Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Female military members sue for the right to earn coveted "Combat Sammich Maker" ribbon   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, James Amos, Female military, lawsuit alleges, Leon Panetta, ground fighting, Humvees, fights, small unit  
•       •       •

9662 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2012 at 4:27 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-11-28 01:39:20 AM  
8 votes:
If they're physically and mentally able to fulfill the role, they should be allowed to serve in combat. End of story.
2012-11-28 01:14:53 AM  
8 votes:

knbber2: They want the same jobs, they should have to sign up for selective service at age 18. You want the opportunities, you have to take the possible downside as well.


Women HAVE sued to be included in the draft. And the Supreme Court turned them down. So your argument is completely and utterly invalid, just like this asinine headline.
2012-11-28 12:39:59 AM  
7 votes:
-1. Cheap, old, tired, boring, sexist half-joke.
2012-11-28 12:51:00 AM  
6 votes:
Subby, I dare you to tell one of the women filing this suit to their face that they should be making sammiches

/any one of them
//double dog dare
2012-11-28 05:04:25 AM  
5 votes:
You must really hate women, don't you subby?

Fark you. Fark the horse you rode in on, and the mare that bore it.

You're a misogynistic nothing.
2012-11-28 04:55:42 AM  
4 votes:
Other countries can have women on the front lines. Of course, other countries can some how make their male soldiers not rape anything resembling a vagina as well.
2012-11-28 04:38:03 AM  
4 votes:
Government policies that are inherently discriminatory, as the policy against women serving in direct combat roles, should be viewed with a strong bias on repealing them, unless the government can prove compelling reasons to keep the policy in place.

For instance, the government might be able to prove that having women in these combat roles is onerous from a logistical standpoint, or might be detrimental to proper order and morale, or something of the kind. But if they do so, there had better be a pile of well-researched, evidence-based support for why this discrimination should continue. If the only reason(s) are generalizations and platitudes, then the policy ought to go.

/Not military
//Would be interested in a military perspective.
2012-11-28 04:28:32 AM  
4 votes:
Women shouldn't be fighting...neither should men.
2012-11-28 02:05:34 AM  
4 votes:

fiver5: Just give the bleeders what they want. They want rifles give them farking rifles what do I care I'm too old. I'm not holding the farking door open for them anymore though. They can do it on their goddamn own if I want to interact with them, I will give them money for sex otherwise, que sera sera.


That may be the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on Fark. Congratulations!

PreMortem:

Again, NO.

Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

Like I said, simple reason.


Huh. Women having been serving and fighting and dying in various roles in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade, and yet somehow this magic army of eunuchs you speak of has not come to pass. Maybe.... and I'm just throwing this out there, you know.... Maybe your "MEN STRONG. MEN AM PROTECTOR. MEN AM LOSE MIND POWER IN FACE OF PRETTY LADY IN DANGER!" view might be a little ill-informed? Just a thought, you know.

/P.S. They also used to say that having gays in the military would cause biological problems when men ran in to save their lovers. That hasn't worked out like that. Give our troops some common damn sense.
2012-11-28 01:27:27 AM  
4 votes:
Why would anyone sue for the opportunity to kill another person?
2012-11-28 06:39:04 AM  
3 votes:

hasty ambush: Women are weak

"Britain (and the U.S. Marines) decided that lower levels of physical fitness for women soldiers was not acceptable and, since 1998, the British women have had to meet the same high standards for physical fitness as the men. Since then the army has learned the same thing the coaches of the increasingly popular women's sports program have, women are more prone to "overuse" injury. In some sports (like basketball) women have ten times the number of certain types of injuries (knees) as men. In the British army, even before the more vigorous training program for women, the percentage of male recruits lost because of "overuse injury" was 1.5 percent, versus 4.6 percent for women.


A training program which did get the women in shape also put over ten percent of the recruits out of the service because of injuries. Thus for the last few decades new exercises and training routines have been developed to improve the strength and endurance of the female troops without the higher injury rate.

The basic problem is that less muscle mass and lower bone density puts 39 percent more stress on women during vigorous physical training. Research found that some of these injuries could be greatly reduced if the physical training for women was done over a six month period, rather than the standard three month course men and women used. But the injury rates will probably always be higher because of the fundamental gender differences.


Britain was also faced with demands that women be allowed to join combat units and responded by conducting tests with volunteers to see if women could meet the physical demands of ground combat. One test required the volunteers to carry 41 kg (90 pounds) of ammunition over a measured distance. In combat this is a common chore, bringing ammo and other supplies up to front line units that cannot be reached by vehicles (because of enemy fire and/or terrain).

Eighty percent of the men were able to accomplish this chore but only 30 percent of t ...


And I say that for those woman who can pass the tests put them in the trenches.
2012-11-28 05:37:52 AM  
3 votes:
I don't mind the old sammich cliché, this is the internet after all... but subby ought to be punched in the dick for using the 'dumbass' tag.
2012-11-28 05:22:07 AM  
3 votes:

GF named my left testicle thundercles: the difference between racial segregation and gender segregation is that there are no differences between races but there are huge differences between genders


there are also a huge differences in the genders themselves.

Hint: There are 95 pound men, and 6 foot 180 pound women.
2012-11-28 05:11:20 AM  
3 votes:

GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 700x525]

Here is the problem that i see. the military exists to kill people in order to defend the country. it should be designed for absolute maximum efficiency or people die. In that calculus there is no room for equality politics. I am extremely skeptical of how well black people can do the job because of their lesser physical abilities, which i think could get people killed. My manservant is amazing in alot of ways but he is wiry and superstitious. I am almost double his weight.

Imagine that we were part of a abramns crew, our tank gets hit, and i am knocked unconscious inside the burning wreck. would a black man be able to pull me to safety or would i be burned alive?

that is what is at stake here.

i wonder how an all white unit would perform in combat against an all black unit. why not introduce segregated units as a pilot program?


And thus, the Tuskegee Airmen were assembled.
2012-11-28 05:05:45 AM  
3 votes:
i1172.photobucket.com

Here is the problem that i see. the military exists to kill people in order to defend the country. it should be designed for absolute maximum efficiency or people die. In that calculus there is no room for equality politics. I am extremely skeptical of how well women can do the job because of their lesser physical abilities, which i think could get people killed. My girlfriend is amazing in alot of ways but she is 95 pounds. I am almost double her weight. She is afraid of parking garages. i love her very much but she could not be a soldier.

Imagine that we were part of a abramns crew, our tank gets hit, and i am knocked unconscious inside the burning wreck. would a 95 pound woman be able to pull me to safety or would i be burned alive?

that is what is at stake here.

i wonder how an all female unit would perform in combat against an all male unit. why not introduce segregated units of women as a pilot program?
2012-11-28 01:01:23 AM  
3 votes:
They want the same jobs, they should have to sign up for selective service at age 18. You want the opportunities, you have to take the possible downside as well.
2012-11-28 12:35:24 AM  
3 votes:
Will they get a purple heart once a month for bleeding?
2012-11-28 09:35:59 AM  
2 votes:
Jesus farking Christ, I knew this thread would be a shiatshow when I went to bed, but I seriously didn't expect it to be this bad. A large portion of this thread should be utterly ashamed of themselves, but won't be, because they're too goddamn stupid to realize why.

Hint: it's the 21st century, men, your 19th century arguments do not work any more. Other militaries in the world have female soldiers. Look at the IDF. Effective as hell, and women serve.

Mods: this is the trolltastic mysogynist bullshiat that gives Fark a bad name. You bring it on yourself when you green light a headline like this.
2012-11-28 07:41:52 AM  
2 votes:

Gleeman: But go on farking that chicken, Freepers...


Let me know when they can perform the day to day tasks of the . Carrying heavy loads over long distances, then moving and engaging the enemy. Because as heroic as the incidents are that you list they are isolated examples and in no way illustrated the daily physical and psychological hardships of an Army Infantry or Marine Rifleman. They don't ride everywhere in vehicle or helicopter. the often struggle up and down mountainous terrain with loads in the 120lbs range while having to be on the lookout for IEDs and ambush

Few female Marines step forward for infantry

"Female Marine officers are unlikely to join the infantry anytime soon, in part because of a lack of volunteers for the Marine Corps' Infantry Officer Course, which was opened to women in September.

Only two of about 80 eligible female Marines have volunteered for the course - a grueling, three-month advanced regimen conducted at Quantico, Va., that was opened to women to research their performance.

Of the two female volunteers, one washed out on the first day, along with 26 of the107 men, and the other dropped out two weeks later for medical reasons, a Marine Corps spokesman said."


"Since May, the Marine Corps also has been testing women's endurance and strength.

Tests include lifting a 72-pound machine gun above their heads while wearing a 71-pound rucksack, marching 12 miles in less than five hours carrying a 71-pound rucksack and evacuating a mock casualty weighing about 200 pounds."


Of course we could lower standards but that is a high price to pay for "being stylish" or PC. Th enemy is unlikely to give a women more time to run across a danger area, or scale a wall with heavy equipment before they start shooting. There is no affirmative action on the battlefield.
2012-11-28 07:37:25 AM  
2 votes:
These guys agree that women don't belong in combat:
www.tuskegee.edu
Something about their mental capacity to handle it.


/oh wait, that's probably the opposite of what they think.
2012-11-28 07:17:14 AM  
2 votes:
Women in combat roles is fine, if they are held to the same physical standards as men for combat related jobs. In other words, if she wants to be SOF/SEAL or whatever, there should be equal requirements. For any other job, the current practice of men's run time is X and women's run time is Y is fine.
2012-11-28 06:49:44 AM  
2 votes:

hasty ambush: Women are weak


And you are stupid. The whole farking point is that the small percentage of women who are capable of enduring the rigours of combat should not be prevented from doing so just because they have a vagina and dickwads like you don't know how to deal with it.
2012-11-28 05:12:30 AM  
2 votes:
Even the Farkers who make sexist jokes are reading some of these comments and thinking "wow, that's really sexist".
2012-11-28 05:04:25 AM  
2 votes:
Hold everyone to same exact standards and give them all the same opportunities based on standards met.

I'll carry you should you be wounded, but I damned well want you to be physically able to carry me if I go down.
2012-11-28 04:52:51 AM  
2 votes:
By the way, not having to cut your hair off, like the men do or being required to pass the same physical requirements that the men do is gender discrimination too. It just happens to work in your favor so you aren't fussing about that.
2012-11-28 04:42:54 AM  
2 votes:

PreMortem: Rincewind53: PreMortem:

Again, NO.

Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

Like I said, simple reason.

Huh. Women having been serving and fighting and dying in various roles in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade, and yet somehow this magic army of eunuchs you speak of has not come to pass. Maybe.... and I'm just throwing this out there, you know.... Maybe your "MEN STRONG. MEN AM PROTECTOR. MEN AM LOSE MIND POWER IN FACE OF PRETTY LADY IN DANGER!" view might be a little ill-informed? Just a thought, you know.

I'd like to see the story of a woman who died "fighting". Those various roles you speak of do not include front-line infantry/combat troops. That is what these women are suing for.

Also, assuming you are a male and you have a choice of letting your wife or your daughter die, which do you choose? Through evolutionary processes this decision is a no-brainer. Unless you don't believe in evolution and that certain behavioral traits are not still embedded in our DNA. Can it be overcome? Obviously, but I'd argue that wiring is still too embedded and would cause more lives.

I think the decision to allow women in combat roles should be left up to the generals, not some civilian court. There is a reason the military has it's own set of rules and that some constitutional rights are not extended to military members.

/P.S. They also used to say that having gays in the military would cause biological problems when men ran in to save their lovers. That hasn't worked out like that. Give our troops some common damn sense.

I'm not sure who the "they" is you speak of, but I would guess the likes of Pat Robertson...and common sense, damned or not, has no place in combat.


Bullshiate to the nth degree. Men are biologically programmed to protect their women and children, not all women and children. Women are programmed exactly the same.

If women are physically capable of combat, they should not be banned from doing so just because it offends the sensibilities of halfwits like you.
2012-11-28 01:07:34 AM  
2 votes:
No.

There's a very simple reason why, obviously these females are too ignorant and self righteous to see that.
2012-11-28 12:30:31 PM  
1 vote:

Theaetetus: It's not like you're going to say "women can be in front line combat" and everyone from the Octomom to your grandmother will suddenly be at the gates of West Point.


Many conflicts would probably end quicker if we started firing fetuses at the enemy. We would especially want a high capacity magazine like that.
2012-11-28 11:11:14 AM  
1 vote:

Highroller48: Fark Me To Tears: No. I'm sorry. I think this would be far more trouble than it's worth.

/former military
//not taking this position to be mean

Then you're clueless. Many nations, including Canada and Israel, have been allowing women in combat for decades. I've served with women both in the field and at sea. Works just fine.


At what cost to be stylish:

Canadian experience in which women were recruited for the 16-week infantry training course which was identical to the men's course. Forty-five of the 48 women recruited, failed to complete the course. The male failure rate was 30%. Critics also point out that countries such as Israel and Russia, in which women have fought in emergencies, do not now place women in combat positions. -Link That is a hell fo high attrition rate the tax payers have to pay for.

Lets look at the facts:

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992)

"The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength"

"An Army study of 124 men and 186 women found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."

"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.

"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."

From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. ...Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:

"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge

"Non-deployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead's testimony before the Commission, 'the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.'"

This does not mean men and women are not equal but it does illustrate that they are different. Differences on the battelfield that can get somebody killed.

Women seem to make better pilots and I have no problem with them serving in those positions but I think that barring some genectic engineering break through or evolutionary change the Infantry is a mans world.
2012-11-28 11:02:15 AM  
1 vote:

JWideman: females that need to have someone else carry their gear, and females that straggle behind because they can't keep up.


