• When I was in karate class in 1978 it was well known that women have a body built better than a man for fighting. The balance thing.
    • Linda Joy
      The smaller strike points almost make up for the difference in actual power, but as you've learned fingers are easily broken and women would do well to learn to use their elbows, knees and feet as well. But I haven't read up on it, so I don't know if we're even talking about hand to hand combat. Back when I was in the service we were prevented by Congress from being put in combatant situations. That doesn't mean it didn't happen like that girl on the maintenance team that was captured ... that was bad!
    • Rick Myres
      I know you was just thought I would toss that in for ya.
    • Linda Joy
      Thank you, Rick!
  • That's fine. Men generally only hold the women back to protect them. If they want to be shot at like the men then they should get the best possible training at combat.
    • Linda Joy
      Do you think men's focus might be distracted during battle trying to protect the women?
    • Anoname
      Yes - but war is hell.
    • Linda Joy
      I fear for all the soldiers and their family and friends! War is hell. But the hell lasts long after the battle ends.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      Along with trying to "protect" the women, what happens, Linda, when they don't? Is there going to be push back because they didn't do more to protect the women? You know how short-lived people's memories are, right? Kinda along the lines of...we want women to be equal, but you should have done more to help because she IS a woman, kinda thinking.
    • Linda Joy
      I get it. Just like Trump, no matter what you do, you're wrong. But in this situation - at least for now - they did volunteer!
  • The Marine Corps did a study with women in combat units and found, without exception, that those units with female combatants faired worse on completing their assigned mission than those without. The military is not a place to conduct a social experiment. The whole idea behind the Marine Corps is having an effective combat unit. If it doesn't work, get rid of it. That being said, every Marine is trained for combat, but only certain ones are put into combat arms units. Semper Fidelis
    • Linda Joy
      That was my concern. I don't think it's a good idea. I'm thankful they're trained though and I agree they should be but I don't think they should be put in combat situations. Like you said it's not our most effective use of our forces. Semper Fi!
    • Hardcore Conservative
      "Every Marine a rifleman" is what we say. First and foremost, all Marines are combat Marines. The idea of the way we train is that you can take a cook, an airplane mechanic, a diesel mechanic and an admin clerk and put them in a foxhole, and they'll be able to effectivly put rounds downrange. Not effective as a fire team, mind you, but still trained warriors. Every Marine goes to combat training before their MOS school. We infantry Marines just go through MORE combat training since that is our MOS. To date, you have not had any females make it through Marine Corps IOC. And, just yesterday, the first female applicant selected to SEAL SOAS dropped out of the 3 week selection course after completing only half of the evaluations. If she had made that, she would have had 24 more weeks of BUDS before becoming a SEAL. 24 weeks of training where the wash-out rate is over 75-80%. What's all that tell you?
  • Many other countries have female combat soldiers.
  • I think it's a mistake because (I think) ***on average*** a man is much more effective in combat than a woman. Greater strength, speed, etc. (After all: that's why we still separate men and women in most athletic events.) In other words: I think that the military is better served by restricting itself to men as combatants. Possibly a better situation: one could have a set of "minimum requirements" regarding strength, height, etc., and any woman who met those requirements would have equal treatment as men who did the same. In such a case, though, we find that there are far too few women who "pass muster" to justify the "extra expense" of separate quarters, etc. (and far too many problems with shared quarters...) *** Let's face it: the ONLY reason we have women combatants in the U.S. military is because of politics...NOT because it is advantageous to the military. The U.S. military heads opposed allowing women in combat roles for years after it was first proposed...and not merely because of prejudice, but (primarily) for much more practical reasons.
  • Stupid idea. What happens when they are captured and pack raped? Would you send your daughter off to war wake up.
    • Linda Joy
      I never said I was for it. Get a clue! I also don't have a biological daughter. But if I did I wouldn't want her to do it but I wouldn't try to stop her.
  • It is the inevitable result of gender equality, but as some say "the female of the species is more deadly than the male."
  • If women are willing to accept that they will be raped if captured, then yes, the law shouldn't hold them back.😌
  • those women are not the normal women as its not bred into women to fight
    • Linda Joy
      Who are you to say what's 'normal'? And it is in Israel. " A 1999–2000 legal amendment to the 1951 Women's Equal Rights Law of Israel fully equalizes—although separately—men and women in the military.[3]" ~wiki
  • Semper Fi
  • Most countries have women in combat positions. Semper Fi.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy