The new liberal cause against military policy...

[Okla-homey]

now that DADT is gone, its about eliminating the female ground combat exclusion.

:pop:

[King Crimson]

military is big government. more nanny state exceptionalism.

jesus, i paid for you to go to law school at a private university, didn't l?

hehe.

[olevetonahill]

Heh, Iffen da wimmens wanta be treated as equals Im all fer it, Just as soon as they can Hump an 80 lb Alice Pack around the jungle :D

[texaspokieokie]

Heh, Iffen da wimmens wanta be treated as equals Im all fer it, Just as soon as they can Hump an 80 lb Alice Pack around the jungle :D

And don't mind gettin raped if taken prisoner.

[olevetonahill]

And don't mind gettin raped if taken prisoner.

Them Bastards Never told ME id be raped if they caught me:mad:

[texaspokieokie]

Them Bastards Never told ME id be raped if they caught me:mad:

in your case, would it have been rape ???
:D

[olevetonahill]

Now that would depend On the Hawtness of whoever was trying it, Oh and how they were Plumbed :eek:

[Okla-homey]

"woman" and "infantryman" are mutually exclusive terms.

[yermom]

that's why it will be "infantryperson" now

[olevetonahill]

that's why it will be "infantrysissy" now

FIFY :D

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

military is big government. more nanny state exceptionalism.

Down with big government Obama, but big military is okay! No matter increasing military size has always coincided with an increase in government.

[yermom]

while i think DADT needed to go, this one is a little tougher to see

i don't think we are quite to the point of Starship Troopers' communal showers and such

[olevetonahill]

Do they still give those ****ing "Stress" cards ?:rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

Still got one in my drawer.
(dresser drawer stupid) :rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

Still got one in my drawer.
(dresser drawer stupid) :rolleyes:

***** :eek:

[Leroy Lizard]

Are they now championing for true equality, or are they wanting combat status to be by the woman's choice?

[oulucas]

i don't think we are quite to the point of Starship Troopers' communal showers and such[/QUOTE]

Best part of that entire movie!

[Okla-homey]

Are they now championing for true equality, or are they wanting combat status to be by the woman's choice?

I'm quite certain the issue is about a woman's "right to choose" to be in the infantry. The movement is motivated by the fact that it is difficult to rise to a senior leadership position in the Army or USMC without ground combat experience. And this gets complicated.

There are now gender based norms for physical fitness in all branches of the service.

Presumably, if a woman wants to be in the infantry, populated now exlusively by men, she should be required to meet or exceed male physical fitness standards.

But wait. What does this mean for the women who do not choose to join the infantry? Will they be allowed to continue in the Army meeting the gender normed fitness standard for women? Would that be fair to the men who are not in the infantry, and who have no desire to be in the infantry, but must still meet the same physical standards as men in the infantry?

[C&CDean]

Correct answer to the original question: **** no. No wimmins in the infantry. Period.

[King Barry's Back]

while i think DADT needed to go, this one is a little tougher to see

i don't think we are quite to the point of Starship Troopers' communal showers and such

Some European militaries are already integrated to this level, and have been for years.

Men and women serve side-by-side in the Swedish navy, and given the close quarters, they also shower and bunk side-by-side. Male and female Dutch soldiers sometimes share bathing facilities, and I believe that's also the case in the German military.

But granted, casual mixed nudity is much more common in these countries than in the United States.

[King Barry's Back]

I'm quite certain the issue is about a woman's "right to choose" to be in the infantry. The movement is motivated by the fact that it is difficult to rise to a senior leadership position in the Army or USMC without ground combat experience. And this gets complicated.

There are now gender based norms for physical fitness in all branches of the service.

Presumably, if a woman wants to be in the infantry, populated now exlusively by men, she should be required to meet or exceed male physical fitness standards.

But wait. What does this mean for the women who do not choose to join the infantry? Will they be allowed to continue in the Army meeting the gender normed fitness standard for women? Would that be fair to the men who are not in the infantry, and who have no desire to be in the infantry, but must still meet the same physical standards as men in the infantry?

I don't really care if women's combat role is expanded, as long as such service is truly voluntary on the part of female soldiers (this raises a question of fairness re: male soldiers ordered into the infantry, but that's a side issue as far as I am concerned). Women already see pretty heavy action as it stands now.

What I object to is that "career advancement" is the sole motivating factor. If studies and field experience were coming in showing that women improved a unit's ability to get the job done, if evidence was apparent that putting women in action made the US military more successful, then I'd be ready to listen. However, that's not the case that is being made.

When you add in the fact that a significant share of our female POWs since 1991 have been raped or sexually violated while in captivity (and factor in the attack and rape of a female CBS reporter), I just want to say to the ladies -- "Is your job really worth that?"

[Ike]

I'm quite certain the issue is about a woman's "right to choose" to be in the infantry. The movement is motivated by the fact that it is difficult to rise to a senior leadership position in the Army or USMC without ground combat experience. And this gets complicated.

There are now gender based norms for physical fitness in all branches of the service.

Presumably, if a woman wants to be in the infantry, populated now exlusively by men, she should be required to meet or exceed male physical fitness standards.

But wait. What does this mean for the women who do not choose to join the infantry? Will they be allowed to continue in the Army meeting the gender normed fitness standard for women? Would that be fair to the men who are not in the infantry, and who have no desire to be in the infantry, but must still meet the same physical standards as men in the infantry?


The way I heard it (and from what I've seen, it's not so widespread amongst liberals to be called a "liberal" issue yet...I'm not convinced yet anyway), it's more difficult to advance as you mentioned above, but in addition, the way we are fighting wars right now, the line between combat units and non-combat units is getting so blurred to merit the distinction almost meaningless, and women assigned to non-combat units are experiencing quite a bit of combat already. I don't know how true all of that is or not, thats just the gist of what I've heard. Anyway, if thats as true as the one article I read made it out to be, then I think there is an argument for it.

[Sooner98]

Some European militaries are already integrated to this level, and have been for years.

Men and women serve side-by-side in the Swedish navy, and given the close quarters, they also shower and bunk side-by-side. Male and female Dutch soldiers sometimes share bathing facilities, and I believe that's also the case in the German military.

But granted, casual mixed nudity is much more common in these countries than in the United States.

I sure know that whenever I think of countries whose military we should try to model ours after, Sweden comes to mind immediately.

[3rdgensooner]

I think women do pretty well in the Israeli army.

[C&CDean]

I think women do pretty well in the Israeli army.

Well, yeah? What's a Jewish lady's ideal house? 4,000 SF, no kitchen, no bedroom. What's her favorite thing to make for dinner? Reservations. Why do they all have crowsfeet around their eyes? From going "you want me to suck your what?"

It's OK, I'm Jewish.

[yermom]

yeah, but you just converted for the jokes

[C&CDean]

No, I was born that way. I'm a heathen now.

[Sooner_Bob]

while i think DADT needed to go, this one is a little tougher to see

i don't think we are quite to the point of Starship Troopers' communal showers and such

Johnny Rico disagrees . . .

[yermom]

he was from Argentina anyway

[Wishboned]

Do they still give those ****ing "Stress" cards ?:rolleyes:

When someone told me about stress cards my head just about exploded.

[Aldebaran]

http://www.snopes.com/military/stresscards.asp

[soonercruiser]

I'm quite certain the issue is about a woman's "right to choose" to be in the infantry. The movement is motivated by the fact that it is difficult to rise to a senior leadership position in the Army or USMC without ground combat experience. And this gets complicated.

There are now gender based norms for physical fitness in all branches of the service.

Presumably, if a woman wants to be in the infantry, populated now exlusively by men, she should be required to meet or exceed male physical fitness standards.