That is some epic, and I mean EPIC, fail right there. You've obviously never served with women in combat roles. Anyone who has will know why that's about the most ludicrous statement in this entire thread.
2012-11-28 10:52:13 AM  
1 vote:

Fark Me To Tears: No. I'm sorry. I think this would be far more trouble than it's worth.

/former military
//not taking this position to be mean


Then you're clueless. Many nations, including Canada and Israel, have been allowing women in combat for decades. I've served with women both in the field and at sea. Works just fine.
2012-11-28 10:38:30 AM  
1 vote:

FilmBELOH20: Theaetetus: FilmBELOH20: You can call me a misogynist all day long. My beliefs don't stem from 19th Century ideals, they stem from biology

19th Century biology, mind you.

Yep. And in the 19th Century when women weren't able to be as hygienic as they are now, the disease rates caused premature deaths, illnesses, etc. Putting them in a true field experience for months at a time would have the same effect. Go back to my Weeners on the subject. I went 9 months without a shower or having a toilet. Do you think this would not have an adverse effect on a woman?


19th Century biology indeed. "Women are so fragile that put them in the field without showers and they'll curl up and die from disease!"

We have antibiotics now, moron. And men used to get sick just as often.
2012-11-28 10:36:15 AM  
1 vote:

FilmBELOH20: Theaetetus: FilmBELOH20: You can call me a misogynist all day long. My beliefs don't stem from 19th Century ideals, they stem from biology

19th Century biology, mind you.

Yep. And in the 19th Century when women weren't able to be as hygienic as they are now, the disease rates caused premature deaths, illnesses, etc. Putting them in a true field experience for months at a time would have the same effect. Go back to my Weeners on the subject. I went 9 months without a shower or having a toilet. Do you think this would not have an adverse effect on a woman?


I think it would have no worse an adverse effect on a woman than it had on you - they'd have the exact same hygiene and lice issues, and could use their undershirts as toilet paper, just like you.

"But wait," you cry from the depths of your ignorance. "What about menstruation?"

19th Century biology, kid. We've got medicine for that shiat now. Look up Lybrel.
2012-11-28 10:15:00 AM  
1 vote:

frepnog: plushpuppy: The sexism in this thread is disgusting, even for fark. In Canada women go into every type of the military plus full combat.
And subby any man who needs to keep a women in the kitchen doesnt know what to do with her in the bedroom.

oh seriously, just shut the fark up. those 3600 "soldiers" in the canadian royal military that are currently deployed are a drop in the bucket, and if a true world war was to start, it isn't like anyone gives a flying shiat about invading farking canada. canadian women can serve because there is no chance that the population will be decimated. there are close to 200,000 Americans deployed, and I will tell you right now - let the US get into a war, draft women along side men, let women go into combat and let the casualty rate start piling up for dead women (there are currently a little more than 200,000 American women in the military right now TOTAL. let's say the draft puts about 200,000 more in combat for instance) to the rate of, oh, say 10 or 20 thousand dead women, and those women that want so much to be placed in combat will change their minds real farking quick.

Women have no business in direct combat.


Canada has taken higher casualty rates than any other country in Afghanistan, and operated in some of the worst areas. They know a thing or two about fighting wars. Also, if you really think that opening combat roles to women is going to decimate a countries population you must be pants-on-head retarded.
2012-11-28 10:11:37 AM  
1 vote:

OregonVet: pciszek: What birth control options does the military provide for women?

Whatever their doctor prescribes.


Their doctor works for the military too, and has his/her orders. What are their doctors allowed to prescribe?
2012-11-28 10:11:08 AM  
1 vote:

FilmBELOH20: You can call me a misogynist all day long. My beliefs don't stem from 19th Century ideals, they stem from biology


19th Century biology, mind you.
2012-11-28 10:02:43 AM  
1 vote:

liam76: Rincewind53: Hint: it's the 21st century, men, your 19th century arguments do not work any more. Other militaries in the world have female soldiers. Look at the IDF. Effective as hell, and women serve.

Sorry chief but nothing changed between the 19th and 21st century that made women physically equal with men.


Combat changed. It's no longer who can swing a club the hardest or throw a spear the farthest. The winner is now the person who can remain the calmest and shoot the straightest. Oh yeah - and who presents the smallest target. Being a 7 foot tall living action figure is no advantage on a modern battle field - as Audie Murphy proved.

/Audie Murphy was 5' 5" talll, and 110lbs. He was twice declined for enlistment. In basic he actually passed out. In combat however, he killed over 240 German soldiers and 6 tanks. He won every major award the Military has - all while having the physical abilities of an average girl.
2012-11-28 09:55:32 AM  
1 vote:

JackieRabbit: Huntceet: Just an observation here no judgement. If I (male) have to pee I can unzip and pee. If a woman has to pee she has to pull her pants down. This time difference could have consequences in combat. However this argument is null if you just pee your pants in combat.

