they obviously have a double standard. They don't think women have the guts to do any real combat. Women will fall over backwards and cry if they had to go to the front lines. They're always looking for excuses to avoid combat duty.
2007-10-04 07:47:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
One of the main reasons that women cannot be in a combat position is that without a shower at least every 5 days women can get some very serious infections in the reproductive area. Combat positions in the Military are often out on mission or in the field for extended periods of time and have no access to showers and therefore are at serious risk. Another reason is when they are menstruating there is no telling when they will be able to change the product that they use and have time to bury it.
2007-10-03 23:51:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by drillsgtwife 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
It's not a rule. It's Federal law. And only the Congress can change that. I worked with and for women in the Navy Medical Department for many years of my career. I was also fortunate enough to meet and talk with six former nurses who had been prisoners of war in World War Two after they were captured by the Japanese at the Naval Hospital at Sangley Point in the Philippines.
With one sole exception, all of those women were professional and dedicated to their service and the nation. The six former nurses were among the bravest people I ever met.
2007-10-03 23:31:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
My humble opinion...
The military is shooting itself in the foot denying a people from trying for combat positions just because of their plumbing.
It has been said that women can't handle the same work load as a guy because of their lack of upper-body strength.
There are a lot of guys that can't do om jobs because of their lack of strength. Yet they're allowed to try and fail. On the othehand I know some women who are stronger than most guys.r
It has been said that they're not able to handle the stress. Yet police women are able to resolve situations that would make a guy resort to force.
Of course not all women can hack it. But, as I've said, not all men can hack it either... and the guys are given the opportunity to try... only because of their gender.
The military has given women lesser physical requirements than guys. Perhaps this was to give women a chance to get into the military. But if a woman can bench press 250 pounds, can run a mile in 6 minutes, can do 200 push-ups, can swim a mile in under 30 minutes, and can carry a 160-pound guy on her back over an obstacle course, she's in better shape than most of the guys on the line.
Can't happen? In the US we have women smoke jumpers. They do the same work as guy. They face the same dangers, carry the same packs, handle the same equipment. And some of them excel... because they're given the opportunity.
It has been said that there's the chance of a woman getting pregnant. That is a foolish argument. It implies that women dont' get pregnant in non-combatant roles. Besides, if a girl's in that good of a physical condition, she's not going to let that happen. She can defend herslef.
It's been said that women don't have the stomach for battle. When the search for Hussein began to drag on... some woman soldier suggested that they drop a couple dozen women with PMS in Iraq. They'd have the dude in a week... and no man would dare get in their way. That was meant as humor, but women can handle just as much blood and gore as guys... and I have no doubt that they could dish it out.
I'm not saying put them on the line as a token representative of their gender. I'm saying an equal chance to fail or to succeed.
2007-10-03 23:36:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by gugliamo00 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
I am a U.S. Army vet and a women. Women are needen in the military like it or not. Women are needed in Iraq. There are some things women are needed for that men just are not aloud to do. Take the MP. A male solider can not search a women for any reason. Therefore a female is needed. Also a female that serves as an MP is pretty much on the front lines. Plus for some reason females can really handle there M16s.
2007-10-04 00:58:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by This Sucks 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
First, women in the military is fine, IF, your willing to screw them. Don't get me wrong, not all women nor men are horn dogs, but I've been in units with both, and it wasn't 3 days in the field, women were hooking up with the men and screwing each other in latrines, outside tents, behind buildings. The worse thing is, both parties are married. Real good marriage there isn't it?
Second, take a female, slap them into my old Active duty unit, and throw them to the wolves with us on a 90 day field exercise, and tell me if they would go that long without shagging, second, how would they handle the "monthly" flow 3 times on an average, third, how well would they take the "NO FOOD & WATER" for 7 day stretches, &/or the fourth, 30 mile marches with 150lb rucks, and some stupid ambush, E&E exercise, or a LP/OP set up for days on end??? I know plenty of men who couldn't do it, so REALLY, how many women could??
Third, as mentioned, how many women would want to put themselves in harms way, get captured, and have the mentallity to survive the brutallity of other soldiers, ie. raped over and over. Remember, only the US plays by the Geneva convention. Most other countries don't give a damn, so the women need to consider this???
Lastly, women do have thier place, and I'm all for it, but, when they feel they need to start being in the combat MOS's, real problems arise. Fraternization, sexual encounters that shouldn't be going on, the living conditions. Remember, a hard core combat MOS doesn't stop for squat, and can a woman/women handle this? I say no, as it would end up interfering with the male soldiers mental states, and slow down said combat units, as things that don't need to be done, now do, as a female is in the mix.
Keep them in the hospital units, the S&S units, and where ever the most likely won't see much combat. It's better for moral and unit cohesion this way.
JMO....I've been on both sides of the coin, Infantry and Hospital units, with n without females. Put it this way, infantry was way better, as to much bs gets by in the units with females, and they are lax in thier duties, and let lots of things slide, needless to say, I ended my service career as I was tired of the lazyness in the mixed units...
2007-10-03 23:38:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by xxxVIPERxxx 1
·
1⤊
3⤋
3 tours as a Marine showed me the wisdom of NOT letting women into combat. Bad enough we men have to suffer deprivations and the absolute nasty side of war, sure don't want my daughter to see that.
Besides, captured women military personnel stand a huge chance of being raped. Can't say that about the guys...unless other countries have a "don't ask, don't tell" lunatic policy.
Women have their roles in the military, but combat isn't one of them.
2007-10-03 22:59:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by commanderbuck383 5
·
6⤊
1⤋
I do think women should be in the military, ( and thank you to all the women who do serve.) but I personally would stop and make myself vulnerable to enemy fire faster if I had seen a women get hit than if i had seen a man get hit. Seeing a woman with her guts blown out would bother me more than a man. get my point? But I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the Infantry. Hell, some of the women i know would do better there than I would!
2007-10-03 23:15:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by Tim 3
·
5⤊
2⤋
Women are more emotional than men and I think we would have a hard time killing somebody. That moment's hesitation could really get people hurt. I believe that women are definitely needed in the military, but it is a good idea to keep them off the front lines.
2007-10-03 22:53:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
2⤋
It is harder for a man to watch a woman die than another man. Leave that work for the men, there are plenty of other oppurtunities for women in the military.
2007-10-03 22:59:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by RedWhite&Blue 4
·
4⤊
1⤋