Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Mindgrinder, Jan 23, 2013.
Panetta opens combat roles to women
Yeah. I have no issue with this due to the fact that once they open Pandora's box, they will get what they deserve. When I went through airborne school, all except one female couldn't keep up with us on the runs, but mysteriously most of them made it through training anyway.
Then there's this:
I guess it's just the modern way to break things which aren't broken.
I hear they're fighting for equal pay, the ability to own property, and they even want to vote too.
Ill volinteer my XWIFE
What's the age limit ? Have an Ex and Ex mother-in-law that are prime for combat !
My Mother in Law already wears combat boots....
That's too bad. They shouldn't have made it through. I think if a woman is willing to take a job from a man; she had better be able to do the same job. No special concessions, no lowering the bar.
Couldn't agree more Tracy except I don't see it as taking a job from a man as though it were his unalienable right to have that job. Women like you and I don't ask for concessions any more than we ask for permission. We expect equal treatment from start to finish but are willing to back off gracefully when the job is beyond our capabilities. I might not like to say "I can't do it" but sometimes we all have make that admission. However, before I say it, I'll make damn sure I can't.
I know a few Ladies that can, and would, be Great in a Combat Role... And should they want to, they should be given those opurtunities... My Opinion... YMMV....
Yeah I've seen some pretty stout, big ole gals that could hang with any man. And, plenty who couldn't. There's no shame in that... there should be no concessions either. You either run with the pack and keep up, or find something else to do. Goes back to the no child left behind crap if you ask me. Sometimes you gotta leave 'em behind or they'll drag the whole group down.
And just because they look REAL Good in "Girl Clothes" shouldn't be a consideration.....
Again; we agree RH! "Can't" isn't a word allowed at my house. It's either Unable or Unwilling to Try (and I'll try most anything... once ).
Well, I will throw another stone in the pond. I have this thing about contracts. This is nothing but my personal opinion. Any female service member who made a ruckus about wanting to be allowed on the front lines in combat, should if otherwise properly trained for that role not be hindered from rotating into that position as the need for replacements, or routine unit assignment exists. As for female service members over the hump with regard to retirement 10 years plus already served, who have never officially expressed a desire to serve on the front lines in combat roles, should not be forced to do so. (they are obviously career oriented, but contract wise, for the last 10 plus years, this was not a possibility, and it is not what they expected or signed on for). They should be allowed to finish their 20 for retirement in support roles. Female members with less than 10 years who object to having to serve in front line combat roles should be told, okay but unless you change your mind, this enlistment you are presently on will be your last, if you reup you will accept whatever assignment you are given, combat or otherwise. jmho
Let's not forget, women have been serving as MP's for quite some time now. And for any who think it's not a combat role, think again.
Heck there are the female engagemet teams that travel with the infantry now. I am all for it as long as the standards are the same. Me personally, i don't want to be infantry but if some other woman does and she can hang with the boys then more power to her. Btw i can pass the pt test to male standards but an 80 lb ruck would kick my butt since I am only 120 lbs. Then again it would probably kick the butt of a 120 lb man too!
I agree and they also have to look good in BDU's, LOL.
Best lookin' women in uniform I've ever seen --U.S. Marines. Holy mother.
You want it, you got it.. I saw we power up the ladies, roll the boys back home and see what the girls can do. No offense, but there are just some things that require physical attributes that women do not possess naturally. There's an evolutionary reason for this. You can get all mad and call me a chauvinist, but there are some things that are just so blindingly obvious and lady grunts isn't one of them. Supporting roles, go for it.. I'm for it. You want to pick baddies off at 800.. knock your sox off. You want to put on 100+lbs of pack + weapons + ammo + shit.. on that 120lb ish frame and haul it all over the place in the nasty ass world for days without a rag.. whatever. I'm just glad I don't bleed for 5 days and live to tell about it.
Some things are made for men..
my issue for women in this role--or a cop or firefighter has to do with strength and nothing else. If the person next to her catches some lead, can she pick up a 220# man in a fireman's carry and get that person out of the line of fire while carrying two rifles? There is a reason for PT tests/goals. Same argument for firefighters.
With a cop: let's say that a female LEO is confronting a perp who is facing a 3rd strike. She's 130 and he's 275. 7/10, if she takes him in, it's because he let her. If it were me, and that's what stood b/w me and freedom . . . . . I would make sure she's incapacitated.
Yeah, I realize Bruce Lee was a squirt and the Krav Maga champ is too . . . but the difference in strength b/w a small-frame man and woman is great (yeah, I know chicks bodybuild....don't pull out the exception).
Separate names with a comma.