English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I heard some one say that they would have to lower the standards if they let women in couldn't they keep the standards and only the women who make it get in just like the men. it just seems to make no sense

2007-08-18 21:51:11 · 21 answers · asked by bubba333 2 in Politics & Government Military

21 answers

Another example of why you shouldn't believe every thing your told. There are women in combat and have even been taken prisoner. I'm also that 9 of the eleven answers you got are not aware of it. Only iMke Wala and Animal understood your question was irrelevant. So much for YA brain power.

2007-08-18 22:02:56 · answer #1 · answered by Caretaker 7 · 0 3

Being a foot soldier (or any other type of soldier) is extremely physically demanding. I don't know of any women who could march with a 50 pound (or more) pack for hours each day. Women just don't have as much upper body strength as men, no matter what your politics are.
And if they could, the danger is that in a combat situation, other soldiers might unreasonably risk their own lives to save a female soldier, thus jeapordising the mission and the lives of the platoon.
Let gay guys in - I have no problem with that, and with their fashion sense they will really spruce up any barrack!

2007-08-19 05:10:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I believe its the fight or flight syndrome that we all have in us. women have a tendency to use the flight part in cases of danger. I'm speaking from a position of knowledge i'm a former U.S. marine combat grunt vietnam 1968-69 with two purple hearts. another reason is hygiene. I believe it would be very difficult for a female to deal with her menstrual cycle out in the field where you may not bathe for weeks at a time 57 days was my longest without bathing, other than crossing rivers and streams (then picking leeches off the lower extremities of my body.) women I believe could play a combat role as rear artillery gunners, but being a grunt in the field would not work. nor would most women want to do it.

2007-08-19 05:09:21 · answer #3 · answered by symorebutts 1 · 1 1

#1 - the fact that it would not dispel good with the american public to know that their daughters and mothers were being killed in the same manner as the men. (even though they already are) But not under direct assault as in kicking dorrs in

#2 - the psychological factor of how a men react to women under combat situations.
You feel more protective when the shooting starts over a woman. Call it what you want, but any Man with a sense of honour is going to be just that much more protective of a woman, and thats an issue that should never ever be realized.

you dont want women on the front lines.

this comes from an 11b

2007-08-19 04:56:56 · answer #4 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 1 2

Women differs in level as far as agility in concerned that's why men are primarily assigned in combat. Movements and reflexes of both sexes, with the same body weight carrying the same full battle equipments proved women can not cope up as good as men, as simple as that. But that doesn't mean you can't see women in the combat zones. A lot of women assigned as copter attack pilots, in medical service units, supply support units and others special service units in the war front.

2007-08-19 05:08:01 · answer #5 · answered by dalton 4 · 1 0

One of the top snipers that ever existed was supposedly (The Soviet Union tended to lie a lot) was a female Soviet from WWII.

Although strength might have been a factor years ago, there is a mindset of a moral factor of women dieing in combat. That's why it's normally young women that "die" in horror movies. People just don't have near the fear factor of watching guys getting cut up in the movies or when they die in real life.

2007-08-19 05:04:50 · answer #6 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0 1

They already have lower standards for the Airborne Jump School at Fort Benning. It's lame to watch. Really sad is the days when there's a mandatory 12mile road march. Sick call has all the women lined up out the door. They wimpy in a mans world like the military.

2007-08-19 06:22:47 · answer #7 · answered by Who's got my back? 5 · 1 3

There are multiple problems with women serving in combat roles, so many nations simply bar them from it. Social issues such as men assuming protective roles to a vast majority of women not being able to handle the physical aspects, as in the example of airing dirty laundry by the israeli government.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/01/israel.soldiers.ap/index.html

2007-08-19 04:58:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Because they are not up to the same physical standards as men. Compare what a male can bench press to a female.

In hand to hand combat between a male and a female, who do you think is going to win?...That's why woman aren't allowed to fight.

2007-08-19 04:54:52 · answer #9 · answered by Skaggy says: 5 · 2 0

In many different countries women serve in the Military along side the men and the defense of that country has never been compromised. Why is a problem here I don't know.

2007-08-19 05:01:41 · answer #10 · answered by liberty11235 6 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers