Military plans would put women in most combat jobs - Yahoo! News Hmmmm thought and opinions..... We covered chicks in combat sometime ago... has anything changed in regards to opinion or the capability to perform these roles by women in these type of units? I think MP's and other supporting combat roles may have validity for women to serve, but direct action is not one of them... what say you?
I'm a big supporter of equal opportunity, and I've known some seriously tough women in the Marines; but I don't think that we'll see any female SEALs or Rangers any time soon. It isn't that I don't believe that some women could do the job, all things being equal, but all things aren't equal. I still support giving military service women the opportunity to serve in most combat support, and some combat related (excluding infantry) job fields, but physical limitations are a fact of life. Most male military service members aren't going to make it through Ranger school, or BUDS, never mind most female service members. As Dirty Harry so eloquently put it, "A man's got to know his limitations." Or a woman, for that matter.
Limitations define us either as a man or woman. You can do the job or not... you run the Q course and there are not many that will ever make it... 90 day humping a ruck with little sleep/food in various environments from jungle to mountain in the ranger course... and all the Seal training from bud's thru qual. are just tough- man or woman.
Let them try. Keep the standards exactly the same. If they make it , good on them. If not then that is fine too since the process was fair.
Lowering the 'entrance standards' is just stupid, unless the job they will be doing is less physically demanding. As long as the requirements for the job are representative of what they will actually be doing, there's no problem. Equal opportunity means just that, the opportunity to try. If they fail, it's because they failed, not because of unfair standards.
Aside from a very small handful of women in the world, none will make it unless the standards are lowered for women. My own personal opinions do not matter, really. Thems the facts.
I'll just shake my head. Women are capable of doing many things, if the standards aren't changed - something very likely to happen. One need only looked at the case of Lt K. Hultgreen USN (now dead) to see what really happens when standards are not upheld. Her RIO was smart enough to bail and lived, she wasn't so lucky...
If only a handful of women can meet the standards then so be it. Don't compromise standards. Only people who can cut it should be there.
No problem, if they can't cut it in the real world they will be dead. Let's just hope they don't take anyone from our team with them.
If "GI Jane" can make it then good for her---just do not lower the standards. They are there for a reason. Hope some can make it "on the level".
If memory serves, did not the seals begin actively recruiting minorities recently due to the low head count in that area? SEALS and Rangers should have nothing but the highest COMBAT standards. If you make it, Great, here are your pins. If you can't, then don't complain and say that the standards need to be lowered due to your inabilities. In fact, that would be a great rule for life in general. I recall the first time that I was forced to work with an UNqualified female. Damn near lost three fine men due to her lack of comprehension as well as inability to think on the fly. Have sworn never to be forced into that position again. And before anyone goes off that I am a sexist, racist old fart, let me say that I am neither; I am a realist. I don't give a tinkers dam what you are as long as you are competent and don't get me killed unnecessarily. Gafarmboy
If they can "cut it" then fine--if not then get out of the way, sit down, and shut up. No whining because it was too hard, demanding, or strenuous. Women have shouldered weapons through out history and did well. Russians/Germans each had combat troops of women. WMs have a tough way to go and can shoot with the best of us.
We are human. And as human males we cannot rip our DNA apart and recess the innate feelings to protect the opposite sex. Even if we were raised or scarred to think otherwise this is not something we can un-program. This is reason enough not to mix sexes within front line combat troops. Once again the powers that be refuse to acknowledge military history and human nature. Women have been used in combat throughout history as reactive infantry by the Russians, Germans, Viet Cong, and Israel to name a few with catastrophic results, but they were desperate times and boots needed to be filled at any cost. However, women have done great in small special units as the specific needs of women could be catered to in the field. WWIIs Russian female snipers would be the most well known by today's media, but they were not grunts nor expected to perform as infantryman. In Afghanistan we had females attached to us to interact with and possibly detain local national village women as it would have been disrespectful for us to do it ourselves in public view. These female operators fluent in Persian were trained under Special Operations with plenty of trigger time, but were NOT grunts. These female warriors were treated like women and respected as such. They lived outside the wire and understood the differences in men and women of the real world as those differences made an effective unit. Their bar room war stories would make most sit up straight in their chairs with disbelief. Small units that are capable of catering to females DO work. These women aren't expected to carry a 200+lb man wearing 60lbs of gear or live in a hole for months on end, but are instead used strategically as any other war asset would. Those leading the equality charge are primarily female Air force pilots and naval fleet officers. They have no idea how different life is kicking in Iraqi doors vs. being at 16,000' , 100miles at sea, or sitting comfy behind armor on convoy from one FOB to another. Lives WILL be lost simply because a few exceptional female officers wanted an equal chance for promotion points. I have yet to meet a female Soldier , Marine, or Sailor that works outside of the wire(MP,Seabee,Intel,Medic,or Comms)that agrees with this change. I make it a point to ask. These women know and respect what grunts do and want no part of it. They have already proved themselves in their respective support roles with purple hearts and combat action ribbons to prove it, though trinkets shouldn't be needed. Those female troops that have never left a FOB or only run convoy ops may be swayed to agree this movement, but that's due to pure ignorance or pressure from these new female armchair commandoes. Women of conventional forces have faced combat and had losses in our occupation of the Middle East, but it was DEFENSIVE combat. There is a worlds difference between DEFENDING your convoy or CP from an ambush VS directly hunting down the enemy to kill them as grunts do. I don't expect the liberal feminists aviation officers to understand this nor the Obama administration.
I have no problem with this.....so long as they compete at the same standard as every other volunteer. But being the politically correct military that we have now, they will lower the standard for women.....and then, just to prove how politically correct they are now, they'll lower it even more (or simply ignore it), in order to qualify some women. Not a matter of not wanting women in combat roles, I just don't want to see them accepted at a lower standard, then having someone get killed because of it. The SEALs and Rangers are successful because of their high standards, and ZERO tolerance for those who cannot meet them.
