Women in combat roles

**Roostervier** · February 21st, 2013 03:53 PM

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...jobs-to-women/

What does everyone think? I think it's a mistake. There's no way around it--when you may have to carry a buddy off the battlefield, I would not trust most women to be able to do that for me. I also realize their PT standards are going to be readjusted, but just to give you an idea of what it's like now, you must do 42 pushups, 53 situps, and run a 2 mile in 15:54 as a male to pass. As a female, you need 19 pushups, 53 situps, and an 18:54 on your run time. I get they're fucking women and all, but if you want to be infantry you can't cut any corners. The physical requirements are going to be the same for everyone in combat, it doesn't matter if you're big, small, male, or female. There is also another problem: women cannot be out in the field for more than 3 days without being able to bathe due to hygiene issues, which is a pretty big limitation. Like no shit, I've been told it's a regulation.

I will say there are women out there that could cut it, I've seen them, but honestly that's only like maybe 1 out of 3,000 women already in the military. Hell, half the guys I've seen in infantry really don't belong there. I think lifting the ban was unnecessary because all the special needs we have for women in combat related positions (such as talking to other women overseas that will only respond to women or whatever) are already being taken care of.

**Rainbow Dash** · February 21st, 2013 04:35 PM

**n00b1n8R** · February 21st, 2013 05:18 PM

if they can meet the same standards as men then they should obviously be alowed to join. But if you're actually reducing the qualifiactions to be entered simply by merit of them having tits, that's retarded and pretty bad.

don't think there's much else to say

**Roostervier** · February 21st, 2013 06:21 PM

selentic your video would make a lot more sense if i was talking about gays and not women?? ive seen some gay guys that are ripped as shit and super in shape, i don't care if the dude that's dragging me off the battlefield might want me in his butt as long as he doesn't fucking talk to me about it.

when in a combat zone, you're wearing anywhere between 50 to 80 lbs of gear including your weapon, not talking about a ruck or anything like that. since 90% of the women i've seen so far during my military career are about 5'4" and maybe 110 lbs, you're telling me because she can lift and run with her own body weight (i.e. pushups, running during a PT test) that she is going to be able to drag me off, let alone carry me? In full battle rattle I'd weigh around 250/260. On top of that, she herself weighs 50 to 80 lbs more with all of her gear. so yeah, fat chance.

as long as they are able to complete the training and they are set to the same standard, I agree with you n00b. chances are though that that isn't how it's going to be .

**Rainbow Dash** · February 21st, 2013 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by Roostervier

selentic your video would make a lot more sense if i was talking about gays and not women?? ive seen some gay guys that are ripped as shit and super in shape, i don't care if the dude that's dragging me off the battlefield might want me in his butt as long as he doesn't fucking talk to me about it.

Except it's not talking about just gays.

Anyone dumb enough to want to be in the military should be allowed in

**Rainbow Dash** · February 22nd, 2013 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Roostervier

when in a combat zone, you're wearing anywhere between 50 to 80 lbs of gear including your weapon, not talking about a ruck or anything like that. since 90% of the women i've seen so far during my military career are about 5'4" and maybe 110 lbs, you're telling me because she can lift and run with her own body weight (i.e. pushups, running during a PT test) that she is going to be able to drag me off, let alone carry me? In full battle rattle I'd weigh around 250/260. On top of that, she herself weighs 50 to 80 lbs more with all of her gear. so yeah, fat chance.

as long as they are able to complete the training and they are set to the same standard, I agree with you n00b. chances are though that that isn't how it's going to be .

Also yeah I would agree with this, the standard should simply be the same for both men and women, I don't see where sex comes into it at all. If you do not meet the physical standard then it doesn't matter what gender you are, you should not be put into that kind of work.

**Patrickssj6** · February 22nd, 2013 04:30 AM

If it is all about physical strength, based on your picture Rooster you wouldn't be my first choice either to have as a comrade either BUT luckily it is not all about physical strength and everyone including women bring their own expertise. It's a big picture...

NASA sends women along into space because it has the positive side effect of lessening conflicts between males.

**Kornman00** · February 22nd, 2013 04:37 AM

Equal opportunity. Like you said, there are women who can make the cut. You said you've seen them, and I know I've seen them. Realistically, you should only see the ones motivated to want to join combat arms. Don't forget that infantry isn't the only combat arms MOS. You also have Delta Force and EOD to name a few. I believe even Aviation is still considered CA as well. So yes, women who have the skills should be able to fill these roles.

And don't give me that PT test bullshit. Those numbers are fucking arbitrary, and aren't even standard across the different branches (all of which have their own CA roles). Once you hit 27, your required 60% as a male is 17mins (scoring). To top it off, the PT test is done in barely any clothes, let alone no gear. It doesn't actually measure your ability to operate in the field, with gear, for an extended period.

I have no clue about women sanitation, being a man and all. I'd assume they could carry extra shit in their ruck to deal with their biology.

**Roostervier** · February 22nd, 2013 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Patrickssj6

If it is all about physical strength, based on your picture Rooster you wouldn't be my first choice either to have as a comrade either BUT luckily it is not all about physical strength and everyone including women bring their own expertise. It's a big picture...

NASA sends women along into space because it has the positive side effect of lessening conflicts between males.

that's not a picture of me, it's a picture of a douchebag that looks retarded as shit and i found it funny enough to make my avatar

Originally Posted by Kornman00

And don't give me that PT test bullshit. Those numbers are fucking arbitrary, and aren't even standard across the different branches (all of which have their own CA roles). Once you hit 27, your required 60% as a male is 17mins (scoring). To top it off, the PT test is done in barely any clothes, let alone no gear. It doesn't actually measure your ability to operate in the field, with gear, for an extended period.

that was my point in my last post. I just feel like the 11 bravo tasks you'll have to perform in basic will be gimped for women, since there were a few guys that couldn't even do the shit when I was going through and they still made it because COs care more about numbers than having competent warriors.

e: also selentic ill admit i didnt actually watch the video because a majority of your posts are pointless, ad hominem, or ultra-liberal sensationalist bullshit