<font color=cccccc>I've been told it's time to move on and let the young pups run. Ok, I concur. I've been told my mentality is 'old school'. Again, I concur. I've been told my size could be a hindrance (6' 245lbs). Ok, if a bunch of 'girly men' had to sling load me, I suppose. NOW, I've been told: </font>


Army Wants Women On Front Lines
The Herald
October 24, 2004

The U.S. Army is trying to overturn a ban on using women soldiers in forward support units in war zones to ease its growing manpower crisis in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While females still would be barred from combat formations likely to experience direct contact with an enemy, planners want to deploy them alongside fighting brigades as drivers and logisticians to free up scarce male forces.

A shortage of trained American infantry in Iraq prompted the request for the Black Watch to be sent north to Iskandariya to free up American marines for the assault on Falluja.

Although women serve as jet, transport, and helicopter pilots, they are excluded from ground combat. There are about 200,000 females in the U.S. Army - about 17% of its total strength.

About 8% of the 102,000 soldiers in the British Army are female, a proportion which has grown since roles available to them were expanded in 1998. Women represent 9.5% of officers and 6.8% of other ranks.

UK servicewomen are also excluded from direct combat and submarine service. British governments have resisted changing the policy because they feared the political impact of large-scale female casualties.

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday: "The policy introduced in the U.S. in 1994 which prevented the deployment of women soldiers close to the front line no longer has a basis in reality. There are no clearly-defined front lines any more.

"A high proportion of the 250 or so supply convoys which criss- cross Iraq's roads every day come under attack. Many of the vehicles have females in their crews. Bases supposedly behind the lines also come under regular mortar and rocket attack.

He added: "It makes no sense to have to use male soldiers for tasks which could be done easily by their female counterparts when we are short of troops trained to close with and destroy the enemy."

The U.S. Army's high command hopes to be able to persuade Congress to lift restrictions in time for the deployment of the 3rd Infantry Division to Iraq next year.

<font color=cccccc>At this time, I am NOT PREPARED for this!
Thoughts?????????????</font>

If females fulfill the prescribed physical and mental requirements for front-line duty then what's the problem? Does aggressive female behaviour intimidate you? ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I agree if the women in question can pass the EXACT same tests and qualifications as there male counterparts then there should be no reason why they can not be active in the same zones as there male counterparts.

[ 10-28-2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: T-D-C ]

That said, the "tests and qualifications" should not be stupid or male-biased. Navy example: doing 125 pushups has all of nothing to do with anything, combat or otherwise.

It does mean that the only girls who can do 125 look like men, and often talk like them & take the same protein supplements as them.

That said, the "tests and qualifications" should not be stupid or male-biased. Navy example: doing 125 pushups has all of nothing to do with anything, combat or otherwise.

It does mean that the only girls who can do 125 look like men, and often talk like them & take the same protein supplements as them. </font>[/QUOTE]But if the job or assignment requires alot of strength and stamina then those pushups for example are requires to show that you have that strength and stamina.

If the Army wants wormen to take a front line role then they have to take the exact same tests that they put the guys through. If they take anything less then they are putting not only the women in danger but also the rest of the army unit who depend on that soldier.

Example. Your mate gets shot in the leg. You try to pull him out of the combat zone.
1) All those pushups and strength exercises and made it easy to get your mate up on your shoulder and carry him out.
2) The qualifications and tests were changed. A women ( or a guy) can't get that wounded soldier out of the combat Zone becase they are not strong enough.

It could happen.

Cheers!

That is the problem. Even though the female fulfilled the prescribed physical and mental requirements it is the males alongside them who must overcome their own mental hurdles of being in combat situations with women.

True, but that is the male's problem, not the female's.

(Non military POV)

Part of it depends on how prevalent Felix's POV is. Without doing the research, I bet it's not that rare. If that's the case, it would be disadvantageous to a unit if some guys don't think the women are capable or should be there at all. This may change over time of course; just think about how many more options women have now vs 100 years ago. Then again it's still unequal in most fields (in terms of pay and advancement potential).

Now, I'm 1 inch shorter and 105 pounds lighter than Felix, and it'd take a whole lot of adrenaline for me to get him off the ground. I bet I could with the benefit of military training though. We just have to make sure mental gender biases don't get in the way of an objective assessment of what a soldier is actually capable of.

I'm pretty sure that a percentage of those military women are combat capable, but for biological reasons they've got to want it more than their male counterparts. And it looks like they're going to have to prove it to them.

Equality is equality. If women want the perks of joining the work fore (equal pay), then they can accept the downsides as well.

I do note that studies indicate women are better equipped to deal with pain than men are. I don't know that my personal experience backs this up, but statistics are statistics.

Remember that little thing called childbirth? Yeah.