The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-24-2013, 02:09 PM   #51
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,492

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Too late ....... they have already lowered the bar
Looks like someone is happy to see you, Pony.

DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 02:14 PM   #52
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,995
Default

I've not served in the military so I may be full of ****.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Sexual dimorphism, for one thing.
The number of women with suitable ability for combat may be quite small, but it's not zero.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
For another, there is a lot of hard-wiring in our behavior as a species that is gender based and tied to mating. You inject an entire new level of complication into the combat theater by having women fighting beside men.
Isn't that precisely the martial love that's supposed to be instilled by training? What's the difference between

"I'll risk my life to save my fellow soldier because she's a woman."
and
"I'll risk my life to save my fellow soldier because he's my buddy."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
What if hand to hand combat occurs?
Given the requirement to meet all the physical requirements, not an issue.

I've done martial arts sparring against women, and trust me, they can hit and kick damned hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
What happens to female soldiers who are captured?
They may get raped in addition to tortured/assaulted. Then again, look what happened to some of the guys we had in Abu Ghraib. Is vaginal rape with a penis that much more horrific than anal rape with a broom handle?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
What is the reaction of male soldiers to female soldiers in a combat situation?
I should think appropriate training should take care of that. What was the reaction of bigoted white soldiers when faced with black soldiers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
Already, the incidence of sexual assault in Iraq and Afghanistan has been labeled an "epidemic." Bad idea all the way around.
Again, better training to address that issue.

As long as combat training and/or experience is a key means by which one advances in the military, women shouldn't be held back because they're not allowed to do those things.

Either we allow women into combat, or we make it so they can advance without it.

Besides, we've already lost 150 women in Afghanistan and Iraq, with another 800 wounded. It's not like we quit either war because some woman soldier came back in a casket.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 02:20 PM   #53
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,818
Default

Bottom line, they will be survivors or they will be dead. There will be no in between.

Folks should stop throwing this going to hurt the SOP community, those guys aren't lowering the bar for someone to become a snake eater. Right now there are certain combat arms (like the command of destroy or Sub) which physical strength doesn't matter, there are other were physical strength and ability handle yourself in close combat do matter and you will see a lot of women dropping out of those MOS as we move forward.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 02:26 PM   #54
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Sexual dimorphism, for one thing. For another, there is a lot of hard-wiring in our behavior as a species that is gender based and tied to mating. You inject an entire new level of complication into the combat theater by having women fighting beside men. What if hand to hand combat occurs? What happens to female soldiers who are captured? What is the reaction of male soldiers to female soldiers in a combat situation? Already, the incidence of sexual assault in Iraq and Afghanistan has been labeled an "epidemic." Bad idea all the way around.
The problem that the sexual assault is not just happening in active combat theaters, it is happen all over the place and in far more frequency with troop that are not involved in combat operations. The AF training case is freaking disaster at that involved trainees and drill instructors in Texas.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 02:27 PM   #55
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
How much of combat comes down to pure brute strength?
If the answer is more than .001%, then it's something the military needs to be very careful with.

Not saying it's a bad idea, but there'd better be more deliberation put into it than a DOD political appointee press stunt designed to rally the base.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:34 PM   #56
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
The problem that the sexual assault is not just happening in active combat theaters, it is happen all over the place and in far more frequency with troop that are not involved in combat operations. The AF training case is freaking disaster at that involved trainees and drill instructors in Texas.
Women are a terrible distraction in combat as is. It's not anything unique that they'll face as other units are facing them every day but anyone that suggests women aren't a distraction is silly. "Combat pretty" is a real thing and the fact that people can't even get through things like training without trying to F anything that walks should not be used as a defense. The military has proven itself amazingly incompetent at fending off negative incidents and opening up more positions where isolation will occur will absolutely cause the numbers to go up.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:38 PM   #57
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
I've not served in the military so I may be full of ****.



The number of women with suitable ability for combat may be quite small, but it's not zero.



Isn't that precisely the martial love that's supposed to be instilled by training? What's the difference between

"I'll risk my life to save my fellow soldier because she's a woman."
and
"I'll risk my life to save my fellow soldier because he's my buddy."



Given the requirement to meet all the physical requirements, not an issue.

I've done martial arts sparring against women, and trust me, they can hit and kick damned hard.



They may get raped in addition to tortured/assaulted. Then again, look what happened to some of the guys we had in Abu Ghraib. Is vaginal rape with a penis that much more horrific than anal rape with a broom handle?



