The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > General Posts

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-10-2010, 07:44 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Question Congressional panel: It’s time to let women serve in combat

Congressional panel: It’s time to let women serve in combat

Share5
posted at 10:08 pm on December 10, 2010 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly



If you thought the endless arm-wrestling over DADT was fun, wait until feminists have this on their plate. The Navy already opened up submarines to women sailors earlier this year, but Army and Marine infantry have yet to follow suit.

Here’s your chance to sound off, vets. An idea whose time has come, or no go?
The Defense Department should eliminate restrictions on women serving in combat units and end all “gender restrictive policies,” according to a blue-ribbon panel created by Congress…

Many of the longstanding reasons for keeping women out of combat units do not hold up under scrutiny, the commission’s research found.

A five-page analysis prepared for the commission concluded that women do not lack the physical ability to perform combat roles; gender integration will not negatively affect unit cohesion; and women are not more likely than men to develop mental health problems.

However, keeping women out of combat units and combat-related job fields can reduce their career opportunities, particularly in the officer corps and in the Army and Marine Corps, according to the commission’s research.
The “risk rule” barring women from dangerous tasks was rescinded by the DOD ages ago, but to this day direct combat remains male-only. The obvious benefit to lifting the ban: More recruits available to fight, which should mean shorter tours of duty for combat troops generally. The obvious (non-physiological) concerns: “Fraternizing” at outposts when things get dull, worries about rape if women troops are taken prisoner, cultural concerns about how occupied populations might respond to female soldiers, and this one from Wikipedia’s nifty summary of objections to women on the front lines:
In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression

Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers “are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it’s is not as easy to program men to neglect women.”
I was going to suggest that myself as a concern before reading it at Wiki. Feminists will bristle at it because it denies women an opportunity for essentially paternalistic reasons, but if we’re talking about a truly instinctive behavior, then there’s not much to be done. The question, then: Is it insurmountably instinctive? The whole point of military training is to steel the mind so that it doesn’t succumb to instinct under stress. If troops can be trained to stand their ground under lethal fire and (in other nations’ militaries, at least) to serve side by side with gay soldiers, why can’t they be trained to treat women combat troops the same as men? We’re pushing at the limits of mental discipline here, potentially. Is this a bridge too far?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/1...rve-in-combat/
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 12-11-2010, 07:22 AM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Incrementalism will possibly resolve this, before and despite whether it should be, in favor of those who have been picking the scab over the decades - they've had a lot of success being "oppressed minorities".

Thousands of women are in combat situations already, and doing just fine.

Foxhole/bunker combat arms, however? I'd probably be against that unless the unit was all-female. But then, what the hell do I know... have gotten accustomed to being ignored by Congress.

Without any questioning of their valor or skills, there are way too many probabilities that their presence under that unique kind of duress could easily result in some "civil rights" privacy claim and "harassment" nonsense that I do not believe the DoD wants to expose itself to. Unlike submarines and fighter pilots there are NO separate but equal facilities out there!

I sure as hell would not allow it if it were my choice to make. All-female units, then quite possibly yes. Of course, they would never permit that because it would be regarded as being treated "unequal", mission be damned.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-11-2010, 01:58 PM
reconeil's Avatar
reconeil reconeil is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avenel, New Jersey
Posts: 5,967
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

What are the Pregnancy Rates & Needed Time Off for such Women Enlistees of either Navy or Air Force compared to Army or Marines,...whether in combat outfits or just combat supportive units? Any big differences should prove quite interesting.

While at it during an assault on some tough position in future,...will order given of: "Ladies First" by some rejected commander (male or female) be considered too-damn-sexually harrassing?

Just curious?

Neil
__________________
My Salute & "GarryOwen" to all TRUE Patriots.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-11-2010, 09:35 PM
1CAVCCO15MED's Avatar
1CAVCCO15MED 1CAVCCO15MED is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,857
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

I got a better idea, it's time Congressmen's children served in combat.
__________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-12-2010, 08:47 AM
reconeil's Avatar
reconeil reconeil is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avenel, New Jersey
Posts: 5,967
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default 1cav...,

BEAUTIFUL suggestion!!!

The only other thing that even comes close to such a rare display of EQUALITY between our Lords (Ladies also) & Masters of: "We The (Schnook$, Sucker$, Peasants or whatever)", would be if all Congressional Children (parents also) got same Medical Coverage as rest of us. Same retirements as those TOTALLY PAYING FOR THEIRS (re: The U.S. Taxapayer),...ALSO

Amazingly!!!,...the average American Taxpayer aren't even slightly perturbed being THE SOLE PAYERS for The Very Best Medical Coverage ON EARTH for all Ruling Elite (Local/State/Federal) Political Rulers & their families,...WHILST most don't have near the same medical coverage for selves & children, nor such grandeose retirements.

Many of such FORCED (actually dictated) paying for: "Cadillac Plans" for America's Ruling Elite & Families (plus bailing out UAW & such) can't even afford near such wonderful coverages for selves, family & children. Some such FORCED being Generous Taxpayers can't even afford ANY Medical for selves & children.

Some Taxpayer make too much to receive MEDICAID & not enough to buy any such: "Cadillac Coverage".

Damn! Old P.T. Barnum was right. "There's a sucker born every minute" has been longtime proved over & over in America, & most certainly was proved this last 2008 Election. Improve &: "CHANGE" the very best nation on earth to: "Third World Status"??? GET REAL!!!

Americans must just love being perpetually BS'd & Screwed-Over by "Their" Ruling Elite BETTERS?

Wonder if typically cowered by authority, robotic and/or Politically-Correct types were just as timidly accepting of & as obedient to a quite obvious lordly rule,...way-back-when in old Feudal Times?

Neil
__________________
My Salute & "GarryOwen" to all TRUE Patriots.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-12-2010, 01:05 PM
eriksale eriksale is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 137
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Ah I think the panel is a little late on this!
See my post Iraqi Freedom.
Stacy L. Pearsall, Combat Photographer
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-12-2010, 02:48 PM
reconeil's Avatar
reconeil reconeil is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avenel, New Jersey
Posts: 5,967
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default eriksale,

What: "Panel" are a little late on what: "Post"?

Neil
__________________
My Salute & "GarryOwen" to all TRUE Patriots.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-12-2010, 06:48 PM
eriksale eriksale is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 137
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

I was replying to this thread about "congressional panel" To let women serve in combat. I was just stating they are a little late as my friend Stacy already has her Bronze Star and purple heart from being in "combat" several years ago.

I guess congress just want's to make it official?

I posted part of her story in "Iraqi Freedom" thread under "Stacy L. Pearsall, Combat Photographer"

In several situations Stacy had to drop her camera and pick up her gun!

Dave
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-12-2010, 07:42 PM
reconeil's Avatar
reconeil reconeil is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avenel, New Jersey
Posts: 5,967
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default Dave,...

Thanks for again telling about: "Stacy L. Pearsall, Combat Photographer". Missed that one.

"Panel" bit was just my normal B-Bustin worthlessness of Congressional Panels in general.
It's my nature. Can't help being normally Bipartisan Disgusted with such Pompous Warlords.

Amateurs at war simultaneously micro-managing both military & societal-engineering.........
is more than just Audaciously Arrogant & Lordly. It's downright Progressively Obscene.

Neil
__________________
My Salute & "GarryOwen" to all TRUE Patriots.

Last edited by reconeil; 12-13-2010 at 09:52 AM. Reason: add
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-13-2010, 06:57 AM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

So many women are already finding themselves in combat conditions, and as far as I know ALL are trained in basic to some degree in combat arms.

But, women in small combat platoons or squads, in the field indefinitely... that, to me, is a 100% different animal, regardless. Picture it... 5 or 10 grunts and 1 female. I have no doubt that 99.9% of the time those guys will control themselves, but there is a lot more to it than just whether or not the young lady is capable of accurate fire and eating MRE for six weeks.

Yes, it does have to do with her gender. Women have spent the past century demanding special consideration because of their gender requirements while at the same time demanding to be treated without discrimination, and now somebody proposes to create a situation which, frankly, many males still find absolutely unacceptable - as one guy put it recently, "I still find the thought of seeing a woman's guts blown out offensive."

Those units will accommodate if required to do so, however... I'm thinking this deal is maybe more like females not playing in the NFL.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US investigative panel meets for 5th time on spill - The Associated Press The Patriot Coast Guard 0 10-04-2010 01:27 PM
US investigative panel meets for 5th time on spill - The Associated Press The Patriot Coast Guard 0 10-04-2010 08:27 AM
Panel Discusses Women's Roles, New Policies in Military The Patriot Navy 0 09-26-2010 12:27 PM
Congressional panel to examine Pentagon job cuts - Washington Post The Patriot General 0 08-12-2010 02:28 PM
Congressional panel to analyze VA hospital mishaps David Veterans Concerns 0 05-30-2009 08:21 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.