But wait. What does this mean for the women who do not choose to join the infantry? Will they be allowed to continue in the Army meeting the gender normed fitness standard for women? Would that be fair to the men who are not in the infantry, and who have no desire to be in the infantry, but must still meet the same physical standards as men in the infantry?

I've seen a few of the women that can meet male infantry fitness standards.
The enemy probably won't be able to tell at first glance!
:rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

Some European militaries are already integrated to this level, and have been for years.

Men and women serve side-by-side in the Swedish navy, and given the close quarters, they also shower and bunk side-by-side. Male and female Dutch soldiers sometimes share bathing facilities, and I believe that's also the case in the German military.

But granted, casual mixed nudity is much more common in these countries than in the United States.

And this is exactly why the U.S. military is still "the premier" fighting force of the Western World!
:P

[cantwait48]

I'm for an all lesbian battalion but I'm not sure if the Army could afford to feed them.

[3rdgensooner]

I've seen a few of the women that can meet male infantry fitness standards.
The enemy probably won't be able to tell at first glance!
Well of course the average beauty queen couldn't meet the fitness standards.

[soonercruiser]

Well of course the average beauty queen couldn't meet the fitness standards.

Yup! :D

[GKeeper316]

from what i understand of the DoD studies on the matter, it isn't that anyone thinks women can't function as ground combat troops... its that the men they serve with will generally do excessive things to keep them from any percieved harm, including disobeying orders.

[Soonerwake]

I believe that they have the same mixed physical standards in police and fire departments - at least they used to be. I have always thought that if you want to be deemed "equal" for the job, then you should be held to the same standards, physical or not.

[C&CDean]

from what i understand of the DoD studies on the matter, it isn't that anyone thinks women can't function as ground combat troops... its that the men they serve with will generally do excessive things to keep them from any percieved harm, including disobeying orders.

This... and much more. Simple things like field latrines (or no latrines), menstrual cycles (although a PMSd out beeyatch might be just what we need to send into a firefight - the other suckers wouldn't stand a chance), basic physical shortcomings that would make her a liability in the field (no, not all chicks are weaklings), but there's very few who could pass the male PT tests and/or throw a 180-pound soldier over their shoulder and hump them out while returning fire.

The DoD isn't gonna say all that stuff, but it definitely figures in their studies. In general, yes, some women could function as frontline infantry troops. In reality? Not so much. Next thing they're gonna wanna be Rangers or Seals.

[SoonerKnight]

Some European militaries are already integrated to this level, and have been for years.

Men and women serve side-by-side in the Swedish navy, and given the close quarters, they also shower and bunk side-by-side. Male and female Dutch soldiers sometimes share bathing facilities, and I believe that's also the case in the German military.

But granted, casual mixed nudity is much more common in these countries than in the United States.

They also are not known for having the world's best millitary. When I was in the Navy we got women on my ship. It the woman did not want to be there she would get pregnant and then they would send her away but then they would keep her billet as filled and not give anybody in return. So because of what I have persoanally witnessed I agree with Dean!! :eek:

[soonercruiser]

I believe that they have the same mixed physical standards in police and fire departments - at least they used to be. I have always thought that if you want to be deemed "equal" for the job, then you should be held to the same standards, physical or not.

It's NOT THAT WAY in the military.
:(

[soonercruiser]

This... and much more. Simple things like field latrines (or no latrines), menstrual cycles (although a PMSd out beeyatch might be just what we need to send into a firefight - the other suckers wouldn't stand a chance), basic physical shortcomings that would make her a liability in the field (no, not all chicks are weaklings), but there's very few who could pass the male PT tests and/or throw a 180-pound soldier over their shoulder and hump them out while returning fire.

The DoD isn't gonna say all that stuff, but it definitely figures in their studies. In general, yes, some women could function as frontline infantry troops. In reality? Not so much. Next thing they're gonna wanna be Rangers or Seals.

Not murmaids?
:eek: