Interesting Article Regarding Women in Direct Combat Roles

Discussion in 'US' started by jumpinjarhead, Jun 8, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Definitely not the "party" line.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Seriously if your Gay you cant give Blood ? HIV etc, etc isn't gender specific, thought it would be screened anyway ?

    There is too much Media in War these days, selling papers to make $, regardless of the harm to those at home
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Well would you want gay blood? One minute you are a steely eyed bringer of death the next you are knitting.

    Sent from my HTC Wildfire S A510e using ARRSE mobile app
    • Like Like x 10
  4. Sorry JJH but your facts are going to do no good.
    We live in a society where feelings and emotions rule over facts and logic.

    Women in the military my reduce combat effectiveness and change the way small groups of soldiers (traditionally men) interact with each other and work together, but it is unfair and discrimination so the facts become useless in the argument.

    I read an article the other day how the American Mental Health ( or what ever it is), has dropped transgender (people saying they are a man born in a womans body) from being a mental health problem, not from facts and studies but from pressure from the groups who support them.
    The way I read it was, we don't care what you experts say, we don't like you saying we have a problem, we don't except that, it makes us feel bad change it.

    I'm waiting for the day when health professionals cannot tell someone they are over weight, as that's the way the choose to be and who are they to tell people whats good for them.

    Alas this is the world we live in.
    Oh and because he mention God in this he will also be a religious nut, a bigot, and automatically hates gays and women.
  5. They are not mine-- I am merely passing on the remarks of a retired senior officer and MOH recipient that counts for a great deal of credibility in my book. I don't agree on every point but merely posted it for general edification.

    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
  6. What a cracking statement. Good on him.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. I lost interest when I found that the mysogenistic homophobe didn't know the difference between 'effected' and 'affected'.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Who would want his son or daughter to recieve blood from a homosexual?

    Personally if I need blood that bad I couldn't care less where it's from as long as it's the right type and free from disease.

    Sent in a harsh font, using finger paints
    • Like Like x 2
  9. While he does make some good points, a lot of that article is rubbish.
    • Like Like x 2

  10. Wouldn't fancy tussling with them if I'm honest...
  11. I think you're missing the point JJH. He's not criticising the message nor indeed the messenger. It's the opposition to that message and how it's been allowed to develop itself in the face of factual evidence and how facts (as stated in the General's message) are being ignored in order to pandy to political and personal whims based on nothing more than the personal desires of weak individuals who feel that they are best placed to make the rules. The very same people have carved nice careers (and invented some) for themselves and will never have to take up arms. In the UK we call them *******. We have many *******. Looks like you've got some too! One day we'll all pay for their decisions. I've seen the sort of 'politics' you highlight, being played out by Warrant Officers, which to my mind is an indication of things to come. People are now afraid to speak out and I'm not talking about the loud mouthed anti everything bigots that we all suffer from, I'm talking about reasonable people.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. I'm not sure that 'Gays have AIDS!' will help him get his argument across.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. He does come across as quite hysterical, doesn't he?

    To expand on my earlier post, the majority of women are neither physically or temperamentally suited to direct combat roles.

    I've seen many examples of women unable to keep up with the guys on PT, despite the fact that they were carrying less weight and I've seen a female clerk cry because she had to do a baseplate patrol on an exercise on Salisbury Plain. When I was posted to an RLC Sqn I saw the problems caused by people shagging around, this also happened in my parent unit, however as we only have a few women attached to us the problem isn't quite as severe.

    These problems aren't only confined to women of course, I've seen plenty of blokes who were so unfit or incapable of doing their job that they shouldn't have been in the Army, but that is a subject that has been done to death on numerous other threads.

    On the flip side I'm sure we've all seen (or those of us in the UK at least) examples of women earning various awards for their actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places that the British Armed Forces serve. Obviously there's medics, ATO, EOD, search teams, signalers, artillery and probably many more that I've missed but they are the minority when you consider how many women are serving.

    One thing that's always struck me as strange is the total belief that some Americans have that allowing homosexuals into their Armed Forces will some how bring about the destruction of the United States. Homosexuality has been allowed in the British Armed Forces since 2000 and I've yet to see or hear of any reports where a gay man or woman has reduced the combat effectiveness of their unit because they're attracted to someone of the same sex.
  14. Err, if "combat effectiveness" was the priority the Pentagon would never have had the F-35 or F-22 built at vast expense to the US tax payer. A lot of what that strange institution is only tangentially related to real war fighting needs.

    Who goes into the US millitary and in what role has been a mainly political thing since the US military led the way on desegregation. And the issue of mixing with black folks and them having a combat role rather than digging out latrines was a far bigger issue than this.

    Homosexuals are an odd case as not very well closeted chaps are over represented amongst highly decorated soldiers. If you look back at history, many a man's man was just that. The moral issue is fading away, younger Americans simply don't get het up about these foibles the way their grandparents generation did while being just as omnivorous sexually.

    American women have been getting killed and maimed in the actually very dangerous support roles for some time and there no reason they can't excel here. Women serving as combat infantry is more dubious. Brave they may be but unlike a well set up black fella or a buff bufty lack of strength is a handicap with all the heavy kit a soldier is burdened with these days. Like unfit or puny guys in some situations they may be a liability.

    Though consider one underweight serial recruitment reject, a diddy little chap of 5'5", his CO was so upset by the sight of him he tried to convert him into a cook. Audie Murphy went on to became the most decorated combat infantryman of WWII.

    This comes down to being seen to be equal and Septics generally have gone for female equality in a far bigger way than they have on the issue of race. So I think this is sort of inevitable.
    • Informative Informative x 1