Lifting ban on women in front-line infantry

[1Mouse2RulethemAll]

Well, for the past 23 or more years the ladies have a different physical test. A test that has smaller walls to go over, lighter backpacks to hike with and so forth.

Your information is slightly off, there. Different PT test yes, same walls and backpacks though. I should know, I spent. many years in the Army.



Posted from DISboards.com App for Android

 

[gottaluvPluto]

Your information is slightly off, there. Different PT test yes, same walls and backpacks though. I should know, I spent. many years in the Army.



Posted from DISboards.com App for Android

Sorry, but they have different test. I have also spent time in the military and know a lot of people who are still in. The women still go over smaller walls. I even call a friend of mine that is still in and she told me that her tests are easier. In fact, some women also get waivers for the PRT. The waivers rage from weight issues, just not wanting to do it and making up an excuse, that time of the month or pregnancy. I can understand pregnancy, but not the others.

If women want the front lines or any other job they should have the same requirements has a man. Even the PT test should be the same.

 

[plutotek]

thank God my oldest has come to his senses and decided not to go the military route.

Took everything I had not to write my first response, so I'll just ask what you view as being so wrong about joining our military?

I have mixed emotions about women in the military, none of them having to do w/capabilities of women. My concern would be that, in times of great stress, the 'southern gentleman' that someone mentioned would come out in some men and possibly endanger any group. It's difficult to overcome centuries of training and upbringing.

However, if they do go full-blown front line duty, then women should be down at the post office on their 18th birthday, just like the men.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Never mind. . .just realized someone else had answered this.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

I think the difference is that now that women can go into combat, the glass ceiling that's been keeping women out of the upper echelons of the military is going to crack, splinter and eventually shatter allowing some talented, gifted future female generals to emerge into leadership roles who would've otherwise been shunted elsewhere.

Other than that, I don't think it will really make much difference in today's military. Women are already serving on the front lines in grubby units doing exactly what the guys do, wearing the same clothes 30 days in a row, living in the same tents, eating the same food, carrying the same equipment, shooting the same guns when necessary.

 

[mhsjax]

Took everything I had not to write my first response, so I'll just ask what you view as being so wrong about joining our military?

I have mixed emotions about women in the military, none of them having to do w/capabilities of women. My concern would be that, in times of great stress, the 'southern gentleman' that someone mentioned would come out in some men and possibly endanger any group. It's difficult to overcome centuries of training and upbringing.

However, if they do go full-blown front line duty, then women should be down at the post office on their 18th birthday, just like the men.

I have nothing but respect for our men and women in the military. I just don't want my son in it, or any of my kids. We will just leave it at that.

 

[LuvinLucifer]

However, if they do go full-blown front line duty, then women should be down at the post office on their 18th birthday, just like the men.

This would not be pragmatic. Not enough women would qualify for the combat positions that the draft would be used to fill for it to be worth it. It's a waste of resources to put together a selective service for women when such a small amount would be pulled anyway.

 

[Mama-san]

Not to be political, but Foxnews.com has a poll asking if you agree with the decision to lift the ban on women in combat. The current results:

19.4% Yes. There should be no barriers for those who serve.
74.13% No. Unconditional lifting of ban is not appropriate.
6.47% Maybe. If we let women opt out of some combat assignments.

Somewhat reverse from the opinions on here,eh?

 

[superme80]

Fox news is very conservative. Also I am sure those who disagree have chosen to not say anything.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Took everything I had not to write my first response, so I'll just ask what you view as being so wrong about joining our military?

I have mixed emotions about women in the military, none of them having to do w/capabilities of women. My concern would be that, in times of great stress, the 'southern gentleman' that someone mentioned would come out in some men and possibly endanger any group. It's difficult to overcome centuries of training and upbringing.

However, if they do go full-blown front line duty, then women should be down at the post office on their 18th birthday, just like the men.

I'm not the poster to which you were directing your question, but the reason I wouldn't want either of my children to join the military is that I am a pacifist and come from a long line of pacifists (my maternal side of the family has been in the country since 1682 and no member of her family has ever served in the military). My wife and I fundamentally disagree with the intent and direction of the military and therefore, my child joining the military would disappoint us because it would be a departure from the values I am trying to instill in them (although I would still love them unconditionally, and at that point I'd encourage them to pursue management in a non-combat capacity). I have other concerns about the military, as well, but they are subordinate to my overall values and stating them would invariably lead to a debate that would violate the rules of the forum.

