Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another argument against women in the military

Posted on 05/11/2002 12:21:01 PM PDT by Garegaupa

I've been reading many interesting discussions concerning women in the military on these boards, but there is one subject that has been little mentioned. I'd like to get some comments on that.

Just so that's clear: I'm against women in the military (in combat positions, at least, but I suppose most positions in the military will become combat positions during a conflict). I agree what has been said about women lacking the necessary physical strength and endurance, being more prone to injuries, disrupting unit cohesion, not being mentally suited for combat and so on.

But, many people say, if a woman can perform as well as a man, shouldn't she then be allowed to serve where she pleases. I still say no. And now we're getting to the point of this post:

I am (both as a Christian and as a man) thoroughly convinced that men should protect and cherish women, and that any man who would willingly send a woman to fight in his stead is a criminal.

Since this view (as far as I can see) hasn't come up too often in the debate over whether women should serve in the military or not, I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only person left on the planet who thinks this is a good principle. Ladies and gentlemen, what are your opinions on this matter?

Best regards, Garegaupa


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-174 next last
To: Garegaupa
Until every able-bodied man overwhelms the recruiters, women will continue to pick up the slack caused by men who don't join the service. Active duty women are not seeking ground combat positions--DACOWITS is. I'm sure that if all combat areas were open to all volunteers, very few women would apply. My shipmates and I would shake our heads in disbelief every time DACOnitWITS would release a report saying that women in the military felt discriminated against for being kept out of combat roles. We felt no such thing! By the way, how long did you serve on active duty?
41 posted on 05/11/2002 2:57:38 PM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: All
First of all, let me qualify what I'm about to say. Women are qualified to serve in the armed forces in many roles. However, they are NOT qualified to serve in the role of INFANTRY, SPECIAL FORCES, ARMOR, or ARTILLERY. Why? Well, here it goes, and I'm going to be honest - and graphic - so hold on. This is strictly from a Grunt's point of view, from experience.

First of all is upper body strength. I don't care how big and strong some she-male is - they don't have the ability to haul an M60 machine gun with 400 rounds of 7.62mm ammo and a spare barrel from firing point to firing point through an offensive engagement. They fall out, leaving the platoon's heavy machine gun out of action. In an Infantry platoon, that means death to your buddies instead of the enemy. This is a tough assignment for even the toughest of the guys, much less the ladies. Like I said - even the strongest females can't even begin to do it. In a rifle platoon, everyone is expected to be able to perform everyone else's job - without exception. When the machine gunner dies, someone else has to pick up that weapon and drive on - plain and simple.

Next comes combat first aid. Just how would you feel if that female in your squad takes a round or a chunk of shrapnel through the chest - resulting in a sucking chest wound - and now you are faced with cutting off her uniform top and plugging the hole? Not good. Infantrymen in general, are the last bastion of gentlemen in the Army. We hold open doors for women, we treat them with chivalry. We don't want to see them dying in combat, we don't want them getting our buddies killed out of their desire to erase the lines of gender. We don't want to have to put their guts back inside them in a combat scenario. We don't want to have to shove an ink pen into their throats to restore their breathing when their throat has been crushed by an AK round. Feminists - think REAL HARD about that one.

The next thing is odor. What? Odor? Yes. After being in the bush for a week or so, a human's sense of smell becomes finely attuned to the surroundings. You can SMELL a woman (even if she has no perfume) for miles in the woods. Especially if she is menstruating. (Hygiene is difficult at best in the bush.) I've run night patrols where we would find units that had women in them purely by our sense of smell. What would we do then? Invariably, we would move forward slowly near the unit, and locate their perimeter. Their perimeter defenses would then be mapped, and the fighting positions located that had females in them. These we would watch until the ladies would nod off (which they ALWAYS DID). This gave us our opening through the defenses. I'd send one fire team to that position - they'd crawl up to the firing port of the hole - and observe the women asleep. Two soldiers would then go around to the back side of the position, and two would stay in front. Simultaneously, the two to the rear would jump into the hole, grab the women by the top of their helmets, and draw a red magic marker accross their throat just as they would have with a bayonnet - while at the same time their guns would be pulled through the firing ports by the soldiers in front. The position silenced, we'd search through the women's written notes - which would contain the passwords for the unit, and then head to the Tactical Operations Center (TOC). Since women were in the unit, there would be the sound of generators near the TOC. (Gotta have the essentials of electricity for the women, you know. Sorry - it is true.) If we were ever challenged inside the wire, we had the password. Imagine the look on the faces of those Colonels and Majors as we walked into their briefings and proceeded to hose them down! It was always priceless.

This didn't happen just once. My platoon leader (the LT), would let me take the platoon out for "free lance" training such as this whenever we were in the field. The units we would attack in this manner were just other units in the field, with no idea that they were being attacked. Just as it would be in real life. In six such training exercises, we would manage to destroy the TOC of higher units - to include the Division Command once. I've caused the firing of more than one commanding officer due to the ineptness of the perimeter defenses. Generals don't like the idea of having some grunts step into their little world and killing all of them. Real world training doesn't fit in their view - not when it applies to them.

43 posted on 05/11/2002 3:42:51 PM PDT by 11B3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: dax zenos
My pleasure - this was an issue back when I was in, and I hope that more women will begin to realize that there are advantages to being women. Erasing the lines of gender is not a good thing - in either direction.
45 posted on 05/11/2002 3:57:58 PM PDT by 11B3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: 11B3
Your blunt and accurate words are greatly appreciated, and welcome. Thank you.
47 posted on 05/11/2002 4:04:43 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph
"Until every able-bodied man overwhelms the recruiters,
women will continue to pick up the slack caused by men who don't join the service"

Very valid point!
I believe that the last figure I remember seeing was that women are just over 10% of the military.
And these are women who never had to worry about being drafted.
In fact all women (past and present) in the military never faced a potential draft.
48 posted on 05/11/2002 4:05:49 PM PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 11B3,cva66snipe
As a pont of reference I am at the local Coast Guard Station several times a week.
I am in the Coast Guard Auxiliary training to be a full time radio watchstander on the Base.
Just over 10% of the base is women.
I have personally observed these women going out on training and actual rescues.
Their training and qualifications are no different than the men.
The Coast Guard is the only service in which the role of women is unrestricted.
While rescuing someone from the ocean is not combat it is, in many caes, more dangerous than combat.
Ask anyone who has been out in the ocean in 20'-40' + waves, they'll tell you the same thing.
49 posted on 05/11/2002 4:17:38 PM PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
Another Freeper pointed out to me correctly one day that the USCG is not part of DOD but DOT. I have some real serious questions especially about shipboard women. The first is related to setting Zebra in the required time. On a carrier you have 5 minutes to be on station before hatches close Now waking any person up from a dead sleep and saying dress and run perhaps 800 feet forward and 5 decks up in less than 5 is pushing it. That was the standard when I was in. That in general meant running down a passage way dressing. Or let's take this event. Man overboard. The whistle blows and you go imediately to your work center. In my 4 years that meant in your Fruit of the Looms, towell, whatever you responded quickly. Next was a fire bell. Same thing time is not your friend.

Are these required times being altered to allow for a PC Navy? A ships very design makes it a single sex existance. The berth is often located away from the head. To be exact some berths especially on a carrier are below the mess decks. Officers country may be a little more suitable for some modifications. But soon the design to make the ship suitable for the sexes becomes more important than making it Damage Control functional.

As you can see this is a set up for potential career ending situations where a sailor can be charged for among other things exposure and sexual harassment when a few years back the situation did not exist fo it? Remember I am talking about deployed combat ships and not tugs or tenders who do in and out that day missions. There is too much potential for uneeded problems.

50 posted on 05/11/2002 4:48:48 PM PDT by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
"A ships very design makes it a single sex existance."

ALL US Navy combat ships for the last 15 plus years were/are built for co-ed crews.
Except submarines (which for Non-Navy tpes are still called boats).
Fact is women were 1st assigned to combat ships in 1989.
Keep in mind I spent almost 3 years on the same Destroyer so I am well aware of your statements about GQ, etc.
Back in my day women were only on hospital ships and/or non-combat ships.
But Bush SR. changed that in 1989.
In 2001 President George Bush was the 1st Commander-in-Chief to use women combat pilots doing actual combat sorties.
51 posted on 05/11/2002 4:58:07 PM PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
"Another Freeper pointed out to me correctly one day that the USCG is not part of DOD but DOT."

Except in time of war, then it falls under the Dept of the Navy.
For a brief period just after 9/11 it was switched to the Dept of the Navy, then switched back to DOT.
For the record regular Coast Guard personell just recently returned from 6 months duty in the Afganistain war theater.
52 posted on 05/11/2002 5:02:40 PM PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: dax zenos
...and started a policy that 5% of the HP work force was worthless so that many had to go each year.

Oddly enough, the military already has this feature; it's called 'up or out' promotions.

53 posted on 05/11/2002 5:06:59 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Grut
I vehemently disagree with you that adult men should not protect adult women. It is sad to see how our culture has gone to hell. When I was young, I am 40 now, I followed the example of men and always offered my seat on a bus or train to a lady. No female my age or younger would ever accept that offer today. Maybe 2 in 10 young women say "thank you" if I hold the door open for them. I call it courtesy. They call it sexism. And this is progress?

American culture is going to hell in a handbasket.

What is next? 200 pound men tossing women backwards in their stampede for the life-boats on sinking ships? I hate modern culture. No manners. No honor. No more golden rule. Everyone has an attitude, is "in your face", is "dissing you" and says, "Everybody does it." Certainly I am showing my age but US culture is going to hell in a hurry. I am NOT pleased.

54 posted on 05/11/2002 5:07:02 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph
There have always been a surplus of men willing to serve the Armed Forces. The number of women who want to be soldiers is a tiny fraction of the number of men who want to serve. If the Armed Forces had a problem with recruiting and retention in the '90s, it had only to do with serving under a C-in-C who was a pro-Communist treasonous rapist. Notice how recruiting has had a big bounce after President Bush began to deal with the terrorists. We don't need women in combat roles in the military.
55 posted on 05/11/2002 5:15:52 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
It's career motivated more than patriotism or duty. I respect your laurels but women are not suited for combat. They are quite good in support roles. And that is where they should stay.

The military is a sorry place for social engineering and "what if" wishful thinking.

56 posted on 05/11/2002 5:19:36 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
You and me both....and the libs think there is no PC sentiment on this forum...LOL
57 posted on 05/11/2002 5:20:39 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
Thanks Tonk, as a female AFvet I appreciate your respect.
58 posted on 05/11/2002 5:21:57 PM PDT by seeker41
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cali4ever
I(both as an atheist and as a woman) would like to know how a woman is not mentally suited for the military? Trying to figure out that answer just about made my little ole brain bust!!

Well, there might be an exception for very manly women, but I even doubt that. Even manly women are still too emotional and physically weak, except, of course for my own mother, who still wears army army boots at 85! ;0 (Just kidding, for the humor-impaired.)

59 posted on 05/11/2002 5:30:06 PM PDT by PayrollOffice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
Thanks Tonk!!!!!!!!! This day in age, seems like it does not matter with all that has happened. Meaning, that, either a man or woman, all are PROUD!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sandy
60 posted on 05/11/2002 5:30:22 PM PDT by SK1 Thurman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-174 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson