Skip to comments.Infantry Shut to Women; Do They Want It Open?
Posted on 01/14/2013 9:55:14 AM PST by QT3.14
If or when the Pentagon lets women become infantry troops -- the country's front-line warfighters -- how many women will want to?
The answer is probably not many.
Interviews with a dozen female soldiers and Marines showed little interest in the toughest fighting jobs. They believe they'd be unable to do them, even as the Defense Department inches toward changing its rules to allow women in direct ground combat jobs.
In fact, the Marines asked women last year to go through its tough infantry officer training to see how they would fare. Only two volunteered and both failed to complete the fall course. None has volunteered for the next course this month. The failure rate for men is roughly 25 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
I don’t care if “they” want to go or not .... “they” have NO business on the front line.
Do they want to be subject to a draft?
Come to think of it I don’t know why they aren’t now.
Maybe our enemies will lower their standards as well?
This is the right way to do it. If women wants to get into infantry, fine, but don't lower the standards.
Because if you destroy the traditional, historic values of a people concerning family, womanhood, and so forth, then patriotism and 'dying for one's country' is cheapened and degraded.
There are still millions of Christians who hold womanhood in society at a very high premium, and our women believe their place in the home includes raising the next generation of Christian American patriots.
We don't want our homes torn assunder by our young women being removed for the purpose of an "equal rights" experiment by the military."
If they demand female registration for selective service, my daughters will not register. Neither will my granddaughters. If they draft females, mine will go to live with relatives in Canada.
They will allow them, and they will lower the standards. It has already been done for decades.
Why, with the new standards, FM may can also include the effeminate, since we wouldn’t want any exclusionary or discriminating qualifications. What a wonderful country! /Sarc
“This is the right way to do it. If women wants to get into infantry, fine, but don’t lower the standards.”
While I agree with the idea of not lowering standards, the idea of women in the infantry is a BIG mistake. As an former infantryman, I can cite the following reasons:
1. Security. Putting women in the infantry tempts soldiers while in front-line situations. If a soldier is in a foxhole with a member of the opposite sex, they may think either “I’m safe, there’s no enemy out there” or “I may die tomorrow, I want to go out with a bang.” Given that soldiers cover neighboring positions in a lazy-W perimeter, you are needlessly endangering other soldiers. If a well-trained sapper in Vietnam could figure out which foxhole had soldiers sleeping in it, what makes you think they won’t be able to tell which ones have people screwing? Two common objections I often hear to this argument:
a) Our soldiers are more professional than that! While it is true we have a professional fighting force, they are still HUMANS. If a professional soldier decides to nap while on guard duty, people can die. Why introduce the possibility that just two soldiers would give in? Would you pass out Jack Daniels in the perimeter and say, “Don’t drink this!” No, you wouldn’t take the risk. People could die.
b) Who would have sex when their life is on the line? Plenty of people. More importantly, soldiers have been known to succumb to many base desires in combat zones that they would NEVER submit to in the civilian world. Some soldiers will hire prostitutes, for example. Sex is a stress reliever and combat is THE most stressful environment there is.
2. Complete lack of privacy in the infantry.
3. Complete lack of hygiene opportunities in the infantry.
4. Even if no sex is involved, the risk of favoritism increases drastically. Many male leaders wouldn’t send female soldiers into high-risk situations.
5. Even if you don’t lower the standards, there is a greater chance that female soldiers who pass the standard will, on average, score lower than male soldiers who pass.
6. Women can use pregnancy to get out of a combat zone. Many have, many will. The infantry doesn’t need that.
7. Even if no sex is involved, you increase the risk of infighting amongst soldiers. (Love triangles anyone?)
8. Exposing female soldiers to the enemy on the front lines is not a good idea. At least in REMF roles the chance of being directly exposed to the enemy is *reduced*.
And so on.
In my experience, mixing male and female soldiers leads to A LOT of grab-ass. I could tell a million anecdotes. If we want a professional fighting force, take every opportunity we have to keep it that way.
In case you haven’t noticed no one in Washington gives a damn about the beliefs of Christians.
The only females I saw in Iraq combat were Blackhawk door gunners or those who flew the right seat as a pilot
Agreed on all points based on my 11B experience. The infantry is no place for some men, much less any woman.
"Changing the rules for a potential future draft would be a difficult proposition.
The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat - and women are not in combat jobs - American women aren't required to register upon turning 18 as all males are. If combat jobs open to women, Congress would have to decide what to do about that law."
The usual hypocrisy from politicians: Not all men are in 'combat jobs,' but are subject to the draft. Same should apply to women since they are currently in 'combat jobs.'
Women demand equality but are silent on the demand of being subject to the draft. Where are the protests from Pelosi, Waters, Feinstein, NOW, etc.?
“In my experience, mixing male and female soldiers leads to A LOT of grab-ass. I could tell a million anecdotes. If we want a professional fighting force, take every opportunity we have to keep it that way.”
Ditto, ditto and yup.
I'm more concerned about what I notice on Free Republic, than what I notice in Washington, to be quite frank. --- A whole lot of history-denying, revisionist, folks who think that America became great simply because we had the correct economic system, and don't think the God of the Bible had anything to do with the blessings on this nation ---- those kinds of folks on Free Republic, who will learn that, even if we fight for and maintain the Free Enterprise system (and we should!), the nation will collapse under the rotten timbers and beams, eaten out by the termites of its moral filth and decadence, and more so because it has forgotten the God of our fathers, not first because we have neglected the economic system of our fathers.
God will not only not bless, but He will judge America for forsaking our daughters to the family-destroying notions of "women in combat." Imagine women 24 or 25, mothers of little children, being conscripted or military service. How wicked ! God will judge a nation which so perverts family order.
And yet, we have people on Free Republic so twisted by the modern "equal rights" mind set, to think that our women getting their body parts blown off in a combat zone is right and patriotic. It is NOT patriotic, because it destroys many things that I and my father, and grandfathers served in the armed forces to defend---our homes, our families, our women and the very concepts of family that God blessed and used to build our great nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.