Women In the Infantry

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by parusski »

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Women are going to be moved wholesale into infantry units just like the men.

I don't see this happening at all. Things would have to get really bad for that to happen. Like maybe an alien invasion or something. lol

The most I think we'll see is women as tankers, snipers, medics, chopper pilots, Artillery, Drones pilots, and frontline HQ staff and support units. The Army may come out with one experimental Amazon Battalion just to see how it would work out, but that would be about it. I think most of you are overreacting.

EisenHammer, YOU are over doing it.

The most I think we'll see is women as sappers, palm readers, cannon fodder, and dressed in body bags.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
User avatar
EisenHammer
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:21 am

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by EisenHammer »

ORIGINAL: parusski

EisenHammer, YOU are over doing it.

Never!

User avatar
EisenHammer
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:21 am

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by EisenHammer »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Women as chopper pilots.... oh well made me laugh [:)][:D]
Why that… women suck as helicopter pilots?
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42129
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Women as chopper pilots.... oh well made me laugh [:)][:D]
Why that… women suck as helicopter pilots?
warspite1

Fnaar Fnaar - he said chopper (sniggers)
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
EisenHammer
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:21 am

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by EisenHammer »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Women as chopper pilots.... oh well made me laugh [:)][:D]
Why that… women suck as helicopter pilots?
warspite1

Fnaar Fnaar - he said chopper (sniggers)

I see.. I see.. said the blind man.

But I would never had guess that motorcyclist pilots their bikes. lol
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: parusski
People like Wilson and Margret Sanger directed policy, against blacks, based upon the theories of Darwin, Freud, and Marx. We would not have had "white's only" water fountains and restaurants had it not be for the Presidential edicts of Wilson.

And don't forget Sanger was a committed person of the (D) party. A Libtard.

Don't forget that when she lived the Democratic party was violently racist, enforcers of Jim Crow in the Solid South. But don't let history get in the way of your "views."
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Women are going to be moved wholesale into infantry units just like the men.

I don't see this happening at all. Things would have to get really bad for that to happen. Like maybe an alien invasion or something. lol

The most I think we'll see is women as tankers, snipers, medics, chopper pilots, Artillery, Drones pilots, and frontline HQ staff and support units. The Army may come out with one experimental Amazon Battalion just to see how it would work out, but that would be about it. I think most of you are overreacting.

As the JCS has said they will review and propose plans for how to do this over at least a year, and more likely several, no one has any idea of how this is going to go. Especially those who are sure they know.
The Moose
pmelheck1
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Alabama

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by pmelheck1 »

As was pointed out earlier woman must be moved wholesale into combat if allowed. If they were allowed to only enter combat roles if they felt like it, it will create incredible morale issues if men must go and woman only go if they feel like it. I know some will not like this, but the military will look to fill body bag with woman to show how integrated they are so they can't be accused of keeping woman out of combat. I personally witnessed things done in the Air Force that were horrible in regards to woman in service/battle but no one dared to say a thing due to the fear of public perception of the service (perception is more important than facts). Even the topic was forbidden except to say how wonderful it was. Any comment even privately to the contrary of current political correctness in the military was a carer ender. At some point when they run out of volunteers to combat roles they will have to start assigning troops, men and woman.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: mullk

As was pointed out earlier woman must be moved wholesale into combat if allowed. If they were allowed to only enter combat roles if they felt like it, it will create incredible morale issues if men must go and woman only go if they feel like it. I know some will not like this, but the military will look to fill body bag with woman to show how integrated they are so they can't be accused of keeping woman out of combat. I personally witnessed things done in the Air Force that were horrible in regards to woman in service/battle but no one dared to say a thing due to the fear of public perception of the service (perception is more important than facts). Even the topic was forbidden except to say how wonderful it was. Any comment even privately to the contrary of current political correctness in the military was a carer ender. At some point when they run out of volunteers to combat roles they will have to start assigning troops, men and woman.

And I repeat--you have no idea how this will be done. There's no "must." All the horror talk in the world doesn't make it true. When the JCS takes the program to SecDef and shows how they want to impliment it then you can throw stones. Right now it's just a policy shift statement.
The Moose
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3998
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Don't forget that when she lived the Democratic party was violently racist, enforcers of Jim Crow in the Solid South. But don't let history get in the way of your "views."