As to the "southern gentleman" thing, I think that is a cop out (although I think the prevalence of that belief points to another of my concerns about the military and the military industrial complex). Firstly, if the male cannot follow the orders of his commanding officer and insists on thinking for himself, then HE is the issue and not the woman and HE shouldn't be in the military. That is the whole theory behind the military, i.e. the ability to follow orders (and another major issue I have with the military mindset), and therefore if the male chooses to disobey that order, what other orders will he disobey? Secondly, manners are not in one's DNA, so "centuries of training and upbringing" is not accurate or relevant (even if it was true, which is far from universally agreed upon and certainly would be disputed by me). If the average enlistee is 18, then he or she has been "trained" by his or her parents and role models for 18 years and he or she needs to make the decision to follow the instructions of their military commanding officer or follow another career path.

Personally, I think the selective service should be eliminated as a whole, as if we ever need mass enlistment again, I'd hope the civilian leadership of the military would be more tactical about their approach and not just look for mass numbers of forced enlistments.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Not to be political, but Foxnews.com has a poll asking if you agree with the decision to lift the ban on women in combat. The current results:

19.4% Yes. There should be no barriers for those who serve.
74.13% No. Unconditional lifting of ban is not appropriate.
6.47% Maybe. If we let women opt out of some combat assignments.

Somewhat reverse from the opinions on here,eh?

That's a self-reporting poll that draws from the readership of Foxnews.com, and says within the poll "This is a non-scientific viewer question". I suspect if you looked at the same, equally non-scientific poll on the Huffingtonpost.com or a more left-leaning site, you'd see the results inverted.

 

[Princess Dolly]

Not to be political, but Foxnews.com has a poll asking if you agree with the decision to lift the ban on women in combat. The current results:

19.4% Yes. There should be no barriers for those who serve.
74.13% No. Unconditional lifting of ban is not appropriate.
6.47% Maybe. If we let women opt out of some combat assignments.

Somewhat reverse from the opinions on here,eh?

Well now we know what older, white men think (many of who may be retired military).

 

[Princess Dolly]

I'm not the poster to which you were directing your question, but the reason I wouldn't want either of my children to join the military is that I am a pacifist and come from a long line of pacifists (my maternal side of the family has been in the country since 1682 and no member of her family has ever served in the military). My wife and I fundamentally disagree with the intent and direction of the military and therefore, my child joining the military would disappoint us because it would be a departure from the values I am trying to instill in them (although I would still love them unconditionally, and at that point I'd encourage them to pursue management in a non-combat capacity). I have other concerns about the military, as well, but they are subordinate to my overall values and stating them would invariably lead to a debate that would violate the rules of the forum.

As to the "southern gentleman" thing, I think that is a cop out (although I think the prevalence of that belief points to another of my concerns about the military and the military industrial complex). Firstly, if the male cannot follow the orders of his commanding officer and insists on thinking for himself, then HE is the issue and not the woman and HE shouldn't be in the military. That is the whole theory behind the military, i.e. the ability to follow orders (and another major issue I have with the military mindset), and therefore if the male chooses to disobey that order, what other orders will he disobey? Secondly, manners are not in one's DNA, so "centuries of training and upbringing" is not accurate or relevant (even if it was true, which is far from universally agreed upon and certainly would be disputed by me). If the average enlistee is 18, then he or she has been "trained" by his or her parents and role models for 18 years and he or she needs to make the decision to follow the instructions of their military commanding officer or follow another career path.

Personally, I think the selective service should be eliminated as a whole, as if we ever need mass enlistment again, I'd hope the civilian leadership of the military would be more tactical about their approach and not just look for mass numbers of forced enlistments.

Also, as a woman I am so over the damsel in distress BS. I can take care of myself, thank you very much!

 

[luvsJack]

I'm not the poster to which you were directing your question, but the reason I wouldn't want either of my children to join the military is that I am a pacifist and come from a long line of pacifists (my maternal side of the family has been in the country since 1682 and no member of her family has ever served in the military). My wife and I fundamentally disagree with the intent and direction of the military and therefore, my child joining the military would disappoint us because it would be a departure from the values I am trying to instill in them (although I would still love them unconditionally, and at that point I'd encourage them to pursue management in a non-combat capacity). I have other concerns about the military, as well, but they are subordinate to my overall values and stating them would invariably lead to a debate that would violate the rules of the forum.

As to the "southern gentleman" thing, I think that is a cop out (although I think the prevalence of that belief points to another of my concerns about the military and the military industrial complex). Firstly, if the male cannot follow the orders of his commanding officer and insists on thinking for himself, then HE is the issue and not the woman and HE shouldn't be in the military. That is the whole theory behind the military, i.e. the ability to follow orders (and another major issue I have with the military mindset), and therefore if the male chooses to disobey that order, what other orders will he disobey? Secondly, manners are not in one's DNA, so "centuries of training and upbringing" is not accurate or relevant (even if it was true, which is far from universally agreed upon and certainly would be disputed by me). If the average enlistee is 18, then he or she has been "trained" by his or her parents and role models for 18 years and he or she needs to make the decision to follow the instructions of their military commanding officer or follow another career path.

