Page 1 of 11
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1
    Deleted

    US women soldiers suing the pentagon

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ombat-ban.html

    Four US servicewomen, including two who won Purple Hearts in Afghanistan, have sued the Pentagon over its policy barring women from ground combat. Backed by rights watchdog the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), they slammed the policy as an "injustice to the women ... who continue to put their lives on the line for their country."

    In practice women have served in combat roles for years, they said - but US military policy still bans them, resulting in a "brass ceiling" in which women cannot be promoted because of lack of recognised combat experience.


    Personally I am all for it, but I believe they should be held to the exact standards that the males are held accountable to. If any woman wants to serve under me as an Infantry soldier, I want her just as fit and strong as anyone else in the unit, which means that they should do the exact same training and tests.

    It does make me laugh that they are suing the pentagon because their promotions are slower, this wont exactly help them

    What do you guys think, good or bad idea?

  2. #2
    Merely a Setback Reeve's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    28,800
    My stance is pretty much the same as yours, RICH. If they can pass the same tests that the men are expected to take in order to be infantry, they're welcome to it. You don't need a penis to be tough or to pull a trigger.
    'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
    Or a yawing hole in a battered head
    And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
    And there they lay I damn me eyes
    All lookouts clapped on Paradise
    All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

  3. #3
    My stance is the same as well. As long as we're holding everyone to the same standards, I see no particular reason to have gender-based rules.

  4. #4
    Deleted
    One thing to note, both female volunteers failed the USMC infantry school.

    http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...course-101512/

  5. #5
    Dreadlord the0o's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Zangarmarsh
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    My stance is pretty much the same as yours, RICH. If they can pass the same tests that the men are expected to take in order to be infantry, they're welcome to it. You don't need a penis to be tough or to pull a trigger.
    PT standards are difference for the sexes.
    In the marine corps, it causes issues because women are expected to PT daily with the men and keep up if not lead the groups (A marine pt session is no joke. A 4 mile run, with 45 of cardio and strength building), however it is easier for them to get outstanding scores on the PFT test (which leads to promotions) because they are held at a lower standard.

    see :

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marin...lfitfemale.htm

    vs

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm


    Its a stupid double standard that needs to be changed.

    "Humility defeats pride, Master Yang has preached. Pride defeats man"


  6. #6
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,971
    "You're being shot at, but you're not really in combat because this map says you're in a non-combat zone"

    The Canadian forces have had women in combat roles for 23 years and I haven't heard of any insurmountable issues with that occurring.

    Time for the USA to get with the times.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    "You're being shot at, but you're not really in combat because this map says you're in a non-combat zone"

    The Canadian forces have had women in combat roles for 23 years and I haven't heard of any insurmountable issues with that occurring.

    Time for the USA to get with the times.
    lol, you make me laugh.

  8. #8
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    "You're being shot at, but you're not really in combat because this map says you're in a non-combat zone"

    The Canadian forces have had women in combat roles for 23 years and I haven't heard of any insurmountable issues with that occurring.

    Time for the USA to get with the times.
    Yes, and women in the Canadian forces require much lower fitness requirements. This means she is a burden to the rest of her unit.

    http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-no...ng.asp?id=2848

    The female requirements are almost half that required by the males, this is combat, no excuse for weakness. I want people that can carry heavy mortars, machine guns, ammunition and supplies long distances in the desert sun. If a woman can do that, awesome, she is welcome to join me, let the fitness requirements be equal though.

  9. #9
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    21,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    My stance is pretty much the same as yours, RICH. If they can pass the same tests that the men are expected to take in order to be infantry, they're welcome to it. You don't need a penis to be tough or to pull a trigger.
    Hell, imagine a female infantry on her period... I would not want to be her enemies O.o

    (It's a joke people, don't take this seriously and laugh)

  10. #10
    I agree about the standards. If they want to fight like a man they need to train like a man. I served on active duty Army for just over 8 years. I always thought it was stupid that on pushups and the 2 mile run the MAX for women (100 points) was barely better than the minimum that men needed to do just to pass the PT test. I used to regularly go into the extended scale on my PT test (I was usually around 330 - 340) and then the female next to me gets a better score while doing 35 less pushups and running 2 minutes slower on the run. I have no issue with women fighting in combat with men, but they better be able to pull their own weight, and the weight of the guys next to them when one of them gets shot.

  11. #11
    Any soldier who can meet the most rigorous physical standards (regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, or whatever else) should be able to serve on the front lines. Any soldier who can't meet those standards but can meet a lesser version (like those currently reserved for women) should be able to serve in all the ways women are currently allowed to serve. The only physical characteristic that matters should be, "Can you do the job?" I think it's foolish to bar perfectly able women from the front lines because they lack a penis, but it's suicide to let them in there if they can't perform to the level required.

