Polyamory.com Forum

Polyamory.com Forum (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/index.php)
-   Fireplace (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   U.S. Women in Combat Roles? (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39722)

BreatheDeeply 02-01-2013 07:13 AM

U.S. Women in Combat Roles?
"Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the Obama administration would allow women to be placed in positions that will expose them more directly to fighting with enemy ground forces. It is said that this will allow women to fill hundreds of thousands of combat roles from which they are currently excluded."

So what do you think about this? Reading through the blogosphere reveals it's the usual partisan politics in the U.S. (if you're on the right you're against it, of you're on the left you're for it). But, if we leave the political B.S. out of it, what are the pros and cons for women serving in front-line combat roles in the American military?


FindingMyselfInTheGrey 02-01-2013 07:32 AM

As a female U. S. Veteran (USN, 1995-1999) I can tell you that women have been fighting in combat roles since the Revolutionary war. Women have been shot, bombed, stabbed, beaten, and died in every war, conflict, scuffle, and action this country has taken part in. To say that women have been placed in ‘safer’ locations than their male counterparts is B.S. There is no ‘safe zone’ in a war. And to say that any one of the many ladies who have served their Country, been injured, given her last breath for her country that she is not a warrior, that she is not a fighter, and that she has not given enough for her country, for her family is a true slap in the face.

Some of those amazing Women Warriors have been awarded some pretty high awards for their Honor, Courage, and Commitment.

Helo 02-01-2013 10:44 AM

On a personal level, I would have no objections to fighting alongside a female soldier on the basis of her gender. I think the idea that women somehow "cant hack it" or just arent "made for combat" are unmitigated twaddle at best; as Grey has already pointed out, women have been fighting in battle since there's BEEN battle and generally had a fine time of it. Hell, a roll-sheet of some of the most noted military commanders in history contains no small number of women.

That said, I dont think I would react well to seeing a female soldier go down next to me. I have a lot of buttons that hearing a woman screaming in pain would push for various reasons. It would be hard to hold it together if I saw that repeatedly.

On the other side of that particular coin, I recognize that as being my personal issue and I know enough not to try and project it on an entire group of people.

It also has to be considered that dozens of other countries have done this with zero ill effects. The world wont fly apart if we do it too.

My view on the military is fairly dim and I'll be interested to see what the long-term outcomes of this will be.

AphroditeGoneAwry 02-01-2013 10:53 AM

If they sign up for duty, all's fair in love and war.

Helo 02-01-2013 11:09 AM


Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry (Post 182099)
If they sign up for duty, all's fair in love and war.

I hate that slogan, I really do.

AphroditeGoneAwry 02-01-2013 11:12 AM


Originally Posted by Helo (Post 182101)
I hate that slogan, I really do.


LovingRadiance 02-01-2013 11:28 AM

Anyone who is willing and able should he allowed regardless of gender. I spent countless hoirs fighting to be accepted by my male counterparts in ROTC because I was a woman-even though I won a full scholarahip to Westpoint that was given to the winner of Superior Cadet of the year, based upon tests including not only grades but also our physical strength. I was tied with one guy we were faster and stronger than my entire class, not just the girls. I had beter academics. He and I remained tied in the physical tests all year.
Anyone whose physically and mentally capable and is willing should be seen for that ability-not for their gender.

nycindie 02-01-2013 01:49 PM

I wrote an essay on this a few years ago (it's been a hot topic for quite a while and many essayists have written about it). Conservatives have often said that having women in combat is distracting to the men, but that is just as insulting to men as it is to women. Also, there are enough women popping out babies and we're overpopulated anyway, so the argument that we need to keep women home as baby-making machines doesn't hold water anymore.

The truth is, although the rule was in place barring women in the front lines of combat, they were already there and often found themselves in combat. I have a woman friend who served in Iraq, and there is a woman in my neighborhood with two artificial legs as a result of her service in combat. This just makes it official and now no one has to hide it.

Helo 02-01-2013 07:06 PM


Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry (Post 182102)

Ask the Kurds or Stephanie Lizon.

There is some shit you just do not do.

RunicWolf 02-03-2013 11:52 PM

As a vet (1998-2003) from a combat arms MOS (armor crewman) my only concern, during that time, would be that everyone on the vehicle has to pull their weight. It's a lot of heavy lifting and the like. While I'm not saying women are weaker by any stretch (my wife is proof of that!), I am saying that I'd hope that the military would raise PT standards for women serving in a combat arms MOS to something a lot closer to the male standards.

If they want to fight, I'm all for it, as long as they can keep up to the standards we have in place already.

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:02 AM.