I am a female and have been in Iraq for one year. I fought alongside men and women there. While it's true that a man will jump to save a woman's life before a man's, this is in no way the woman's fault. It is not that woman's fault that the man cannot keep his head in the battle. If he cannot stay concentrated on the battle, that's his own fault, and he shouldn't be in war anyways. When I took the oath to join the Air Force, it was alongside eleven men. No women. I stood there as an equal, understanding that I would get "equal rights". To me, equal rights should include that we're equal in EVERYTHING. I CHOSE to join the Air Force and I CHOSE to go to Iraq and place my life in danger. If I man cannot keep his head in the battle when he sees me shot, then he shouldn't be there anyways. We are there for one purpose, and one purpose only. To accomplish our mission.
Should Women Be In The Military?
Whispering Death
Active member
I think women should be allowed to serve equally as men but be heald to the EXACT same standards as a male. We are learning more and more that the women are on the front lines of this war no matter what MOS they have due to the nature of the conflict.
Here is the thing though, exact same standards as a man. I don't want it to be like in Los Angeles where in their Fire Departments they purposefully lower standards for females just to meet a quota. If I'm trapped in a burning building I want a big strong man to come in and carry my ass out of the flames, not a 115lb chick to run in and say "well hell there's a dude trapped in the flames, someone should do something about that." Same thing in the millitary. Chick can haul around that SAW then hell yeah welcome to the squad. But don't expect me to carry your ammo and help you dig your trench just because we want to be politically correct about our army.
Here is the thing though, exact same standards as a man. I don't want it to be like in Los Angeles where in their Fire Departments they purposefully lower standards for females just to meet a quota. If I'm trapped in a burning building I want a big strong man to come in and carry my ass out of the flames, not a 115lb chick to run in and say "well hell there's a dude trapped in the flames, someone should do something about that." Same thing in the millitary. Chick can haul around that SAW then hell yeah welcome to the squad. But don't expect me to carry your ammo and help you dig your trench just because we want to be politically correct about our army.
ill be damed if i know
Active member
sorry iam confused are women at the moment allowed to serve in front line action?
RnderSafe
Active member
ill be damed if i know said:
Given the nature of the war in Iraq, there are no front lines, so CS and CSS positions will find themselves engaged from time to time, this includes the women within their ranks.
Women are not allowed to serve in combat arms positions, however.
Sooners1
Active member
My thought on this is that in the military is fine, not in combat. I know women in the military and they do a great job, but combat is totally different. No matter what a guy says or whatever, it is instinct to want to protect our women and that in itself could and would be a major problem in a combat situation, his mind would not be on his mission. I hope this came through the right way. Also, a woman is more easily to be raped in a hostage situation than a man, there are more things that can be done to a woman, and no matter how tough she is, that is a difficult thing for a woman to try and bounce back from.
SMPRfidlis
Active member
I AGREE 100% with Whispering Death.... I'm a civ so i don't know (yet 8)) what I would do in the circumstances that you are talking about, but i believe that if a woman were to be shot next to me in combat that i WOULD treat her differently. I guess it may just be our male instinct/ego to "rescue the damsel in distress" so that is why i voted yes but not on the front. Fell free to ignore me 
RnderSafe
Active member
There are more reasons against allowing women to serve in combat arms than a male's social instinct to protect her. I've found this to be one of the less weighted reasons of all.
Women and men ARE different .. they always have been, they always will be. Men are better suited to certain things/lifestyles than women, and vice versa.
I could go into the physiological differences between men and women. We could talk about bone structure and lung capacity, heart size and muscle mass - and a thousand other reasons men are better suited to combat arms than women. I've already pointed these out in detail in other posts, so I will save all from the repeat.
The biggest reason women should not be in combat arms, however, is logistics. Logistics make or break a campaign, and while we are at war - there is no need to continue with the military tradition of attempting to fix something that isn't broken.
Women serve their country honourably, some have even sacrificed all in their service, and it is a sad thing to watch the ultra feminists attempt to take that away by saying women aren't allowed to serve their country because they aren't allowed in certain MOSes. Frankly, that seems more like an insult, than an attempt to help women.
Women and men ARE different .. they always have been, they always will be. Men are better suited to certain things/lifestyles than women, and vice versa.
I could go into the physiological differences between men and women. We could talk about bone structure and lung capacity, heart size and muscle mass - and a thousand other reasons men are better suited to combat arms than women. I've already pointed these out in detail in other posts, so I will save all from the repeat.
The biggest reason women should not be in combat arms, however, is logistics. Logistics make or break a campaign, and while we are at war - there is no need to continue with the military tradition of attempting to fix something that isn't broken.
Women serve their country honourably, some have even sacrificed all in their service, and it is a sad thing to watch the ultra feminists attempt to take that away by saying women aren't allowed to serve their country because they aren't allowed in certain MOSes. Frankly, that seems more like an insult, than an attempt to help women.
Women in the military is fine with me, but not in battle - ever. Those who say it's not the woman's fault that the men are more likely to help a wounded woman than a man....You are right. It's not the man's fault either, though. That's simply how God mades us, ladies.
Men instinctively feel protective of women. It's not something we can change just because there's a woman next to us in battle. Most women are physically weaker than most men. That's a problem in a battle situation. Certainly there are some women of exceptional strength who can handle it, but how do you permit only the few strong ones and deny all others?
Women are a valuable asset to the military, without doubt. I feel though that they would do more harm than good in battle.
You can call me old fashioned now.
Men instinctively feel protective of women. It's not something we can change just because there's a woman next to us in battle. Most women are physically weaker than most men. That's a problem in a battle situation. Certainly there are some women of exceptional strength who can handle it, but how do you permit only the few strong ones and deny all others?
Women are a valuable asset to the military, without doubt. I feel though that they would do more harm than good in battle.
You can call me old fashioned now.
Whispering Death
Active member
Toyuzu said:
Men also instinctively want to avoid danger and death. They instincitvely want to follow comfortable lazy lifestyles not do PT at 5am. They instinctively want to blow away everyone that doesn't have a US flag on their shoulder when getting shot at from a crowded marketplace. They instinctively panic when under artillery. They instinctively run AWAY from bullets, not into them.
Yet somehow America's army can overcome all of this but they are obviously too stupid and the drill seargeants too incompetent to overcome the instict you brought up.
Toyuzu said:
The same way you keep physically incapable men from joining the infantry.
Whispering Death said:
So does that mean I'm not a man? Because I ride a motorcycle every day on the streets of America. (danger and death) and 0500 is when I awake for PT every day to get in shape for Basic Training.... :?
Whispering Death said:
If you aren't wearing a U.S. flag on your shoulder you have nothing to fear from me, unless you are trying to harm me or my companions. I'm intelligent enough to discern friend from foe. The Army will enforce that discernment.
If bullets are flying my way - YES! I will RUN! Only a stupid or suicidal person wouldn't. Live to fight another day, right?
Toyuzu said:
Whispering Death said:
But physically incapable men won't cause other men to unnesesarily divert attention because of injuries. :roll:
Corocotta
Active member
I think that in the wars of the future strengh will not be as necessary as now. We live in a hyper-technical world, and in the military sector even more. The knowledge of using the militar technology will be the decesive point. And women are as intelligent or even more than men. Sorry guys!!!!! :lol: