US to open frontline combat roles to women

[007XX]

I can't imagine there will be a ton of candidates rushing to apply, but it will be interesting to see if it will last.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10861140&ref=mobile


(Inserts obligatory GI Jane quote here)

[Kornholio]

Send em in bikinis armed with frying pans!!

[Milts]

About fucking time. I couldn't believe it when I found out how many nations exclude females from a wide range of military roles. Whatever happened to 'equality'? NZ and Israel are I think two of very nations which allow entirely equal military participation.

The big thing with the USA military is that women have for some time been serving with front line units 'unnofficially' (officially assigned to a nearby or support unit) because they were often the best choice for the combat role. But then they were excluded from promotion, because they did not have 'combat experience'.

The barrier of needing combat experience for higher ranked (non combat) roles meant that women were excluded from many senior or high paying jobs, as well as hundreds of thousands of other roles within the military. This is despite the fact that many are fighting and dying alongside their male colleagues.


"Many military women — who constitute 14% of the 1.4 million active members of the military — object to the policy because it blocks them from applying for some 238,000 jobs and excludes them from certain promotions"
http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/03/banning-women-from-comat-makes-no-sens/#ixzz2Ipf0ayNC

[FJRider]

I can't imagine there will be a ton of candidates rushing to apply, but it will be interesting to see if it will last.



It may surprise you to find out how many will want to.

It matters little what sex the person shooting at you is.

[mashman]

I guess women will work more cheaply, so you can get 2 fighters for the price of 1

[FJRider]

I guess women will work more cheaply, so you can get 2 fighters for the price of 1

Better work stories ... :laugh:

[Glowerss]

It may surprise you to find out how many will want to.

It matters little what sex the person shooting at you is.

Matters a great deal when it comes time to drag your wounded 150+ KG squad member away from the fighting.

I have no problem with equality in any walk of life, so long as it's actual equality. Selective equality is just sexism in favor of.

Women can and should serve in combat roles, so long as they pass the exact same requirements as men.

Currently, not so.

There was an article not too long ago about women trying to get into combat roles. Women Personal training scores are weighted HEAVILY in their favour. Going from memory, in order to score high on their PT, men have to do something like 60+ Pullups. It's like, 10 for women.

Same thing with running. Men need to do 1.6 kilometres in 11 minutes vs womens 20.

I wouldn't want to be in combat with somebody who was physically much weaker or has much less stamina then I. If your life is relying on the person next to you, you'd really want them to be as strong and fit as possible.

You wouldn't feel all that secure knowing that some people in your squad got through doing significantly less simply because they were female.

[bosslady]

I.don't understand? surely it's not that dangerous to cook some bacon and eggs

[FJRider]

Matters a great deal when it comes time to drag your wounded 150+ KG squad member away from the fighting.

Fuck the fat guy ... I probably weigh less than the chick does.


You wouldn't feel all that secure knowing that some people in your squad got through doing significantly less simply because they were female.

I served a number of years in the Army. Some males I wasn't happy about. (that's another story) EVERYBODY pulled their weight. You couldn't last long if you didn't.

A few Exercises I was involved in that included women ... they were just as fit as I. (if not fitter) And well capable of actually being IN combat roles. The Isralies proved they can.

[Brett]

I'm all for giving women the chance...but in reality, wouldn't expect many to make it through to the elite tiers of military combat oriented units (SEALS, Rangers, Delta etc.) The rigours of the selection phases are hard enough for males, will be few females who a) give it a go and b) have what it takes to pass. There will be some gutsy, extremely conditioned and mentally tough women who will crack it though.

[Kornholio]

I.don't understand? surely it's not that dangerous to cook some bacon and eggs

It will be when the eggs aren't over easy....

[FJRider]

It will be when the eggs aren't over easy....

And/or .... the toast is burnt ... <_<

[bosslady]

It will be when the eggs aren't over easy....

good point. well that rules me out, I'm not a very good cook, guess my dream of joining the elite cooking forces is over...











oh wait you were talking about the army ;)

[Kornholio]

And/or .... the toast is burnt ... <_<
...............