I should think appropriate training should take care of that. What was the reaction of bigoted white soldiers when faced with black soldiers?



Again, better training to address that issue.

As long as combat training and/or experience is a key means by which one advances in the military, women shouldn't be held back because they're not allowed to do those things.

Either we allow women into combat, or we make it so they can advance without it.

Besides, we've already lost 150 women in Afghanistan and Iraq, with another 800 wounded. It's not like we quit either war because some woman soldier came back in a casket.
Just curious, are you a proponent of true equal standards? Or are you just wanting the women to be able to pretend to be males in some circumstances? Should every woman become subject to male standards or just the standouts?
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:48 PM   #58
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,652

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
Women are a terrible distraction in combat as is. It's not anything unique that they'll face as other units are facing them every day but anyone that suggests women aren't a distraction is silly. "Combat pretty" is a real thing and the fact that people can't even get through things like training without trying to F anything that walks should not be used as a defense. The military has proven itself amazingly incompetent at fending off negative incidents and opening up more positions where isolation will occur will absolutely cause the numbers to go up.
Yes, can't argue that ...........

Last edited by Pony Boy; 11-02-2013 at 05:28 PM..
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:48 PM   #59
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,121

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Well, since the overwhelming majority of "wars" the U.S. has been involved in over the last sixty years have been total bull**** and completely unnecessary, I think we should spend a little more energy telling the dumb ****s in Washington and their corporate bosses in the military/industrial complex, that we're sick of their ****ing stupid wars, and not only will our women not go die for their corporate interests, our men won't either. I look forward to seeing the first woman in combat from the economic top ten percent. Fat ****ing chance of that happening.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:58 PM   #60
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Well, since the overwhelming majority of "wars" the U.S. has been involved in over the last sixty years have been total bull**** and completely unnecessary, I think we should spend a little more energy telling the dumb ****s in Washington and their corporate bosses in the military/industrial complex, that we're sick of their ****ing stupid wars, and not only will our women not go die for their corporate interests, our men won't either. I look forward to seeing the first woman in combat from the economic top ten percent. Fat ****ing chance of that happening.
A different topic. Legit, but different.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 04:56 PM   #61
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
Women are a terrible distraction in combat as is. It's not anything unique that they'll face as other units are facing them every day but anyone that suggests women aren't a distraction is silly. "Combat pretty" is a real thing and the fact that people can't even get through things like training without trying to F anything that walks should not be used as a defense. The military has proven itself amazingly incompetent at fending off negative incidents and opening up more positions where isolation will occur will absolutely cause the numbers to go up.
I am not disagreeing with that. What I was attempting to point out was that unbelievable number of sexually assaults is not just tied to combat zones. There are two stories everyone in military leadership doesn't want the public to know - the number of suicides and number of sexually assaults.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 04:57 PM   #62
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 990

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
I daresay the women who want to be in combat would kick Pony Boy's and nyuk nyuk's ass at the same time, blindfolded and with both arms tied behind their backs.
..and they would still be woefully underqualified.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:05 PM   #63
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 990

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukes View Post
If a woman proves herself through the exact same training men receive (not boot camp) whether it be Ranger school, Scout Sniper school, Recon etc then I have no reason to object. Now, I wasn't a grunt in the Marines, but I knew some women who I would rather go outside the wire with then men I served with. Not many, but a few.

One thing I haven't heard is are women now going to be required to register with the selective service. Anyone else know?
This.

and no, I haven't heard a peep on female SS registration.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:21 PM   #64
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 990

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
I've always been opposed to the idea but, secretly, this is a day I've been waiting for for a LONG time.

Let's progress through this logically:

All MOSs in the military do the same PT standard. Males have their standards defined by age then females have their standard defined by age. There is no MOS special PT tests in the military. Now, you get promotion preference by doing better than your peers on your PT test. Before, a woman could do, say, 35 pushups but get more promotion points than a guy that did the same job but did 50 pushups. If men and women are going to be held to a single standard, how can you defend giving women preferential treatment for promotion? This will actually widen the gaps because probably 75% (an estimate) of women probably cannot meet the male standard for the PT test. Sure, GI Jane exists, but what about GI Secretary?

Beyond the fact that I think a few women just F'd over their sex as a whole, I fear for the ramifications. In my job, it was fairly simple to replace someone. That was convenient because out of 6 females we had, a single one made it to our deployment without getting pregnant. Every unit goes through this. Women love to be soldiers during peacetime then mothers during wartime. Again, some don't but MANY do get pregnant to avoid deployments. Plugging a soldier behind a computer is one thing but what about when this starts devastating fire teams that rely on each other to stay safe?

