I'm an old fashioned kind of gal as is it my opinion that women should not be in combat roles. Again, this is my opinion! Women are not as physically strong as men. Women would be a distraction for men in combat whether it is sexual in nature or otherwise. I would also throw in what CWB pointed out about field cleanliness, facilities and torture.

 

Barefoot and pregnant, ladies! Know your place! Now get in the kitchen and fix your man a turkey pot pie! (This part was just a joke!)

I believe there are things meant for women to do, I believe there are some things meant for men to do. Combat is one of those things meant for men.

 

I served in a combat unit for 4 years, though luckily I never had to actually experience combat. This is just a very basic example but it holds a ton of water. At 6'5 230 pounds when I was in the Army, there were several men in my unit that would have a hard time dragging me out of a foxhole or putting me in a fireman's carry to get me off he field of battle should that need have ever arose. I never met one, not one female soldier in my 4 years that could have accomplished that feat. Granted, there weren't a whole lot of female soldiers at Ft Ord in my day, but I met other female military personnel as well at other places and I never met one that could have accomplished that feat. basic, but in my experience very factual.

 

There are other reason that CWB mentioned above as well that you will hear a lot when this topic is discussed.

 

But, to be honest, the ban on combat MOS's for females was always kind of a farce anyway. There are plenty of jobs though not considered combat positions that end up being in combat roles regardless. For example, there are transportation MOS's that though technically not combat positions, a soldier in that role can very easily find themselves on the front lines or near enough to easily see a combat situation, and women have been allowed in those positions for years.

 

Not too discredit anything you said, because you provided a lot of good reasons, but I would be willing to bet that most men wouldn't be able to put you in a fireman's carry.

Not too discredit anything you said, because you provided a lot of good reasons, but I would be willing to bet that most men wouldn't be able to put you in a fireman's carry.

 

Fair enough. How many women do you know that could put you in a fireman's carry for any length of time?

Fair enough. How many women do you know that could put you in a fireman's carry for any length of time?

 

Me? Quite a few, but then again, I'm 5'11" 160, so that's not a real big accomplishment. :lol2:

Not too discredit anything you said, because you provided a lot of good reasons, but I would be willing to bet that most men wouldn't be able to put you in a fireman's carry.

 

There would have been some that would have been hard pressed to do it, no doubt about that, but even the smallest/weakest of them could have more than likely dragged me far enough to get me out of harms way. And yes, we trained to do stuff like this too knowing it was a possibility should we have ever went into combat. What I wouldn't need were 10 women serving beside me that I know couldn't do it in the best of circumstances.

I'm an old fashioned kind of gal as is it my opinion that women should not be in combat roles. Again, this is my opinion! Women are not as physically strong as men. Women would be a distraction for men in combat whether it is sexual in nature or otherwise. I would also throw in what CWB pointed out about field cleanliness, facilities and torture.

 

Barefoot and pregnant, ladies! Know your place! Now get in the kitchen and fix your man a turkey pot pie! (This part was just a joke!)

I somewhat agree with you however I'd have to o ow what combat roles we are talking about. If it was as a grunt or infantry I would agree. However I think they would be fin as pilots etc.

I think she kind of did contradict her self at the end and pretty much said she thought women should be treated differently, which was the exact opposite of what she said earlier. I might have to watch it again but that's what I picked up when I first watched it. But the whole interview...it just seemed to me to allude in the beginning that there is an issue here, then the LT didn't really confirm that though the interviewer was really trying to get her to, then in the end the LT to me kind of changed her tune a little. Maybe I was reading too much into it.

I could see how that could be interpreted but I think it was more of the reporter trying to get her to say something she could use and claim she doesn't thnk it's a fair test etc but the LT never quite would bite on the leading questions I thought.

I have seen a few points that I think are valid arguments against women in combat roles. I'm curious to see how they are going to be addressed.

 

1) Facilities. Forward position outposts used to require only one bathroom, one shower facility, and although some did have them, they didn't have to have separated bunking facilities. Now that is going to be addressed.

2) Field cleanliness. Fact is fact. Men can very easily pee standing up, and women can't. Men also don't menstruate or require the sanitary products to address a menstrual period. This can particularly present problems in field operation settings. Additionally, men don't go through monthly hormonal changes like women - it's been a proven fact that hormonal changes/PMS can cause involuntary changes in emotional and mental states in women. It is still relatively unknown what impact that can/will that have on a woman in a combat situation.

3) Torture. Both male and female prisoners are at risk of torture and rape, but misogynistic societies and male captors in general may be more willing to abuse woman prisoners. Also, research has been performed that consistently shows that male prisoners are more likely to give in to their captors when their "sisters in arms" are being tortured than when their "brothers in arms" are undergoing the same torture techniques.

 

 

I think my opinion on women assuming active combat roles is honestly fairly dependent on how the military shows capability to handle those three points.

 

Those are some considerations, to be sure. But I think, for the most part, they're misperceptions by men. Women, since Eve, have performed many, many other jobs and duties while menstruating. Hell, even now, in some countries women give birth and go back to working in the fields in short order. Menstruation is never convenient, but all women learn to deal with it. And boy, could I tell you some tales. :lol:

 

I would think a woman who displayed bad judgment or emotional disorder due to PMS would be dealt with the same as a male soldier who displays bad judgement or mental stress.

 

As to the torture, that's a male problem to deal with. They should perform as is appropriate regardless of the sex of their "person in arms" that may be prisoners with them.

Not too discredit anything you said, because you provided a lot of good reasons, but I would be willing to bet that most men wouldn't be able to put you in a fireman's carry.

I would bet most that pass the course in question could.

There is no "front" anymore in war. I have a good friend who was a truck driver in the usmc. She also saw heavy combat. Mostly from convoy attacks. She did just fine. When I was in the army I served with numerous men in combat arms that I would never want covering my six in combat. They were mentally and physically weak. They were good guys but just not a warrior type.