Titanwarrior89
Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003 From: arkansas Status: offline
|
Ronda, I do agree with you on your second point. Yes they shoud be, if they all meet the same standards. That includes males, they must meet the standards to. quote:
ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn quote:
ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89 Sorry rhonda, alot of women on fire and police departments are not holding their on. Thats the truth of it. I have to disagree with you there. quote:
ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn I guess I should put my two cents in here. First, I think you are all wrong in your approach to women's physical fitness for combat. While it is true that if you took an "average" female vs an "average" male the male is going to be stronger, but if you take your female subject from the top 10% of all women (height, weight, physical conditioning) I suspect that they would be comparable or superior to your average male. Obviously, tiny, petite women aren't going to be seeking combat, but their are plenty of well conditioned, physically fit women who may want that opportunity for equality in the armed forces. One of my 8th grade female students has gone on to become Brigade commander of the Pinon High School JROTC, leads the brigade's "Ranger" Battalion in physical skills (and they do the extended road marches and extra physical conditioning), and is a state finalist in Cross Country. She wants to make the Army her career and wants to be in a combat unit. And I'll tell you, I wouldn't want to be in her sights on a battlefield... she's one tough Navajo warrior. So, yea, she could have that chance if she wants it. Second, the arguments you guys are putting out there are the same ones that were used to oppose female police officers, fire fighters, heavy machine equipment operators and so forth. I thought we were past this sexism of defending "men only" careers. Third, I agree with the logistics problems of having men and women serving in a really close living environment like a combat platoon or squad, but I don't see any problem with having all female units. In fact, I suspect that women would make better scout and reconnaissance units and definitely great sniper teams. We're naturally "sneakier"... haven't you guys had your wife sneak up and surprise you? LOL I might add that after my service overseas in SE Asia, I came back in 1972 to the US for my final year of service in the army to become an intelligence briefer for a 10th Special Forces "A" team (I was Military Intelligence). Although in a non-combat support role, I was required to get out there every morning and do the conditioning drills and several miles of running. Now, admittedly, most of the 10th were slavic exiles (it was targeted on East Europe in the event of World War III) and a bit older than the "Rambo" image you might have had of green berets back in 1972. They surprised me actually... highly trained in stuff like Nuclear demolition... HALO... all kinds of specialties... but most of them weren't what I expected physically. Anyway, I was quite concerned that first morning, but soon found I was having no problem keeping up with those guys as I heard the huffing and puffing going on around me. Just a bit of memorabilia I'm throwing in here. Women should have the opportunity to serve in any position in the US Military if they can do the job... period. Logistical problems can be handled, they aren't a dis-qualifier... only a poor excuse. Women should also be drafted if we ever re-establish the draft. Actually, I think everyone (no exceptions) should have to serve their country in some fashion for a year or two after high school... military or some civilian service. I think our country would be the better for it. That may be so (I have no recollection of seeing any documentation of how women are failing as police officers or fire(wo)men though). However a lot of them must be working successfully or we would be seeing a lot of demand to remove them. However, my point is not that any woman can serve in a combat role any more than an "any woman" can be a fighter pilot. I'm just arguing that there are women out there who can hold their own and should be given that opportunity. I'm with you if you are arguing that standards must be kept up and no woman (or man) should be placed into a job that they are not capable of fulfilling. I was 6'2" and 158 pounds when I was in the army and I had no desire to be given an M-16 and sent into the jungle to fight! Still, I think I could have held my own if USARV HQ had been attacked, at least as well as all the other paper pushers in that big building on the hill at Bien Hoa! I had an M-16 and a bandoleer of filled magazines in my quarters. Me and the other four women in our tiny little MI unit (we all had specialized college degrees and education that were useful). Did some interesting stuff, too bad I can't talk about a lot of it. My time with the 10th SF was really full of top secret clearance stuff, mostly about nuclear demolitions and planned sabotage in an un-named Warsaw Pact country. It was too bad that when I got out of the Army it was the wrong time to get into the CIA or DIA (which I tried to do) since in 1972 they were cutting not hiring. I often wonder how my life would have been so different if I had become a CIA spook LOL Probably better the way things worked out, no regrets. Anyway, I'm just saying women should have their equal chance at any job that they can do and I think we can do a lot more than you guys give us credit for. :)
_____________________________
"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours". "Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"
|