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_h-VBmvm7yOA/SmcgbmkENWI/AAAAAAAAB10/ghzHEZf2oko/s400/Homer_strangle.jpg

[ducatilover]

I.don't understand? surely it's not that dangerous to cook some bacon and eggs

Soooooo... good in the kitchen are we?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BoWF5OTf734" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Usarka]

Matters a great deal when it comes time to drag your wounded 150+ KG squad member away from the fighting.


An ex of mine joined the air force a while back. About 60kg. She was given the M60 to lug around at basic training.

[SMOKEU]

Send them bitches back to the kitchen.

[Stirts]

Women can and should serve in combat roles, so long as they pass the exact same requirements as men.

Currently, not so.


I'm all for giving women the chance...but in reality, wouldn't expect many to make it through to the elite tiers of military combat oriented units (SEALS, Rangers, Delta etc.) The rigours of the selection phases are hard enough for males, will be few females who a) give it a go and b) have what it takes to pass. There will be some gutsy, extremely conditioned and mentally tough women who will crack it though.

PMS - Nature’s way of levelling the playing field, since ages ago

[007XX]

Matters a great deal when it comes time to drag your wounded 150+ KG squad member away from the fighting.

I have no problem with equality in any walk of life, so long as it's actual equality. Selective equality is just sexism in favor of.

Women can and should serve in combat roles, so long as they pass the exact same requirements as men.

Currently, not so.

There was an article not too long ago about women trying to get into combat roles. Women Personal training scores are weighted HEAVILY in their favour. Going from memory, in order to score high on their PT, men have to do something like 60+ Pullups. It's like, 10 for women.

Same thing with running. Men need to do 1.6 kilometres in 11 minutes vs womens 20.

I wouldn't want to be in combat with somebody who was physically much weaker or has much less stamina then I. If your life is relying on the person next to you, you'd really want them to be as strong and fit as possible.

You wouldn't feel all that secure knowing that some people in your squad got through doing significantly less simply because they were female.

20 mns for 1.6kms? That's bullshit, that's what it is! I do 2.4 kms in just under 14 mins and I've only started training again for a couple of months.

But as much as I understand where you are coming from, I would say you overlook a few things such as women's capacity for endurance, higher pain threshold, the ability to think clearly under pressure, and the nurturing capacity which make them very defensive of those they care about...natural capabilities that make them extremely combat worthy and to be blunt, better than guys in some respect.

It is not about overruling men in combat but it is about acknowledging the fact that there are as yet untapped resources in the use of female members, which can seriously benefit the armed forces.

I am however in agreement with you when it comes to training needing to be the same. Fair is fair, and if you can't have the goods, then no point playing with the boys.

[Zedder]

PMS - Nature’s way of levelling the playing field, since ages ago

Retreat! They've deployed the PMS team.

[Stirts]

Retreat! They've deployed the PMS team.

<img src="http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/angry-birds.jpg"></img>

[Banditbandit]

I'm all for giving women the chance...but in reality, wouldn't expect many to make it through to the elite tiers of military combat oriented units (SEALS, Rangers, Delta etc.) The rigours of the selection phases are hard enough for males, will be few females who a) give it a go and b) have what it takes to pass. There will be some gutsy, extremely conditioned and mentally tough women who will crack it though.

I think you will be very very surprised ...

[imdying]

20 mns for 1.6kms? That's bullshit, that's what it is! I do 2.4 kms in just under 14 mins and I've only started training again for a couple of months.That's just in the door. Eventually the'll expect you to do it in fatigues, a helmet, and carrying 30kg of ballast in your back pack. After having humped 25km the day prior.

[Swoop]

22 January 2013. American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade have had a tremendous impact on Moslem, Iraqi, and Afghan cultures. One of the more profound impacts was Moslems seeing American women serving in the military. Nearly 300,000 American military women served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 700 were killed or wounded in action. Moslem women and men were impressed with these infidel (non-Moslem) who were real soldiers. They wore the uniform, the body armour, carried weapons, and could fight. Despite resistance from many men, there is more pressure in Moslem countries to let women serve in the local military.

Pakistan, which saw female American troops passing through and heard a lot of the stories of these women warriors doing their jobs next door in Afghanistan, is witnessing growing pressure to allow Pakistani women to operate like American women in the military. Currently, Pakistani attitudes towards women in the military are about a century behind the West. While about 4,000 women serve in the Pakistani military, 90 percent are doctors and nurses. The rest are also technical specialists, brought in mainly because there were not enough technically qualified men to meet the need.

One technical specialty that even Moslem nations turn to the women for is pilots. Noting the success of female military pilots in the United States over the last three decades, an increasing number of other countries are moving in that direction as well. The reason is simple, many of the women who go through flight training turn out to have better flying skills than the average male pilot.

American use of female military pilots goes back a long way. During World War II (1939-45) the United States used women pilots to ferry military aircraft around, including bringing them to the airfields combat missions were flown from. These female pilots were considered civilian contractors but some male pilots could not help but notice that many of these women were very good pilots. In Russia the need for good pilots led to hundreds of women being put to work flying bombers and fighters in combat. But in Russia, as elsewhere, the women were removed from airplanes when the war was over. It took another three decades before the women regained in peacetime the jobs they had in wartime. Now several dozen nations, most in the West, employ women as military combat and non-combat pilots.

Many countries, however, have cultural problems with female pilots. For example, India and Pakistan (which graduated its first female pilots four years ago) are both having a hard time keeping male pilots in uniform. Too many of the men depart for more lucrative, and less stressful, careers as commercial pilots. But in these two countries women may not be the solution. Currently, only about half of women officers stay in past their initial five year contract. Indian women, even military pilots, are under tremendous social and family pressure to marry. Those that do may still be pilots but married women are under a lot of pressure to have children. The Indian Air Force provides its female officers with ten months leave for this, six months during pregnancy and four months after delivery. The air force does this because pilots are very expensive to train. Fuel costs the same everywhere, as do spare parts. So what India may save in lower salaries is not enough. A good pilot costs over half a million dollars for training expenses and takes over five years to train. So the Indians are betting a lot of money and time on keeping their female pilots flying. Many women are willing to take up the challenge. But they have already heard from their peers in Western air force that motherhood and piloting can be a very exhausting combination.

Worldwide women are increasingly part of the military. In many nations over ten percent of military personnel are female. In the U.S. military it’s now 15 percent. A century ago it was under one percent (and most of those were nurses and other medical personnel). More women are in uniform now because there aren't enough qualified men, especially for many of the technical jobs armed forces now have to deal with.
Islamic nations have higher illiteracy rates overall and very high rates for women. These nations have a severe shortage of technically trained people. Those women that do get an education in Islamic cultures tend to be very bright and able. So there's a need and a solution close at hand. But because of those religious restrictions, and the generally very macho attitudes in Islamic nations, there will never be as many women in uniform as are needed. This means that Islamic armed forces will continue to come up short when it comes to maintaining and using military technology. The future of military operations is more technology, so you can see where this is leading. No wonder Islamic radicals want to go back to the past.

[Banditbandit]

20 mns for 1.6kms? That's bullshit, that's what it is! I do 2.4 kms in just under 14 mins and I've only started training again for a couple of months.



YES. Average walking speed for a human is about 5ks per hour ... so 20 mins for 1.6ks is only walking speed ... (5kph = 12 mins per k so 1.6 ks = 12x1.6= 19.2 minutes)

Maybe the women take 20 mins to do 1.6ks because they window shop as they go? (but seriously Glowerss .. it's a bullshit suggestion)

[AllanB]

it is a a good tactical move.

If a squad comes under heavy fire and are trapped they can just send one of the gals out topless to distract the other side giving them time to relocate and shoot the buggers.

[imdying]

Ohhhh yeah, civilian contractors!

<img src="http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/1986_Top_Gun/986TGN_Kelly_McGillis_004.jpg" />

[Swoop]

Eventually the'll expect you to do it in fatigues, a helmet, and carrying 30kg of ballast in your back pack.

Only 30?
A modern LBV with body armour you are looking at a minimum of 14kg just there.
A mate humps that, plus 8 x 30rd mags, 6 mags for the 226 + 1 on the thigh holster. Add on water, comms, frag and smoke grenades...

Get an "interesting" op and that goes up considerably.

Then you get to the backpack...


Maybe the women take 20 mins to do 1.6ks because they window shop as they go?
They are doing it in stiletto heels?

[scumdog]

it is a a good tactical move.

If a squad comes under heavy fire and are trapped they can just send one of the gals out topless to distract the other side giving them time to relocate and shoot the buggers.


Wouldn't work if the other side were not interested...

..."Hey boys..where ya white women at?"

[Banditbandit]

they are doing it in stiletto heels?

woof woof (+10)

[AllanB]

I bet you would let off a round or two over this one ......

[The Lone Rider]

Talked to my brother about this not that long ago.

We both don't give a crap if women want to die for their country. The only real thing we both felt was, as long as the bar wasn't dropped so that women could get those positions, we don't care. Couldn't think of anything less equal then, for example, making fitness & strength requirements lower for women. They should get no special treatment.


I feel the same about some other peoples in society to.

[Swoop]

woof woof (+10)
Lord Flasheart agrees wholeheartedly!
277087

[superjackal]

Going from memory, in order to score high on their PT, men have to do something like 60+ Pullups. It's like, 10 for women.


I think your memory fails you. There wouldn't be many people in the world that could do 60 pulls ups. At least, 60 in a row...

[Zedder]

Wouldn't work if the other side were not interested...

..."Hey boys..where ya white women at?"

"Behind you Homes..."

[Zedder]

American women allowed in combat roles now? Big deal, the Russians had 'em in WW1, the 1st Russian Womens' Battalion of Death it was called. I kid you not.

Incidently, the Israelis have found having women in combat had a previously unaccounted for profound psychological affect on male soldiers who "went to pieces" when they saw women wounded let alone killed.

[007XX]

Only 30?
A modern LBV with body armour you are looking at a minimum of 14kg just there.
A mate humps that, plus 8 x 30rd mags, 6 mags for the 226 + 1 on the thigh holster. Add on water, comms, frag and smoke grenades...

Get an "interesting" op and that goes up considerably.

Then you get to the backpack...


They are doing it in stiletto heels?

Thats cos you boys are shit at packing :bleh:

Seriously though, I am fully aware of the physical limitations of being a woman. However, I am greatly in doubt as to whether said limitations are judged fairly when they are determined from a male's point of view. It is not a new concept that machismo is well and truly present amongst the armed forces, and how much of the justificatives used to abstain from allowing females amongst men on the front lines were actually based on facts rather than male fragile ego is still to be determined, don't you think?

You cannot paint every female with the same brush, we're not all wallflowers panting for a new pair of Manolo Blanicks for goodness sake's. In the same light as not all men are cock proud, pig headed egotistical cretins solely led by their testosterone.




YES. Average walking speed for a human is about 5ks per hour ... so 20 mins for 1.6ks is only walking speed ... (5kph = 12 mins per k so 1.6 ks = 12x1.6= 19.2 minutes)

Maybe the women take 20 mins to do 1.6ks because they window shop as they go? (but seriously Glowerss .. it's a bullshit suggestion)

Precisely... And I fucking hate shopping.


That's just in the door. Eventually the'll expect you to do it in fatigues, a helmet, and carrying 30kg of ballast in your back pack. After having humped 25km the day prior.

And yes again, we know. But who is to say that a woman is not capable of that? Cue my reply above to Swoop. Plus, water and food requirements would be calculated on body weight's requirements, so wouldn't they be lighter for a woman? Plenty of women run marathon, triathlons, are heavy lifters, etc

Why would it be that being a woman makes you supposedly incapable to pull your own weight and then some?

That's just horseshit on a stick. I wish I had the time to hunt stats on a female's ability to sharp shoot, think better under pressure, deal with confrontation in a more rational way...

Summing it up fairly: yes, men are better at some things, but so are females. So why should our defending forces be deprived from either of those sources of awesomness. We need to use all we can to defend our countries.

[FJRider]

YES. Average walking speed for a human is about 5ks per hour ... so 20 mins for 1.6ks is only walking speed ... (5kph = 12 mins per k so 1.6 ks = 12x1.6= 19.2 minutes)

Maybe the women take 20 mins to do 1.6ks because they window shop as they go? (but seriously Glowerss .. it's a bullshit suggestion)

When I was a lad ... the average walking pace was 4 miles an hour.

Average running speed was 8 miles an hour.

The Required fitness level test (Army) required 2 miles run in 12 minutes. (my best time was 10:35)

Patrol pace (walking speed in combat conditions) was about 1 km/hr


When you join the forces ... you have to forget all you previously learned. THEY teach you again ALL they want you to know ... and how THEY want you to do it.

[007XX]

I found the original article on Reddit.com ( I loooove that place!)

Anyway, here is a link to the ensuing posts... Some very interesting insights from the interested themselves.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/177drh/with_women_now_allowed_in_combat_roles_should/

[imdying]

who is to say that a woman is not capable of that?There is no need for anyone to say that, the truth of if can be determined via testing. IMO any person that can pass the tests should be allowed to die for their country if she's stupid enough to desire that. Those tests should be the same for both men and women; they're both just faceless cannon fodder dying for whatever those in power thinks it appropriate.

[007XX]

There is no need for anyone to say that, the truth of if can be determined via testing. IMO any person that can pass the tests should be allowed to die for their country if she's stupid enough to desire that. Those tests should be the same for both men and women; they're both just faceless cannon fodder dying for whatever those in power thinks it appropriate.

It's those canon fodder that allows for you to sleep peacefully at night without a gun to your head, or to be forced to pray several times a day to Allah.

Have a little respect.

[FJRider]

It's those canon fodder that allows for you to sleep peacefully at night without a gun to your head, or to be forced to pray several times a day to Allah.

Have a little respect.

To be precise ... it is THAT cannon fodder that allows him to speak as freely as he does.

The weapons may change. But the Men and Women that use them remain the same. Human.

[imdying]

Respect? For people that kill other people? Over oil and land? Religion? Surely you jest?

Just because it's sanctioned by the law doesn't make it any less than murder. Even the powers that be recognise that; look at their ridiculous 'rules' for war. What a bunch of two faced little bitches... if it's justifiable enough to go and kill other people, then it's justifiable enough to use chemical weapons and cluster bombs.

If people want to be little pawns, they can go for it, but there is nothing there to respect.

[imdying]

To be precise ... it is THAT cannon fodder that allows him to speak as freely as he does.Ha! We wish... It's the people pulling their strings that allow that. If it ceases to be useful for us to have freedom, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll take that away when it suits.

[007XX]

To be precise ... it is THAT cannon fodder that allows him to speak as freely as he does.

The weapons may change. But the Men and Women that use them remain the same. Human.

Shush you... My engrish go to shite when i'z annoyed. So sue me.


Respect? For people that kill other people? Over oil and land? Religion? Surely you jest?

Just because it's sanctioned by the law doesn't make it any less than murder. Even the powers that be recognise that; look at their ridiculous 'rules' for war. What a bunch of two faced little bitches... if it's justifiable enough to go and kill other people, then it's justifiable enough to use chemical weapons and cluster bombs.

If people want to be little pawns, they can go for it, but there is nothing there to respect.

How about you go live somewhere like the Congo or Niger then where armed forces and powers that be are truly only after their own interest and see if you like it.

I don't deny that wars are mostly driven by greed and the political interest of the day.

But what I am saying is that the people who enlist to put their lives on the line are driven to defend their country and its inhabitants ( aka: you and I) against possible threats and THAT DESERVES RESPECT.

So I take it you don't wear a poppy on Anzac Day uh?

[Zedder]

War, or armed bullying on a mass scale to give it the proper description, is disgusting and has been for thousands of years.

TPTB are there simply because they've had the most guns, bombs or other arsehole ways of impressing their will on other less equipped people.

They're greedy for resources and power to continue their dynasties. Nothing has changed.

[imdying]

But what I am saying is that the people who enlist to put their lives on the line are driven to defend their country and its inhabitants ( aka: you and I) against possible threats and THAT DESERVES RESPECT.Yes, and what I am saying is that the fucktards that run the wars are only able to do it because they have an endless line of cannon fodder rolling up to do their bidding. I can't respect that.

If those wankers weren't running the circus, and this country truly needed defending, the populace would either defend it, or lose it. But that would be their choice.

[Banditbandit]

Yes, and what I am saying is that the fucktards that run the wars are only able to do it because they have an endless line of cannon fodder rolling up to do their bidding. I can't respect that.

If those wankers weren't running the circus, and this country truly needed defending, the populace would either defend it, or lose it. But that would be their choice.

Yeah .. way back inthe 1970s a US General came to inspect the defense capablility in Godzone .. (Irememebr this - but can't source the story any more) After a few days here a journalist asked this US General what he thought of our defense ... the general said a good army could take the country in two or three days .. but he would hate to be in charge of New Zealand after such an invasion ...

The journalist was shocked by the first part ... but asked the general what he meant by the second part ... the general said that after such an invasion, for years afterwards, behind every tree would be a New Zealander with a shotgun and two pig dogs .. and the country would be uncontrollable ...

He was right !!! I don't have any pig dogs - but I certainly have a shotgun and several rifles ... I'd bve behind many trees on many days .. and I'm sure there are plenty in this forum who would be too

[willytheekid]

Matters a great deal when it comes time to drag your wounded 150+ KG squad member away from the fighting.

I have no problem with equality in any walk of life, so long as it's actual equality. Selective equality is just sexism in favor of.

Women can and should serve in combat roles, so long as they pass the exact same requirements as men.

Currently, not so.

There was an article not too long ago about women trying to get into combat roles. Women Personal training scores are weighted HEAVILY in their favour. Going from memory, in order to score high on their PT, men have to do something like 60+ Pullups. It's like, 10 for women.

Same thing with running. Men need to do 1.6 kilometres in 11 minutes vs womens 20.

I wouldn't want to be in combat with somebody who was physically much weaker or has much less stamina then I. If your life is relying on the person next to you, you'd really want them to be as strong and fit as possible.

You wouldn't feel all that secure knowing that some people in your squad got through doing significantly less simply because they were female.

THIS!


Talked to my brother about this not that long ago.

We both don't give a crap if women want to die for their country. The only real thing we both felt was, as long as the bar wasn't dropped so that women could get those positions, we don't care. Couldn't think of anything less equal then, for example, making fitness & strength requirements lower for women. They should get no special treatment.


I feel the same about some other peoples in society to.

AND THIS!


+1 :yes:...hell yes!

And thats the problem...its is "meant" to be providing equality...not lowering the standards to ensure the majority of women can join?

If someone can pass the set standards and prove that they can be a competent soldier, equal to what is already in the feild (man or women), damn right they should have the right to serve there country :yes:
But if I was a women(shut up!:laugh:)...and they lowered the standards that apply to me...I would be PISSED!!!...Thats not providing an equal opportunity...thats pampering to a minority in an blatent effort to make the forces "Look" equal to the sexes

Besides....if a small guy can pass (And remember...most special forces guys are "little"...not big bulky guys)...then why the fuck do they seem to think women "need" the lower standards to pass? (they don't!..chicks CAN fight just as well as guys...if given the same training and standards!)

Its great to see the opportunitys being made available to women...but I do fear that lowering the standards may possibly cost the lives of the soldiers fighting next to them.

[willytheekid]

.. and I'm sure there are plenty in this forum who would be too

Ex boy scout sir (always prepared!)

...who just happens to have access to guns...LOTS of guns!!

http://rlv.zcache.com/cocked_locked_and_ready_to_rock_postcard-p239894193331869117envli_400.jpg

...You may have just walked in...but Im sure as shit, you'll be getting carried out! (this is MY fuckin island!!)

[Banditbandit]

Ex boy scout sir (always prepared!)

...who just happens to have access to guns...LOTS of guns!!



Fuck yeah !!! And some of us have had practice ... shooting up goats with an AK47, a Chinese copies and AR10s and 15s ... fuck that's fun .. and you get a lot of meat very quickly ..

(I used to know where I could get my hands on a four-barrelled rocket launcher .. )

[Delerium]

Matters a great deal when it comes time to drag your wounded 150+ KG squad member away from the fighting.

I have no problem with equality in any walk of life, so long as it's actual equality. Selective equality is just sexism in favor of.

Women can and should serve in combat roles, so long as they pass the exact same requirements as men.

Currently, not so.

There was an article not too long ago about women trying to get into combat roles. Women Personal training scores are weighted HEAVILY in their favour. Going from memory, in order to score high on their PT, men have to do something like 60+ Pullups. It's like, 10 for women.

Same thing with running. Men need to do 1.6 kilometres in 11 minutes vs womens 20.

I wouldn't want to be in combat with somebody who was physically much weaker or has much less stamina then I. If your life is relying on the person next to you, you'd really want them to be as strong and fit as possible.

You wouldn't feel all that secure knowing that some people in your squad got through doing significantly less simply because they were female.

This. When will the fitness test be the same. ALl well and goo to bleat that its about time if nothing else is equal it is a moot argument. Not to mention the psychology, a male soldier is much more likely to stop and assist a wounded female than male counter part (for western nations) stalling the assault.

[Delerium]

Respect? For people that kill other people? Over oil and land? Religion? Surely you jest?

Just because it's sanctioned by the law doesn't make it any less than murder. Even the powers that be recognise that; look at their ridiculous 'rules' for war. What a bunch of two faced little bitches... if it's justifiable enough to go and kill other people, then it's justifiable enough to use chemical weapons and cluster bombs.

If people want to be little pawns, they can go for it, but there is nothing there to respect.

Thats not quite right. Not quite right at all.

[Delerium]

Respect? For people that kill other people? Over oil and land? Religion? Surely you jest?

Just because it's sanctioned by the law doesn't make it any less than murder. Even the powers that be recognise that; look at their ridiculous 'rules' for war. What a bunch of two faced little bitches... if it's justifiable enough to go and kill other people, then it's justifiable enough to use chemical weapons and cluster bombs.

If people want to be little pawns, they can go for it, but there is nothing there to respect.

Thats not quite right.

[jasonu]

Yeah great now we will be able to see videos on Youtube showing the Taliban gangbanging captured female soldiers.

[imdying]

Thats not quite right. Not quite right at all.Which bit, that killing people is nothing more than murder? Or is it that you believe we should have levels or war? Is so, why not stop at fisticuffs? Not enough to satisfy your blood lust?

[Zedder]

Yes, and what I am saying is that the fucktards that run the wars are only able to do it because they have an endless line of cannon fodder rolling up to do their bidding. I can't respect that.

If those wankers weren't running the circus, and this country truly needed defending, the populace would either defend it, or lose it. But that would be their choice.

TPTB are probably laughing up their sleeves. Stuffed if I'd go overseas to fight "their war".

[Swoop]

Thats cos you boys are shit at packing :bleh:

Plus, water and food requirements would be calculated on body weight's requirements, so wouldn't they be lighter for a woman?
Sadly, my packing skills cannot be faulted...:laugh:

As for "bodily requirements" if the Sargeant says fill 10 waterbottles, you fill ALL of them because others may need some. Dividing up the troop's equipment equally, makes sense, especially when someone who humps the Gimpy/pig/SAW has to carry excess belts for that as well as the normal kit.


The journalist was shocked by the first part ... but asked the general what he meant by the second part ... the general said that after such an invasion, for years afterwards, behind every tree would be a New Zealander with a shotgun and two pig dogs .. and the country would be uncontrollable ...

He was right!
He most certainly was. In both respects.

[Milts]

Interesting commentary on roles excluded before this change including blocking fluent arabic speakers, with a distinguished service history including actual (but not recognised) combat experience, from intelligence roles - so it's much bigger than just ground troop roles.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/50568668#50568668

[007XX]

Sadly, my packing skills cannot be faulted...:laugh:

As for "bodily requirements" if the Sargeant says fill 10 waterbottles, you fill ALL of them because others may need some. Dividing up the troop's equipment equally, makes sense, especially when someone who humps the Gimpy/pig/SAW has to carry excess belts for that as well as the normal kit.