And as for those saying strength should be disregarded because we're tech based now, I can build a computer from spare parts and do some low level programming. Does that mean I qualify for SF or Navy Seals? I see the number of women that even GET to advanced training being tiny (the number that pass microscopic) but those are women that can probably take care of themselves. The ones that just got F'd hard are the average women.

They're either equal or they're not. You can't have two ranks of women - the butch and the beautiful..

It's hard to argue with the assertion that female carreerists have been at a considerable disadvantage because they are denied access to the roles and responsibilities that are traditionally required to advance beyond 0-5. Female carreerists will benefit.

Females in the lower enlisted ranks trying to qualify for E-5 will be screwed, if your assertion is correct that they will now have to level the playing field re: promotion points for PT tests.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 06:24 PM   #65
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
This.

and no, I haven't heard a peep on female SS registration.
http://news.yahoo.com/women-combat-r...225900518.html

This is the article I saw on it. The people they talked to seemed like it was a clear and absolute yes for SS registration.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 06:33 PM   #66
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
It's hard to argue with the assertion that female carreerists have been at a considerable disadvantage because they are denied access to the roles and responsibilities that are traditionally required to advance beyond 0-5. Female carreerists will benefit.

Females in the lower enlisted ranks trying to qualify for E-5 will be screwed, if your assertion is correct that they will now have to level the playing field re: promotion points for PT tests.
I see the point about women being held back but, again, it's SUCH a small minority that are actually being impacted. Look at the tabs on the shoulders of senior leadership. Those tabs are huge and I don't know many that could manage it. There might be a few but so many women are going to be held to this increased standard so a few can try to prove themselves if we throw out bias as a whole.

My worst march was 11 miles with 107 lbs in my ruck. I was intelligence. How many women are really going to benefit relative to those that would suffer? Will the military be better off or is it just going to be to cater to those crying foul?

And as for a similar PT standard, I haven't seen anything even breaching the topic but I'd love to hear an opinion. It seems logical that they have to make one standard, right?
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 08:17 PM   #67
spdirty
Ring of Famer
 
spdirty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bailey
Posts: 14,677

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Quentin Jammer
Default

Huh. I thought they already were. When we did exercises in Korea they always put me with a woman in a DFP. Which, its not like going on patrol in the middle of a war or anything but if the north comes down and invades they are on the front lines.

Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal. So long as they can perform as well as men when they enter a man's world, more power to them.

Last edited by spdirty; 01-24-2013 at 08:24 PM..
spdirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 08:22 PM   #68
spdirty
Ring of Famer
 
spdirty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bailey
Posts: 14,677

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Quentin Jammer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
And as for a similar PT standard, I haven't seen anything even breaching the topic but I'd love to hear an opinion. It seems logical that they have to make one standard, right?
Yes. If they want to enter a man's world, that's fine, but they damn well better be able to perform as well as men.
spdirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:32 AM   #69
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 990

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
I see the point about women being held back but, again, it's SUCH a small minority that are actually being impacted. Look at the tabs on the shoulders of senior leadership. Those tabs are huge and I don't know many that could manage it. There might be a few but so many women are going to be held to this increased standard so a few can try to prove themselves if we throw out bias as a whole.

My worst march was 11 miles with 107 lbs in my ruck. I was intelligence. How many women are really going to benefit relative to those that would suffer? Will the military be better off or is it just going to be to cater to those crying foul?

And as for a similar PT standard, I haven't seen anything even breaching the topic but I'd love to hear an opinion. It seems logical that they have to make one standard, right?
Cool - I also was MI. And you have me by 15 lbs., although we covered just over 20 clicks in less than 3 hours that day. I can't imagine too many women being able to hang on that march.

and re: logical - you're kidding, right?
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:46 AM   #70
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 990

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
I see the point about women being held back but, again, it's SUCH a small minority that are actually being impacted. Look at the tabs on the shoulders of senior leadership. Those tabs are huge and I don't know many that could manage it. There might be a few but so many women are going to be held to this increased standard so a few can try to prove themselves if we throw out bias as a whole.

My worst march was 11 miles with 107 lbs in my ruck. I was intelligence. How many women are really going to benefit relative to those that would suffer? Will the military be better off or is it just going to be to cater to those crying foul?

And as for a similar PT standard, I haven't seen anything even breaching the topic but I'd love to hear an opinion. It seems logical that they have to make one standard, right?
Cool - I also was MI. And you have me by 15 lbs., although we covered just over 20 clicks in less than 3 hours that day. I can't imagine too many women being able to hang on that march.

and re: logical - you're kidding, right?
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:54 AM   #71
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
Cool - I also was MI. And you have me by 15 lbs., although we covered just over 20 clicks in less than 3 hours that day. I can't imagine too many women being able to hang on that march.

and re: logical - you're kidding, right?


I can't imagine actually having to move with that load on. We mosey'd around doing training stations so the 11 miles was over the course of about 18 hours or so. It wasn't bad but it still wouldn't be feasible for the average woman. I specifically requested a unit whose motto was "death before dismount" (Armored Cavalry) so I can only imagine what things would be like if you were rocking in the 18th airborne corps or something where they really want you to be a hardass.

I just really think 80-90% of females, maybe higher, will regret the day this ever came to pass. It's something I've wanted for a long time, though, and I think society is ready to at least be faced with the question as double standards are popping up in so many parts of our lives.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 09:14 AM   #72
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

I just came across this article. Over 10% (and DOUBLE the national average) of women in the military had an unplanned pregnancy over a year's span. That doesn't even include those that had a planned pregnancy. Then they said the numbers were the same for both stateside and deployed (where sexual contact is punishable). A pregnancy for a woman takes her out of commission for the entire year as they can't be around fumes, do anything strenuous, and even, at some points, can't work more than like 4 hours a day. It's basically a year of relaxing duty. My wife knew a woman who in her 16 years, had had 9 kids. That meant every other year, she was paid for pretty much nothing. Also, they let you come back from a pregnancy fairly slowly and the person has to work back into the regimen so a pregnancy shuts a soldier down, in reference to deployable, for a solid year and a half+.

Women in the military have access to some of the nation's best health care, which includes free birth control. But a new study shows that many women are not using it and the rate of unintended pregnancy is double that of the general population.
And today, with the Department of Defense having just ended its longtime ban on women serving in combat roles, an unplanned pregnancy could have wider ramifications not only for a woman's health, but for her opportunities for advancement.
An estimated 10.5 percent of active duty women, ages 18 to 44, reported an unplanned pregnancy in the prior 12 months in 2008, the last year for which there are statistics, according to researchers at a nonprofit organization that supports women's sexual and reproductive rights.
That number was higher than in 2005, when the rate was 9.7 percent.
In the non-military population, about 5.2 percent of women of reproductive age report an unintended pregnancy each year, according to the study, published this week in the February issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The Ibis study was based on surveys of more than 7,000 active-duty women; the statistics were obtained from the Department of Defense under the Freedom of Information Act. Rates were equal among those women who were deployed and those serving stateside.
Women make up 202,400 of the U.S. military's 1.4 million active duty personnel; more than 280,000 women have deployed over the last decade to Iraq and Afghanistan. "It's terrific that women are getting recognition for their role in combat missions and are being considered for all types of promotions in the armed services," said lead author Kate Grindlay, senior project manager at Ibis. "But for women to reach their potential, they must be able to access birth control for their personal health and well-being."
About 900 women had been unable to deploy in the past year due to a pregnancy, either planned or unplanned, according to the study. The highest rates were among younger women with less education who were either married or cohabitating, researchers said.
The authors of the study say that an unwanted pregnancy not only disrupts a woman's military career, but takes a toll on military readiness because pregnant women cannot be deployed or must be evacuated from war zones. They say the military needs to take a more "comprehensive approach" to address the problem.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/uninten...ry?id=18307178

Last edited by That One Guy; 01-25-2013 at 09:19 AM..
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 09:31 AM   #73
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,121

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

I was in the infantry. We marched 25 miles in full gear. I carried the M60. I'd like to see the woman who could pull that off.


Wait a minute...


No I wouldn't.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:00 AM   #74
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I was in the infantry. We marched 25 miles in full gear. I carried the M60. I'd like to see the woman who could pull that off.


Wait a minute...


No I wouldn't.
General Dempsey already answered this for us,

“Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

Right on cue.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:01 AM   #75
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spdirty View Post
Yes. If they want to enter a man's world, that's fine, but they damn well better be able to perform as well as men.
No they want to enter every mens' area but be treated like dainty females due all chivalry. Don't you get it yet?
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:08 AM.


Denver Broncos