When there are bullets, bombs and missiles flying all around you, peeing is the last thing you will be thinking about, regardless of your equipment.


Plus, there are very simple things you can use, including the GoGirl. But a plastic bag and a hose work just fine. Improvise!

For you twits who keep saying women should not be allowed to get pregnant when on duty, how many of you have contacted your represntatives to have them vote to allow women who have been raped during duty to get abortions? I'm guessing exactly zero. The Hyde Amendment, among other rules, bans women from abortions at military facilities. This is why women who become pregnant HAVE to leave or get leave (particularly in warzones) to have the baby or fly home to get an abortion, and they're generally not going to broadcast they are going home for an abortion. The military doesn't tend to just let you leave and come back, especially if the guy who impregnated you is in your chain of command.

But hey, keep pretending it's just black and white. When women aren't in charge of their bodies or medical care, shut the fark up. Give them control, THEN hold them accountable.
2012-11-28 09:53:21 AM  
1 vote:

OregonVet: Private_Citizen: What about their benefits after leaving the service? Are they treated the same, or does the service pretend combat they engaged in didn't happen because officially women can't be in combat roles?

They get the same credit as everyone else. It's not like they pin an Expeditionary Medal on a man, skip the female, and pin another on the next man. Same goes for VA benefits and all.


Ahh, in reading through their suit, they point out that women are barred from more than 200,000 different roles in the military. Being banned from those roles diminishes their chances for advancement all because the old fashioned rules pretend women are not suited for combat. Ironically, women are already engaging in combat, since in todays world there is no front line - it's all a combat zone.

I agree with the women in this suit - open it up and allow the best person to get the job.
2012-11-28 09:45:33 AM  
1 vote:
Sort of related question: What birth control options does the military provide for women? It would be utterly sensible to provide every female service member with an IUD at army expense, but I wouldn't be surprised if the moral crusaders in congress wouldn't allow it.
2012-11-28 09:45:00 AM  
1 vote:

PreMortem: knbber2: Rincewind53: So your argument is completely and utterly invalid

Absolutely wrong, that was in 1981 when NO combat arms jobs were open to women. That decision was based on not needing women for COMBAT, because they were not eligible. Many combat arms jobs are now open to females, including being a fighter pilot, a helicopter door gunner...etc. They now want all combat arms positions open, so they are now eligible to be drafted for combat. New times, time to readdress that decision.

vossiewulf: If they're physically and mentally able to fulfill the role, they should be allowed to serve in combat. End of story.

Again, NO.

Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

Like I said, simple reason.


Sounds like you are talking about a very poorly trained force. That's why we train: to overcome instinct and get the job done. If someone cannot see a female as just another set of boots on the ground, they are not mentally competent enough to be there in the first place.
2012-11-28 09:26:59 AM  
1 vote:
I apologize if someone has already brought this up, but I thought this was a case where many women, in fact, already participate in combat. They might not have that title, but when their convoy is attacked, they shoot back (and occasionally get shot).

However, when it comes to pay, they get screwed because they don't get official credit for combat (read combat pay).

Am I way off?
2012-11-28 09:23:35 AM  
1 vote:

Huntceet: Just an observation here no judgement. If I (male) have to pee I can unzip and pee. If a woman has to pee she has to pull her pants down. This time difference could have consequences in combat. However this argument is null if you just pee your pants in combat.


When there are bullets, bombs and missiles flying all around you, peeing is the last thing you will be thinking about, regardless of your equipment.
2012-11-28 09:08:45 AM  
1 vote:
The sexism in this thread is disgusting, even for fark. In Canada women go into every type of the military plus full combat.
And subby any man who needs to keep a women in the kitchen doesnt know what to do with her in the bedroom.
2012-11-28 09:07:49 AM  
1 vote:

PreMortem: Again, NO.

Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females.


[Citation Needed]

No, seriously. Show me a medical or scientific report that men will specifically go crazy to save a woman in combat over what they would do for a male soldier.
2012-11-28 09:04:14 AM  
1 vote:

Ivandrago: liam76: Misconduc: Link

yeah women can't serve in combat, just ask these Russian women.

Unless one of them served in infantry where they were required to carry hundereds pounds of gear for tens of miles day after day for months at a time, then your link isn't relevent.

Also, the Germans aren't exactly on our doorstep threatening to rape and murder errybody. I don't believe my wife could handle combat, but if the Germans were crossing the Ohio River I have doubt in my mind she'd grab a rifle.


My point is simple - if a woman wants to join combat, she better qualify like everyone else, no special treatment - same rules apply to gays and anyone else. Whether its Green Berets or the combat spatchula - no different.
2012-11-28 09:01:07 AM  
1 vote:
why has no one stated the real reason that the military doesn't want women in combat dying beside men?


MEN DO NOT REPRODUCE.

put enough women in combat situations, or heaven forbid allow them to be drafted for war, and you will eventually end up with a decimated population.

Women have zero business on the frontlines in combat situations. I am all for women serving in the military, and all for women's rights, but there are some rights that just aren't worth it. Sending thousands of women into combat to be politically correct is just goddamned stupid.
2012-11-28 08:56:00 AM  
1 vote:

HotWingAgenda: GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 700x525]

Here is the problem that i see. the military exists to kill people in order to defend the country. it should be designed for absolute maximum efficiency or people die. In that calculus there is no room for equality politics. I am extremely skeptical of how well black people can do the job because of their lesser physical abilities, which i think could get people killed. My manservant is amazing in alot of ways but he is wiry and superstitious. I am almost double his weight.

Imagine that we were part of a abramns crew, our tank gets hit, and i am knocked unconscious inside the burning wreck. would a black man be able to pull me to safety or would i be burned alive?

that is what is at stake here.

i wonder how an all white unit would perform in combat against an all black unit. why not introduce segregated units as a pilot program?

And thus, the Tuskegee Airmen were assembled.


1.bp.blogspot.com
2012-11-28 08:28:35 AM  
1 vote:

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: knbber2: They want the same jobs, they should have to sign up for selective service at age 18. You want the opportunities, you have to take the possible downside as well.

I would also argue they need to be on mandatory birth control while assigned to combat roles.


I can see your viewpoint. It makes sense, but consider that their male counterparts will go home on leave and knock up their civilian wives. The males get to reproduce, but the females do not. Males have a longer fertile period versus the females' comparatively shorter window of opportunity to have a child. That also is unfair. There is no way to make differences in reproductive capability fair in a combat zone.
2012-11-28 08:19:07 AM  
1 vote:

MmmmBacon: Let the ladies have a gun and point them towards the enemy, I'm all for it. Why? I have seen women fight, they're good at it, and we need all the capable soldiers and sailors we can get our hands on right now.


I've heard this line of thinking before from male veterans/military personnel. And I'm still ambiguous about allowing women to formally, openly be assigned to combat duty. My hesitation is related to draft registry. You see, I don't think young men should be required to register for the draft. I am opposed to the draft registry. I don't think anyone should be asked register. I think we need turn away from being a society continually at war.
2012-11-28 08:14:31 AM  
1 vote:

OregonVet: Ivandrago: if they can pass the same PT test and EIB road march standards as men at a minimum

If they want equality then give them equal treatment. Then it'll just sort of work itself out and you won't find women in those roles anyway. There, I said it.


That's fine. If the women who try for combat roles are not capable of the physical burden, then they don't get the job. That is no reason for banning them from trying in the first place. Are you getting it now?
2012-11-28 08:11:12 AM  
1 vote:

crab66: untaken_name: I fully support combat duty for any woman who wants it. In fact, I fully support replacing all men in combat with women. Who doesn't like watching chicks fight? Let's make it happen!

We are not talking about jello wrestling slap fights here.


I think the world would be a much happier place if all wars were fought by women in jello wrestling matches.

/that's right... rub her hair with jello... now her back...
//aaawwwwwwww yeah....
2012-11-28 08:00:54 AM  
1 vote:
I have exactly three anecdotes why women should serve/should not serve in combat roles.

Therefore I am right.
2012-11-28 07:45:14 AM  
1 vote:

liam76: Boot camp doesn't get you in combat shape.


"combat shape"? well, it gets your body into shape, and trains you to do combaty things. It's where they yell at everyone and see if they can deal with stress properly, and where they physically train you on a daily basis. It's not advanced training in a particular field, no. but it without a doubt gets a persons body into shape.

liam76: they are going to have a higher rate of injury


evidence? I believe the Marines all go through the same training in BC. Don't think they have a major issue with it.
2012-11-28 07:42:22 AM  
1 vote:
I've served in combat with women- classifying Military Police as combat support is a misnomer -and I met as many women dumbasses as men. Unfortunately that makes the ratio notsogood. For the women. Hell my team leader left our grenades under her bunk when we went on a battlefield circulation and control mission because they scared her. One female cried on the shotgun qualification course and was handled with kid gloves and got out of completing it. And don't get me started on the drama. Especially lesbian drama. Sheesh.
2012-11-28 07:35:32 AM  
1 vote:
old but funny

3.bp.blogspot.com

/and if you come back, bring a sammich
2012-11-28 07:15:36 AM  
1 vote:
Just do it. Segregate the sexes untli the menfolk can learn not to lose their shiat when the chick next to them takes a bullet between the eyes.
2012-11-28 07:09:22 AM  
1 vote:
In 2005, Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester, vehicle commander, 617th Military Police Company, Kentucky National Guard, became the first woman to receive the Silver Star award for close quarters combat. Ambushed by insurgents, Hester led her team through the kill zone into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades. She and her squad leader, Staff Sergeant Timothy F. Nein, then assaulted and cleared two trenches. She also killed at least three enemy combatants with her rifle. When the battle was over, 27 insurgents were dead, six were wounded, and one captured. In part, her citation reads that her actions "saved the lives of numerous convoy members."

In March 2008, Silver Star recipient, Army Specialist Monica Lin Brown, received the Silver Star for combat in Afghanistan. Brown's heroism was evident while providing aid under heavy gunfire to soldiers whose Humvee had been hit by an improvised explosive device (IED) during a convoy. A medic, and only 18 at the time, Brown left the safety of her Humvee to give aid to Specialists Stanson Smith and Larry Spray, who both had suffered life-threatening injuries. With the help of her platoon sergeant, Staff Sergeant Jose Santos, and three other less wounded soldiers from the vehicle, Brown eventually was able to move Smith and Spray away from the burning vehicle. When rounds of ammunition from the truck began exploding, Brown sheltered the injured with her body.

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Lori Hill is the first military woman to be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism. In March 2006, Hill and another helicopter were flying convoy security for two Bradley vehicles on patrol in a small village. They learned of an attack at a nearby command center involving both U.S. and Iraqi forces, so they responded to provide air support. On the way they ran into a concentrated attack with rocket propelled grenades and machine gun fire. They laid down suppressing fire but the two aircraft continued on. When they arrived at the command center, they were greeted with machine gun fire, so they broke away and headed back in, shooting at the tracer fire. Drawing the fire away from the lead helo, Hill established communications with the ground troops, and provided suppressive fire for troops engaged with the enemy on the ground until they reached safety. On the third pass, a rocket-propelled grenade hit her, damaging the helo's instrumentation. As she was banking away, the helo took machine gun fire which hit Hill in the foot. The aircraft was losing transmission power, as well as hydraulics, which prevented the copter from hovering, a crucial maneuver for landing. So, with a damaged aircraft and injury, she made an emergency landing at a nearby forward operating base, saving her crew and aircraft.


But go on farking that chicken, Freepers...
2012-11-28 06:51:32 AM  
1 vote:
Lyudmiol Pavlichenko would like to have a word with some of the people in this thread.
2012-11-28 06:40:32 AM  
1 vote:
www.thesmokingjacket.com


www.thesmokingjacket.com


fc03.deviantart.net
2012-11-28 06:35:59 AM  
1 vote:
Women are weak

"Britain (and the U.S. Marines) decided that lower levels of physical fitness for women soldiers was not acceptable and, since 1998, the British women have had to meet the same high standards for physical fitness as the men. Since then the army has learned the same thing the coaches of the increasingly popular women's sports program have, women are more prone to "overuse" injury. In some sports (like basketball) women have ten times the number of certain types of injuries (knees) as men. In the British army, even before the more vigorous training program for women, the percentage of male recruits lost because of "overuse injury" was 1.5 percent, versus 4.6 percent for women.


A training program which did get the women in shape also put over ten percent of the recruits out of the service because of injuries. Thus for the last few decades new exercises and training routines have been developed to improve the strength and endurance of the female troops without the higher injury rate.

The basic problem is that less muscle mass and lower bone density puts 39 percent more stress on women during vigorous physical training. Research found that some of these injuries could be greatly reduced if the physical training for women was done over a six month period, rather than the standard three month course men and women used. But the injury rates will probably always be higher because of the fundamental gender differences.


Britain was also faced with demands that women be allowed to join combat units and responded by conducting tests with volunteers to see if women could meet the physical demands of ground combat. One test required the volunteers to carry 41 kg (90 pounds) of ammunition over a measured distance. In combat this is a common chore, bringing ammo and other supplies up to front line units that cannot be reached by vehicles (because of enemy fire and/or terrain).

Eighty percent of the men were able to accomplish this chore but only 30 percent of the women. Another test involved making a 20-kilometer march, followed by a live firing exercise (to simulate the combat that would often follow such a march). Everyone carried 27.3 kg (60 pounds) of weapons and equipment. For the men, 83 percent were successful, for the women, only 52 percent were. "
2012-11-28 06:28:11 AM  
1 vote:
Simple,

All women infantry/combat MOS platoons, led by women. PT standards are the same as men.

Eliminates the distractors. As the Marines why they segregate women in boot camp.

Try commanding a unit of mixed genders and see the problems you have. Commanding a combat unit (such as combat engineers or artillery) with no women is far easier than commanding a battalion/regiment headquarters company (HHC) with mixed genders. I did not envy the HHC commander's job.
2012-11-28 06:17:12 AM  
1 vote:

knbber2: They want the same jobs, they should have to sign up for selective service at age 18. You want the opportunities, you have to take the possible downside as well.


I would also argue they need to be on mandatory birth control while assigned to combat roles.
2012-11-28 06:16:55 AM  
1 vote:

Frank N Stein: I don't see a problem with this as long as they pass the same PT standards as men. None of that 30% markdown bullshiat currently used in the military for women.


This.
2012-11-28 06:16:46 AM  
1 vote:

The more things change......

www.v-r-a.org
"Ya don't git combat pay 'cause ya don't fight."

2012-11-28 05:36:43 AM  
1 vote:
I don't see a problem with this as long as they pass the same PT standards as men. None of that 30% markdown bullshiat currently used in the military for women.
2012-11-28 05:21:27 AM  
1 vote:

GF named my left testicle thundercles: there are no differences between races


Then how do we know there are different races?
2012-11-28 05:07:58 AM  
1 vote:

GF named my left testicle thundercles: it should be designed for absolute maximum efficiency or people die.


Know how I know you were never in the military?
2012-11-28 04:51:51 AM  
1 vote:

Fluorescent Testicle: Wow, even for the main tab, this thread got brain-damagingly retarded fast.


If it were in Politics, it would have been faster.
2012-11-28 04:51:38 AM  
1 vote:

Fluorescent Testicle: Wow, even for the main tab, this thread got brain-damagingly retarded fast.


thatescalatedquickly.png
2012-11-28 04:50:54 AM  
1 vote:
"The military is the last place where you are allowed to be discriminated against because of you gender," she said.


No it isn't. There's gender discrimination all over the place. Most of the time it happens to work in women's favor, but it's still gender discrimination.
2012-11-28 04:43:10 AM  
1 vote:
Wow, even for the main tab, this thread got brain-damagingly retarded fast.
2012-11-28 03:02:47 AM  
1 vote:
Let the ladies have a gun and point them towards the enemy, I'm all for it. Why? I have seen women fight, they're good at it, and we need all the capable soldiers and sailors we can get our hands on right now.
2012-11-28 01:42:46 AM  
1 vote:

violentsalvation: Eh, whatever. I don't care anymore. I used to care, but if you want to go experience combat then you go right ahead. History has shown that you can do it and you're just as capable.

I'm old enough and with enough health problems that I likely won't ever get called up to do anything, we're volunteer now. So I won't have to fret over the incoming mortars the enemy decides to shoot out of your captured, tortured vagina.


fiver5: Just give the bleeders what they want. They want rifles give them farking rifles what do I care I'm too old. I'm not holding the farking door open for them anymore though. They can do it on their goddamn own if I want to interact with them, I will give them money for sex otherwise, que sera sera.


Uhh, I ... *backs out of thread, holds own door*
2012-11-28 01:34:26 AM  
1 vote:
Just give the bleeders what they want. They want rifles give them farking rifles what do I care I'm too old. I'm not holding the farking door open for them anymore though. They can do it on their goddamn own if I want to interact with them, I will give them money for sex otherwise, que sera sera.
2012-11-28 01:28:21 AM  
1 vote:
Eh, whatever. I don't care anymore. I used to care, but if you want to go experience combat then you go right ahead. History has shown that you can do it and you're just as capable.

I'm old enough and with enough health problems that I likely won't ever get called up to do anything, we're volunteer now. So I won't have to fret over the incoming mortars the enemy decides to shoot out of your captured, tortured vagina.
2012-11-28 01:27:03 AM  
1 vote:

Rincewind53: So your argument is completely and utterly invalid


Absolutely wrong, that was in 1981 when NO combat arms jobs were open to women. That decision was based on not needing women for COMBAT, because they were not eligible. Many combat arms jobs are now open to females, including being a fighter pilot, a helicopter door gunner...etc. They now want all combat arms positions open, so they are now eligible to be drafted for combat. New times, time to readdress that decision.
2012-11-28 01:25:14 AM  
1 vote:
I'll paraphrase Chris Rock here by saying, women wanna fight? let 'em fight, 'cause I ain't fightin'.
2012-11-28 01:19:47 AM  
1 vote:
No. I'm sorry. I think this would be far more trouble than it's worth.

/former military
//not taking this position to be mean
 
Displayed 79 of 79 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report