wants2laugh wrote:my objections are not based on physical stregnth tho... it is the interaction of the sexes and how that can both physically and mentally affect the troops. Want women in infantry, fine.. then make the whole unit full of women--they do it in israel.
I'm not completely opposed to this idea, I just don't know that it is really necessary.
wants2laugh wrote:BUT ... putting the sexes together in those situations--- while distant from their families is going to result in pregnancy, relationships between the soldiers---think about this.. your gf is about 100 ft from you and gets shot. Then you have the immediate response to go to her, rather than thinking rationally and waiting until it is safe. Now I have to fire and protect and cover you while you run to her. This now puts me, you, and HER at risk because one less weapon is firing on the enemy. This puts others and the unit at risk. Then add in the possiblity that both MOMMY and DADDY can get deployed at the same time--- both could be going to battlefields. The military would have to come up with procedures to prevent this from happening.
First of all, this is a red herring argument. I agree that having your girlfriend with you on the battlefield is a terrible idea. But we aren't talking about girlfriends or boyfriends fighting together. We're talking about platonic members of a unit (wingmen and battle buddies) fighting together. It is a false assumption to assume that just because you have women in the same fighting unit as men that they are going to be romantically or sexually involved with each other. There are rules in the military against fraternization and inappropriate relationships. We're not allowed to engage in personal relationships with people in our chain of command. That should by all rights extend to members within a combat unit. That should be considered an unprofessional relationship (one that would result in disciplinary action). "Mommy" and "Daddy" would NEVER be serving in the same combat unit under any circumstances. Therefore, we already have procedures in place to prevent this type of incident from occurring.
wants2laugh wrote:I know some have said, "well if she chose that MOS, then that is her decision." its not like it is truly easy to change MOS right away... so what if she has a new kid, then wants to change MOS and is denied? OR what if the women go to war, can't handle it, and purposely get pregnant to get sent home?
You're talking about hypothetical situations that would most likely be isolated incidents. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be women who took advantage of "being a woman" to get out of combat, but I do think that this is a knee jerk reaction. The bottom line is, we already have women serving in combat. They are not assigned to combat units (because that is illegal), but they are embedded or attached to combat units now, and nobody asks these kinds of questions about them. So what's the difference? If a woman get's pregnant, then she goes on maternity leave and another soldier, sailor, airman or marine takes her place. This happens in every other specialty, so why should a combat job be any different?
I'm in the Air Force and I work aircraft maintenance. We have women in our organization. Sometimes we have to go on deployments and sometimes women get pregnant and have to be replaced. It comes with the territory of having an integrated force. It's hardly a phenomenon that is unique to combat units. IF/WHEN it is determined that a woman is getting pregnant just to get out of a deployment, it is usually handled swiftly and decisively. But the only alternative would be to disallow women from serving, and that would not be in the best interests of the military as a whole.
wants2laugh wrote:I'm just so against it for so many reasons. I think it is bad for morale.
I think we have to wait and see how combat units fair with women serving alongside men before we can make this determination. I mean, you can "think" it's bad for morale all day long, but unless you've actually served in a combat unit or surveyed the majority of individuals in a combat unit who have actually served with women in the field, nobody is really qualified to answer this question right now. This is essentially the same argument people have been making against gays from openly serving in the military. And it's the same argument that people have used way back in the day against black people from serving in all white units. "It's bad for morale". I'm so sick of this default, paranoid assumption. How do we know that it's bad for morale unless we actually allow them the opportunity to serve in the first place? We shouldn't just assume that this will automatically be the case. At the very least we should try it, and if we see evidence that it is not working, we can end it. But paranoia is never an excuse for discrimination.
wants2laugh wrote:Women have to make up their minds... last year we argued about breast feeding in uniforms. So what is next, they want to pump in the field and ship the bottles back home? smh
I'm pretty sure I agreed that the whole breast feeding in uniform idea was ridiculous. But again, the vast majority of woman on the battlefield are not going to be a breast feeding mothers.
Home
» NEW ADDRESS: http://conversationchamber.ipbhost.com/
» New project
» st pattys day
» White smoke signals cardinals have selected a new pope
» Red?
» Do You Look Like a Celebrity?
» Canned Foods
» English Muffins or Toast?