And how exactly has anything changed. Keeping people stuck in poverty dependant on a welfare state and keeping the education system that could help them break out of the poverty cycle firmly in the hands of self serving (read arm of the democratic party) unions for the past 50 years has done nothing to help those trapped in poverty. Nothing has changed in the inner cities of the US even though they have been staunchly democrat for half a century or more. So in my view keeping a specific voter block totally dependent on you via welfare benefits to guarantee your power base is just as violently racist as they've ever been. More subtle sure, but just as racist.

It's a fact, if the inner cities were able to break the welfare cycle and get ahead in life outside the dependencies of government programs, the democratic party would cease to exist, so they have a vested interest in keeping their voter blocks stuck in poverty so they depend on government. Historical precedent shows they do nothing 'real' to help benefit the poverty stricken in America. What they actually do when in control is create more government programs that keep those same people dependant on government to guarantee voter turnouts that will re-elect them.

That's not to say the Republicans are any better. They serve the wealthiest interests in America. Political parties that actually care about the people haven't existed in America for a very long time. But as long as they can sell you a bill of goods that makes you believe your guys are the good guys and the other guys are the bad guys, things will never change. If you actually cared you'd look at your own party and criticize it, yelling at the other side will never do anything or bring about any real change. But start to hold your own guys feet to the fire will/should have dramatic effects.

A democracy can only really work for you if your vote is truly up for grabs. That's why I find it so sad that the poverty stricken have been so staunchly democrat for so long even with no real results ever happening that change things for them. Had they backed the other side now and again, I bet the democrat party would actually start to worry about making some real change/progress for their constituents. If you are not willing to switch your vote, then you have given up your only real leverage in the game. By keeping you hating the other guy, they've locked you in and basically neutered your voice.

Watch this old 20/20 show to get an idea of how bad the education system is. At around 10:00 listen to the guy running the private school in Oakland. His poor students outperform the kids from the rich hills area, so it isn't the economic class of the students that matters it's the failed education system the democrats keep pushing on the kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

Jim
User avatar
Titanwarrior89
Posts: 3282
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:07 pm
Location: arkansas
Contact:

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by Titanwarrior89 »

ORIGINAL: mullk

As was pointed out earlier woman must be moved wholesale into combat if allowed. If they were allowed to only enter combat roles if they felt like it, it will create incredible morale issues if men must go and woman only go if they feel like it. I know some will not like this, but the military will look to fill body bag with woman to show how integrated they are so they can't be accused of keeping woman out of combat. I personally witnessed things done in the Air Force that were horrible in regards to woman in service/battle but no one dared to say a thing due to the fear of public perception of the service (perception is more important than facts). Even the topic was forbidden except to say how wonderful it was. Any comment even privately to the contrary of current political correctness in the military was a carer ender. At some point when they run out of volunteers to combat roles they will have to start assigning troops, men and woman.
[&o]
"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"
User avatar
PipFromSlitherine
Posts: 1511
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:11 pm

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by PipFromSlitherine »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Don't forget that when she lived the Democratic party was violently racist, enforcers of Jim Crow in the Solid South. But don't let history get in the way of your "views."

And how exactly has anything changed. Keeping people stuck in poverty dependant on a welfare state and keeping the education system that could help them break out of the poverty cycle firmly in the hands of self serving (read arm of the democratic party) unions for the past 50 years has done nothing to help those trapped in poverty. Nothing has changed in the inner cities of the US even though they have been staunchly democrat for half a century or more. So in my view keeping a specific voter block totally dependent on you via welfare benefits to guarantee your power base is just as violently racist as they've ever been. More subtle sure, but just as racist.

It's a fact, if the inner cities were able to break the welfare cycle and get ahead in life outside the dependencies of government programs, the democratic party would cease to exist, so they have a vested interest in keeping their voter blocks stuck in poverty so they depend on government. Historical precedent shows they do nothing 'real' to help benefit the poverty stricken in America. What they actually do when in control is create more government programs that keep those same people dependant on government to guarantee voter turnouts that will re-elect them.

That's not to say the Republicans are any better. They serve the wealthiest interests in America. Political parties that actually care about the people haven't existed in America for a very long time. But as long as they can sell you a bill of goods that makes you believe your guys are the good guys and the other guys are the bad guys, things will never change. If you actually cared you'd look at your own party and criticize it, yelling at the other side will never do anything or bring about any real change. But start to hold your own guys feet to the fire will/should have dramatic effects.

A democracy can only really work for you if your vote is truly up for grabs. That's why I find it so sad that the poverty stricken have been so staunchly democrat for so long even with no real results ever happening that change things for them. Had they backed the other side now and again, I bet the democrat party would actually start to worry about making some real change/progress for their constituents. If you are not willing to switch your vote, then you have given up your only real leverage in the game. By keeping you hating the other guy, they've locked you in and basically neutered your voice.

Watch this old 20/20 show to get an idea of how bad the education system is. At around 10:00 listen to the guy running the private school in Oakland. His poor students outperform the kids from the rich hills area, so it isn't the economic class of the students that matters it's the failed education system the democrats keep pushing on the kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

Jim
Let's keep politics out of the thread please.

Cheers

Pip

follow me on Twitter here
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by parusski »

That's not to say the Republicans are any better. They serve the wealthiest interests in America.

Oh good Lord. I tire of that old argument. I have never been rich but have enough sense to be a R. WHY? Because a very rich man, who owns 611 convenience stores, hired me while I was in college. He became richer as I advanced through his company, but I had a job(it paid well)that allowed me to retire early just a few weeks ago. Don't like the rich? Go get a job from a poor or barely middle class person.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
t001001001
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:06 pm

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by t001001001 »

When I was in Chicago, I hurried and opened a door for a lady entering a convenience store. She thanked me with a dirty look and said 'My arms aren't broken'.

I was walking into the bank and some crazy chica shoved the door open and walked out. Bank windows are tinted I couldn't even see her let alone open the door for her. I walked in w/o having to touch the door. She angrily said: "you're welcome!" over her shoulder. gesh [:D] You can't win don't even try.


Women in front line fighting might have a psychological effect on the other side. Ppl don't like shooting other ppl, but nobody would shoot Mary Ann or Ginger.
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by parusski »

ORIGINAL: t001001001
When I was in Chicago, I hurried and opened a door for a lady entering a convenience store. She thanked me with a dirty look and said 'My arms aren't broken'.

I was walking into the bank and some crazy chica shoved the door open and walked out. Bank windows are tinted I couldn't even see her let alone open the door for her. I walked in w/o having to touch the door. She angrily said: "you're welcome!" over her shoulder. gesh [:D] You can't win don't even try.


Women in front line fighting might have a psychological effect on the other side. Ppl don't like shooting other ppl, but nobody would shoot Mary Ann or Ginger.

I am sure women will thank enemy troops for treating the with respect and ...uhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Then women will sue enemy male soldiers for sexism. Actually, using women might scare most enemy soldiers away, out of confusion about to act.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
GaryChildress
Posts: 6930
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by GaryChildress »

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: Sarge
ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I suppose a case could be made that a hundred years ago large numbers of blacks in front line roles in the US army might have undermined the confidence of white male soldiers who happened to adhere to the racial stereotypes of their time. I'm sure if we backpeddled a dozen decades there would be plenty of flak about allowing blacks to serve frontline status and all sorts of anecdotal evidence might be cited to reinforce this belief. I just wonder if this issue with women in combat is not another case of cultural prejudices getting in the way of the advancement of minority rights.

Sup Gary, how's everything been? ……hope all is well as it is here !

That has to be your all-time” race card” record, I dont get your correlation/metal gymnastics and i'm not so sure you even get it , but thumps up on the Triple Lindy ….[&o]


Sarge, I agree with you.
It is funny how some feel the need to throw the "race" hand grenade into a discussion of gender difference.
It also displays that Gary does not know real (true) history.
Blacks were integrated into the military after the Civil War (during for the North and almost during for the South). Up until the racist President Wilson decreed that Blacks needed to be segregated to coincide with his domestic agenda regarding blacks. Blacks were in segregated units until Patton included them in rifle platoons, as replacements, at the end of WWII.

People like Wilson and Margret Sanger directed policy, against blacks, based upon the theories of Darwin, Freud, and Marx. We would not have had "white's only" water fountains and restaurants had it not be for the Presidential edicts of Wilson.

I'm sure that Gary is intellectually stable enough to do some research that might change his viewpoints and keep him from throwing race into every discussion. Especially throwing in false information.
The earliest issues governing the black enrollment in the military was overcoming the inherent view of the regulars toward the black group. Maybe Gary can look up the reason the Black Jack Pershing was called "Black Jack"?
It was the same as when Irish and Italians joined. Especially at the time when signs like "no dogs or Irishmen allowed" and "without papers (wops) go home" were prevalent.
Wilson simply plugged his own brand of racism onto things.
Blacks fought in every War the US had from the Revolution forward. In WWI many US blacks joined French and British units to fight on the front lines. Some even were pilots (and aces). But, they were not allowed to fight in US front line units.

Americans surely are not taught this in our schools.

There are no differences between Irish, Italian, or black men in performing combat soldiering duties. There are definite differences between men and women.

RR

I don't think you've understood or even tried to understand the point I was making and I doubt trying to explain it further is going to do any good so I give up. You win. Congratulations on your scathing victory. I guess holding your hands over your ears and screaming "lalalalala" works afterall. Good job! Image
User avatar
Sarge
Posts: 2197
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 7:46 am
Location: ask doggie

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by Sarge »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I don't think you've understood or even tried to understand the point I was making and I doubt trying to explain it further is going to do any good so I give up. You win. Congratulations on your scathing victory. I guess holding your hands over your ears and screaming "lalalalala" works afterall. Good job! Image
No I understand completely, you have no idea the two issues have zero in common and are truly taken back by the ignant folk that don’t find the racism in any given “cause”
GaryChildress
Posts: 6930
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by GaryChildress »

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I don't think you've understood or even tried to understand the point I was making and I doubt trying to explain it further is going to do any good so I give up. You win. Congratulations on your scathing victory. I guess holding your hands over your ears and screaming "lalalalala" works afterall. Good job! Image
No I understand completely, you have no idea the two issues have zero in common and are truly taken back by the ignant folk that don’t find the racism in any given “cause”

Of course. Two minority groups seeking equal rights against a bunch of conservative reactionaries can't possibly have anything in common. Acknowledging any common ground would bring up the inconvenient thought of, maybe, just maybe, we're wrong...again. No. You have a good point there. I don't know what I was thinking. Insanity on my part for sure...
User avatar
MrRoadrunner
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:25 pm

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by MrRoadrunner »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Of course. Two minority groups seeking equal rights against a bunch of conservative reactionaries can't possibly have anything in common. Acknowledging any common ground would bring up the inconvenient thought of, maybe, just maybe, we're wrong...again. No. You have a good point there. I don't know what I was thinking. Insanity on my part for sure...

Regardless of your original condescending tone, I believe it is you who just does not get it.

Two minority groups seeking equal rights? That is almost farcical.

Women are different from men. Women (with the exception of black women) are different from blacks.
You bring out antiquated stereotypes and expect us to go along with you.
You throw a "flash bang" into an argument about women fighting in front line combat and expect us to say "Hey, great point. Women are only trying to be equal, just like blacks."
Do you expect everyone to just cede the issue because of that? Bleh!

Prior to and from the Civil War blacks were beginning to integrate into American society. It was not until the progressive movement, and especially the Woodrow Wilson era, that classified blacks as less than whites based upon the principles found in Darwin's theory of evolution, and wild claims in the medical community.
At that point blacks who were "finding themselves" and "stepping up" were put down by numerous executive orders and "laws" that separated blacks from whites.
Wilson and Sanger believed that blacks carried diseases and should not be integrated into society. When the Wilson/Sanger theories became institutionalized blacks who had become entrepreneurs, teachers, soldiers, and even politicians were relegated to second class status. Similar to what the immigrants who were Irish and Italians had to endure. But, it was "government sanctioned".

Having women in the military, and now in combat, has and will, further the reduction in the standards that are used to determine the combat effectiveness of an individual soldier. And, you believe that makes the men and women equal?

They have equal rights. But, is it an equal right to be in a combat unit if your standards have to be reduced for you to get there.

The floor is yours.

RR
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42129
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Women In the Infantry

Post by warspite1 »

Gents and Lady

Can I suggest that we bring this thread to a halt now?

The case for and against has been made and strongly argued by both sides, but the danger now is that - with nothing really new to add - the thread runs the risk of descending into more heated comments with all that that means.

Its good that Matrix have allowed this thread to continue - we've seen threads closed early where just the likelihood of an argument getting out of hand makes it safer to end it soon - and this discussion has been worthwhile. Hopefully we can be trusted to be allowed more thought provoking topics to discuss in future.

As far as this debate is concerned, sadly the fact is is that those of us in the "no" camp have already "lost"; women are out there now, on the frontline. Only time will tell who is right and who is wrong.

Just my 2 cents.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”