Fair enough.

Did you get a chance to have a look at the Reddit link I posted? It's very interesting reading the comments of *actual* in duty males and females on the topic.

We can wax lyrics about this as much as we like, but those whom this affects directly are the only ones with the right to say boo about it.

As far as I'm concerned, no easier physical tests for women. If they can hack it, then what grounds would anyone have to deny them the right to defend their country?

[Road kill]

Matters a great deal when it comes time to drag your wounded 150+ KG squad member away from the fighting.

I have no problem with equality in any walk of life, so long as it's actual equality. Selective equality is just sexism in favor of.

Women can and should serve in combat roles, so long as they pass the exact same requirements as men.

Currently, not so.

There was an article not too long ago about women trying to get into combat roles. Women Personal training scores are weighted HEAVILY in their favour. Going from memory, in order to score high on their PT, men have to do something like 60+ Pullups. It's like, 10 for women.

Same thing with running. Men need to do 1.6 kilometres in 11 minutes vs womens 20.

I wouldn't want to be in combat with somebody who was physically much weaker or has much less stamina then I. If your life is relying on the person next to you, you'd really want them to be as strong and fit as possible.

You wouldn't feel all that secure knowing that some people in your squad got through doing significantly less simply because they were female.

As long as you can out run em',,,what's really the problem ?

An that other little thing,,,,drag your own arse home fella,,,my name ain't willy.

[nodrog]

What ever happened to operation "send in the darkies"?

[Str8 Jacket]

What ever happened to operation "send in the darkies"?

they got a bit too cheeky for their own good.......

[nodrog]

they got a bit too cheeky for their own good.......

Word Holmes!

[Hans]

Yeah, not a great idea at all. It tends to do bad things to unit morale and discipline when things start to go wrong. As much as I am for equality where possible, this won't do anyone any good.

[scumdog]

What ever happened to operation "send in the darkies"?
Ah, so, you wish to volunteer?

[007XX]

Ah, so, you wish to volunteer?

He can't, he's having time out!



Bhahahaahahaha

[Zedder]

Most common reasons why people sign up to army: They feel they need to defend their country, family tradition, camaraderie, being part of history, it keeps men in touch with their masculinity, low qualifications to get in and promise of a reasonable income, some enjoy order and discipline, to overcome a fear of death, for adventure, would rather be active than talk things over.

[Delerium]

Which bit, that killing people is nothing more than murder? Or is it that you believe we should have levels or war? Is so, why not stop at fisticuffs? Not enough to satisfy your blood lust?


No your bringing out stereotypes and being an A grade tool.

Respect for killing people, dont be such a simpleton, there is a lot more to the job than that. That is a task they they May be required to do, but im pretty sure the people of chch were happy to have them there, as are those of east timor.

But carry on being a deliberately obtuse tree hugging hippy. I bet your a vegetarian too.

[Swoop]

Did you get a chance to have a look at the Reddit link I posted? It's very interesting reading the comments of *actual* in duty males and females on the topic.

We can wax lyrics about this as much as we like, but those whom this affects directly are the only ones with the right to say boo about it.
Yes. I have read that thread.
Some annoying crap Canadia Vs America that needs to be filtered out, but on the whole interesting.
Most certainly the "conscript Vs professional" issue comes up regularly and for good reason. Most nations are going down the professional pathway (including Russia!) as those who actively volunteer are more motivated to succeed, even though the washout rate in boot/basic remains high. For good reason as well...

The issue of achieving the pass rate required, regardless of any gender, race, religion, etc remains the pass requirement. The comments from the vet near the end of the thread are interesting, that it is not something he would like to see.

Gulf war2. There was the only all-female F-14 combat mission, where two ladies laid waste with bomb and bullet that other pilots genuinely take their hats' off to. Respect where due
!

As an aside, I would like to know the amount of current female UAV operators Vs male. This is an area that we will see more of in future.