Personally, I think the selective service should be eliminated as a whole, as if we ever need mass enlistment again, I'd hope the civilian leadership of the military would be more tactical about their approach and not just look for mass numbers of forced enlistments.

Also, as a woman I am so over the damsel in distress BS. I can take care of myself, thank you very much!

Here's the thing about the "southern gentleman" trait. Its not a cop out and its not about anyone trying to be a "damsel in distress". Its not really even about being southern. Its the way the young men are raised. Its the values that have been instilled in them.

From the time they are small they are taught to look out for or take care of their sisters, female cousins, etc. Then when older, dad may leave the son "in charge" of the house to take care of his mom and sisters.

Princess Dolly, you sound like dd. She has told many young men that she is quite capable of taking care of herself, tyvm. But, as I have explained to her, its instilled in them. They think they are doing the right thing because of what they have been taught. And of course it ruffles her feathers because of what SHE has been taught. I tell her just to mentally roll her eyes and go with it.

Anyway, the military is pretty good at training all those "home/parent " lessons out of someone so if this trait is being addressed in their training; I imagine they have a pretty good way of getting it out of them.

I will say, though, that the men I know in the military are some of the most protective guys I know and really and truly "southern gentlemen"; so I would really like to find out what they think about this.




As for your reasons for not wanting your sons/daughters in the military. I can understand your value system. But how do you justify that the freedoms you enjoy everyday are DUE to the military that you are speaking against?

 

[Pigeon]

Here's the thing about the "southern gentleman" trait. Its not a cop out and its not about anyone trying to be a "damsel in distress". Its not really even about being southern. Its the way the young men are raised. Its the values that have been instilled in them.

That would be the problem of the men in question and is not a valid reason to keep women out of the jobs. There were many "southern gentlemen" who were raised to not want to serve with African Americans. That wasn't a good reason for keeping the military segregated.

 

[Handbag Lady]

One of my girlfriends spent her 20's fighting in her country's army, so I'm surprised it took us this long to get here.

(We're in our 40's now so this was some time ago, too.)

 

[luvsJack]

That would be the problem of the men in question and is not a valid reason to keep women out of the jobs. There were many "southern gentlemen" who were raised to not want to serve with African Americans. That wasn't a good reason for keeping the military segregated.

I am not saying it is a valid reason. Someone up thread said that as part of the training, they learn not to view women as someone to protect and I think that with that training it wouldn't really be a problem.

I just don't think its a "cop out" or "bs". Just as the posters I quoted said that they have instilled certain values in their kids; these men have had those values instilled in them. Training can of course change it while they are doing the job; but it doesn't make it any less of something that does have to be addressed.

 

[EllaM]

Well now we know what older, white men think (many of who may be retired military).

Not just old white men, thank you very much. This young woman agreed with the poll. Just because the people posting in this thread vehemently argue one way does not make it a majority opinion. In fact the sample size here is even less scientifically valid than that poll.

Did you see the debate on Fox about it? The congressmen arguing for the policy made it even less palatable. He fully supports an open draft for all women. Waste of resources and seriously wrong. The other side of the debate pointed out whenever civil services opted for gender equality the physical requirements were lessened as well. So the choice seems to be equality on the books but a weakened military force.

I have great respect for our military. I've always had family members in the service. My nephew aims to go into the navy. I also come from a strong line of women who can look out for themselves, but that doesn't mean I lose sight of the inherent differences between men and women. This sort of political correctness often creates more problems than it solves.

The idea of this move is to remove a barrier for career advancement for women in the military. There are other ways of doing that.

 

[Acklander]

As for your reasons for not wanting your sons/daughters in the military. I can understand your value system. But how do you justify that the freedoms you enjoy everyday are DUE to the military that you are speaking against?

The freedoms we have in America come from many sources, not just the military.

 

[mhsjax]

Not just old white men, thank you very much. This young woman agreed with the poll. Just because the people posting in this thread vehemently argue one way does not make it a majority opinion. In fact the sample size here is even less scientifically valid than that poll.

Did you see the debate on Fox about it? The congressmen arguing for the policy made it even less palatable. He fully supports an open draft for all women. Waste of resources and seriously wrong. The other side of the debate pointed out whenever civil services opted for gender equality the physical requirements were lessened as well. So the choice seems to be equality on the books but a weakened military force.

I have great respect for our military. I've always had family members in the service. My nephew aims to go into the navy. I also come from a strong line of women who can look out for themselves, but that doesn't mean I lose sight of the inherent differences between men and women. This sort of political correctness often creates more problems than it solves.

The idea of this move is to remove a barrier for career advancement for women in the military. There are other ways of doing that.

Very well said.