  12. #12
    I think the Pentagon should respond by saying to them, "It wasn't discrimination, you aren't qualified for that."

    But really, I think if they can pass the same tests and training as men, no reason not to let them fight the same. I'd rather be a helicopter pilot than a ground troop, though, so dunno why she's so mad.
    MY X/Y POKEMON FRIEND CODE: 1418-7279-9541 In Game Name: Michael__

  13. #13
    I'm sorry but women AREN'T equal to men when it comes to this. Unless women are held to the exact same standards as men that will be expected to fight on the front line, they shouldn't be allowed to. Sure there are women capable of carrying their weight and dragging a wounded man or woman to safety, but I would wager there are plenty that can't.

    Lives shouldn't be put at risk just so some politician can tell his constituents that more and more women are serving in the military.

  14. #14
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Symphonic View Post
    I think the Pentagon should respond by saying to them, "It wasn't discrimination, you aren't qualified for that."

    But really, I think if they can pass the same tests and training as men, no reason not to let them fight the same. I'd rather be a helicopter pilot than a ground troop, though, so dunno why she's so mad.
    She is mad because she is a troublemaker. She is leaving active duty this year and the other 3 are reservists. None of them ever need to go to war unless they volunteer for it, the issues they are bringing up no longer affect them.

  15. #15
    Honestly when you look at how promotions work in the Marines and Army especially ground combat and long tours in hostile areas is key to promotion. Women not serving are graded on a different scale and normally passed over unless they have major connections.

    There was a officer who shall not be named who I knew who admitted she fucked her way to the top because of the way the system was stacked against her.

  16. #16
    Just make sure they got combat tested bras!

    The Swedish armed forces have been hit by a major equipment problem, according to reports. Flimsy military brassieres are unable to stand up to the strains imposed when female Swedish troops perform "rigorous exercises", routinely bursting open or even catching fire - so forcing busty young conscripts to hurriedly strip off in the field.

    Council spokesperson Paulina Rehbinder told The Local that government-issue military brassieres supplied to young female soldiers have long been unfit for combat.

    The Post apparently brought the related bosom-combustion issue to light, noting that bras can catch fire during combat and then "melt onto conscripts’ skin".

    “Our opinion is that the Swedish Armed Forces should have ordered good, flame-proof underwear,” Rehbinder said.

    “There should be suitable apparel for women.”

    Rehbinder reportedly added that the problems have persisted for twenty years, with generations of young Swedish womens' tophamper routinely breaking free of confinement to oscillate wildly during army PT sessions and field exercises - presumably often followed by impromptu stripteases as the more jubtabulously fortunate female troops sought to re-fasten their flimsy government lingerie.

    The problems would apparently be easy to sort out. Unaccountably, however, it appears that the male-dominated Swedish military hierarchy has failed to act.

    Rehbinder reportedly - though perhaps mistakenly - believes that change is on the horizon. She told The Local that 2,000 new young female recruits are to enter the Swedish forces next year, and that top brass had been informed of this recently.

    "That got them moving,” she said. ®
    rofl
    Last edited by Jackmoves; 2012-11-28 at 04:22 PM.
    The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...

  17. #17
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackmoves View Post
    Just make sure they got combat tested bras!



    rofl
    The funny part is that no one ever wears issue underwear outside of training, people complain that they need X gear then wear/use their own anyway.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH1471 View Post
    The funny part is that no one ever wears issue underwear outside of training, people complain that they need X gear then wear/use their own anyway.
    I don't know how it is in the UK forces, but the IDF issued undergarments (for both men and women) are awful. Socks included.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    My stance is pretty much the same as yours, RICH. If they can pass the same tests that the men are expected to take in order to be infantry, they're welcome to it. You don't need a penis to be tough or to pull a trigger.
    what if one of the tests was to lift a weight that would be physically impossible for a woman, despite her being a great shot and being able to fill countless other roles just as well as a man? does that mean tough shit? or do you not see unfairness in something like that?

  20. #20
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Liara View Post
    I don't know how it is in the UK forces, but the IDF issued undergarments (for both men and women) are awful. Socks included.
    I actually like our issue socks, but then again I like anything that is free, same applies to the towels. The underpants are awful, fit for dusting cloths and cleaning rags. The boots are crap as well, I was near crippled by shin splints using current issue boots, almost got me kicked out for medical reasons.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 04:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by chocobo606 View Post
    what if one of the tests was to lift a weight that would be physically impossible for a woman, despite her being a great shot and being able to fill countless other roles just as well as a man? does that mean tough shit? or do you not see unfairness in something like that?
    She may be the best shot in the world, but can she keep up with the rest of her section long enough to take that shot?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •