http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14869648 was listening to a talk raido this morning and the topic came up wanted to se what your opinions on the subject were. the debate is Pro women in combat squads. IE front lines or Agianst women in the front line right now as stated above the law prevents women from being on the front lines My views on it are it should stay as is. there is a reason the law is there. BUT the argument is woman cant really become high ranking officers because they cant lead combat troops
I am all for women on the front lines- a woman can shoot a rifle as well as a man; a woman can catch a bullet just as easily too. If they want to sign up and fight I see no reason to stop them. Besides- there's nothing more satisfying than a terrorist surrendering to a woman.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! These women have been in North Koreas military for decades now so I really do not see why American women , who choose to join, aren't allowed the same benifits a men.
Never served in a combat unit have you. Nope. You don't know what you're talking about. That is not an argument, that is propaganda and disinformation, not to mention and outrageous blatant lie. Despite the claims of insane people, men and women are not equal. They are physically different, physiologically different, biologically different and mentally/emotionally different. Because of those differences, men are superior to women with respect to combat and many other facets of life, such as athletic competition. Women do not compete with men in the Olympics, precisely because men are superior and would win all the medals all the time. In the US Army, the above average female cannot pass the male physical training test. However, on occasion there have been females who exhibited exceptional strength, speed and agility and were capable of passing the male physical fitness test. Those women are the exception, and not the rule, and they are rare and few and far between. Perhaps one out of every 500 to 1,000 women. For those few women who are exceptional and can meet the standard, perhaps the could be allowed in combat units on a trial basis. During a training evaluation, I was once asked to lead a platoon on a mission to secure a downed helicopter. None of the 4 women in the platoon made it; they all dropped out. Carrying 80 pounds (or more) through the woods at a fast rate was more than they could handle, and it is certain that none of them could have climbed up to the top of the hill (they all dropped out in the first 2 hours and didn't even make it to the hill). For one of the women, the rain and humidity was a real problem, because she was chubby (and that's being nice) and rubbed the inside of her thighs raw to the point they were bleeding. But there is a certain disconnect here. I'm talking about female enlisted soldiers, while most are talking about female officers and the primary issue is female officers in combat and very little consideration is given for female enlisted soldiers in this issue. The rank issue at the officer level affects both men and women, not just women. As an officer in the Medical Corps, Intelligence Corps, Transportation, Quartermaster, and other branches which are classified as non-combat units, it is highly unlikely that you will ever reach the rank of Brigadier General and it doesn't matter if you are male or female. If you are an officer in one of the two combat support branches, like the Military Police Corps or the Engineer Corps, you have a better than average chance of making Brigadier General but very little chance of becoming a Major General. The primary issue is career-path and your career-path is affected by the number and type of units that exist in your officer branch. The reason Military Police and Engineer officers have a greater chance of making Brigadier General is because those units are organized as brigades at higher levels. The more MP and Engineer brigades that exist, the greater your chance of being promoted from Colonel to Brigadier General. Officers in the five combat arms branches, Infantry, Armor, Cavalry, Artillery and Air Defense have the best opportunities to rise above Brigadier General because they are a greater number of units, and they are organized at levels above brigade. There are Infantry and Armor divisions, but there's no such thing as a Field Artillery division, or an ADA division, and like wise there are no Engineer, Medical, Intelligence or Transportation divisions. The US does maintain one Cavalry division for the express purpose of having a career path that will allow a Cavalry officer to rise from troop commander (Captain) to squadron executive officer (Major) to squadron commander (Lieutenant Colonel) to regiment commander (Colonel or Brigadier General) and then to division commander (but only of the 1st Cavalry Division) as Major General, but then your career is basically over. There's an outside chance you could get a third star and go ride a desk at the Pentagon for a while. As an ADA officer, you're limited to two stars. For Field Artillery, you can get a third star. As a Colonel in Field Artillery, you'd command a brigade in Corps Artillery, then when you got your first star, you command the division artillery brigade. Your second star would land you at the Field Artillery School, in a project office, at the Pentagon, or on the staff of one of the artillery corps. When you got your third star, you'd command 5th Corps, III Corps or the 18th Airborne Corps artillery, or go to the Pentagon. Some army reserve artillery corps have active-duty artillery offices commanding them. I would point out that female officers do serve in both of those combat branches and have been serving in them for 20 years So female officers can rise to Lieutenant General, even though there is only a handful of artillery corps and Pentagon staff jobs available. If you want that fourth star to be a General, well, that is very difficult. Four-star generals are almost exclusively Infantry and Armor officers. There are only a handful of Generals in the US Army. Obviously the Army Chief of Staff is a General. The other command positions that require a General are FORSCOM (US Forces), CENTCOM (Central Asia), EUCOM (Europe), AFRICOM (Africa) and a few other commands. So what is the real issue here? Women can't become Generals? Sure they can. The MACOM (Material Command) commander is a female four-star general. The MACOM commander is usually a Transportation or Quartermaster officer. Career-path is important in all careers, not just military careers, and the Army recognizes the need to allow at least some, or one officer to rise to the rank of General and provides an outlet for that through MACOM. So the argument that female officers "can't really become high ranking officers" is nonsense, because females can, do and have become high-ranking officers. Female officers have the same options through career-paths that their male counter-parts do in non-combat and combat support units, and the same opportunities that their male counter-parts do in the combat arms branches of Air Defense and Field Artillery. While females are barred from Infantry, Armor and Cavalry, it does not prevent females from being promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General or General. I would also point out that as an officer, you don't get to choose your branch. They Army decides that for you. You might want to be in the Infantry, but if the Army decides you're going to be in the Engineer Corps or the Quartermaster Corps, then that's where you're going.
the problem isnt that that cant shot or get shot like men the problem is if they are taken prisoner the will be raped which is the issue i think
LOL! Not only are they not wearing the North Korean military uniform they aren't even KoreanPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Dude you've got some other army's chicks. The headscarf should have given you a clue. Since when are North Koreans muslim! Here is a picture of women in the North Korean military: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...5th-anniversary-of-Workers-Party.html?image=9
If they can meet all the requirements for being on the front line, then I don't see why not :shrug:. It should be based on ability not based on generalized stereotypes.
Duh, if you can pass the necessary tests, you should be able to join. Gender shouldn't even be an issue. What exactly is the functional difference there between a male who can easily carry 80lbs and a female who can easily carry 80lbs? There isn't one... And yes women may be raped but male prisoners get sexually abused or raped too and worse, why would you draw a difference there??
But the thing I posted that picture for was that other nations, including NK already have women on the front lines. Sorry about mis representing who those women were but my intentions were good at least.
I know, I know. I just thought it was funny to watch all those north koreans wearing a hajib. It was quite funny really
Never seen a woman on the rag, have you? Nope. I largely ignored the rest of your post because all you're trying to do is reinforce stereotypes on women and suggest there is a glass celing when there shouldn't be one. Sorry pal- you made the wrong call on this one.
She must have put that weight on recently then; otherwise she would have discovered lots of diaper rash ointment controls that problem fairly well. Note that fat guys can have thigh-chafing problems also, but women are designed to put on fat easier; that much I'll admit freely. Testosterone promotes muscle mass and metabolism. Female bodies are convinced we might have to lactate or something. That's where I'm at too, but being female, I don't like to be told I'm a second-class anything. Not that I could have ever gone in the military-my asthma's way too over the top for it.
I hear ya, sister. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My father was in the military and he always encouraged me to push myself. I don't know if it's psychological or because I inherited his super human like strength, but I've never really felt physically outclassed by men around my size. Women like myself shouldn't automatically be barred from a position just because of their gender. If they have no problem keeping up with the "big boys" then more power to them. If they can't keep up then they should be barred based on that and that alone, the same goes for men.
I agree, there was a debate recently in Australia about women in combat and the argument was that the public weren't ready to see women killed I'm combat. My opinion is who cares, men, women they are just proffessional killers and they know they could getting killed when they chose to sign up. Also if the thought of women getting killed makes the pollies pause before sending troops to kill then that's not a bad thing either
There should be one PT standard. Regardless of gender, you should have to meet it to be in combat. Obviously, females with a typically lower muscle mass than the typical male will see fewer members of their gender in combat, but nonetheless, if you meet the standard you should be allowed to fight. ~String
