthawk can deal with this*

chicken!  You started this thread, you can't back out now.  :nope:

QUOTE

If we are going to have women taking on front line roles then how do we weed out those capable and those that are not?

The same way we weed out the men.  Set a standard.  They either meet the standard or they don't.  I don't believe in setting a lower standard for women to allow them to meet it either.  Often this is done, but when it is, it isn't the woman to blame, so don't take it out on her and don't use it as an excuse to say no women are good enough.  Hold those accountable who set the standards.

As far as how anyone will truly act in combat, until they are tested in combat, no one knows for sure.  I believe most soldiers wonder how they will react right up until they are in the situation.  I also believe that when under threat or danger they mostly will react instinctively.  This is why training is so essential.  When faced with dire situations, we do what we have been trained to do as a matter of course because it has been practiced so frequently.  Women are no different in that regard than men.

Now, if a particular role requires a person to lift 150 pounds and the women can do it she is qualified, if she can't she isn't.  However, not all combat roles have such requirements.  For example fighter pilots.  The pilot doesn't need to be able to lift the plane, just fly it.

[offtopic]JB, I hope you smile when I say I disagree because my reasoning is generally good and not because I am a bully. [/offtopic]

G.I. Jane Women Soldiers Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

QUOTE

chicken!   You started this thread, you can't back out now.

LOL, yeah, but it was one of the older ones until Nighthawk gave it life again *hopes Tenaheff does go searching for lijke threads*

QUOTE

For example fighter pilots.  The pilot doesn't need to be able to lift the plane, just fly it.

But I said that earlier, actually i think we are on the same terms, you are just saying it differently. My whole point is that we need to give women the role they are capable of handling rather than just putting them in a combative role just to say, 'equal rights' or something like that. So if they are capable of being in the front lines - great, but do not say we need to find women to put in the front lines when it is easier to put a man. See what I mean?