Women in combat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think women already have a very hard time balancing a military career and a family. To pressure them to also go into combat is a stretch.
Perhaps there are some women who would voluntarily go, the majority would not due to family commitments.
Women in this country do not even have paid maternity leave, so a lot would need to change for the military to be able to be a friendly workplace for women

I know this is shocking, but not all women want families. If a woman wants to do it, she should, but they should not be required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t want to go into combat with women, it would be a burden and liability. It’s not fair on the guys.

You know, women have been c
In combat for years and it doesn't matter what you want. Lots of men have done it and most of them have been totally fine. what the f***?

Yes, I know that, but they are weaker and slower. Plus you’re would feel like, ok I have to bail her out if she’s in trouble even more so than a guy. I’m just saying I wouldn’t want to go into combat with women, but I know it happens.

Sigh. I feel like this argument came straight from the last century. Men who have trained alongside women just don't have these Hang-Ups

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s worth it to have women in combat. Sure, some awesome women could do it, but I think on average the men are stronger and can take the rigors of combat deployments for a longer period of time.

This makes me think of the LA fire person who said that no, she couldn’t lift a man, but if he got himself into the mess not her responsibility to get him out. Ah, no, it is the fire person’s responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t want to go into combat with women, it would be a burden and liability. It’s not fair on the guys.

You know, women have been c
In combat for years and it doesn't matter what you want. Lots of men have done it and most of them have been totally fine. what the f***?

Yes, I know that, but they are weaker and slower. Plus you’re would feel like, ok I have to bail her out if she’s in trouble even more so than a guy. I’m just saying I wouldn’t want to go into combat with women, but I know it happens.

Sigh. I feel like this argument came straight from the last century. Men who have trained alongside women just don't have these Hang-Ups

The century is not relevant. Women are still women, and men are still men (well, kind of, but that’s another topic). If your life is at risk you want someone as capable as possible next to you.

[Anonymous]

When the US military stops forcing combat troops to wear 130 lbs of gear around everywhere then let the women come along, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s worth it to have women in combat. Sure, some awesome women could do it, but I think on average the men are stronger and can take the rigors of combat deployments for a longer period of time.

It's worth it to the women who want to move up the chain and for the most part you only do so if you've seen combat.

There are women generals in all fields of the military: nursing, medicine, supply, transportation, etc. You absolutely do not need “combat” as in infantry, SF, armor, artillery to advance in rank

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Border patrol isn’t the military or combat

Except when trump declares an emergency on the southern border to allow military personnel to perform additional functions how is that not a war zone?

Because it’s not a war zone and it’s not military combat. It’s like saying when we bring the national guard in to help with a hurricane that somehow that becomes war service. It’s not.

Walt so we aren't being invaded?

I thought we were and they are eating the dogs they are eating the cats of the people who live here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think women already have a very hard time balancing a military career and a family. To pressure them to also go into combat is a stretch.
Perhaps there are some women who would voluntarily go, the majority would not due to family commitments.
Women in this country do not even have paid maternity leave, so a lot would need to change for the military to be able to be a friendly workplace for women

And you think the majority of men want to see conflict?

[Anonymous]

Women in combat is a horrendous idea. Imagine the day when ISIS captures a female US soldier alive. She'd be raped by all of those nasty militants, and it'd be broadcasted all over the internet before she'd be behaded. It would be completely demoralizing. Putting women on the front lines is such a horrible idea because they are way more at risk for sexual violence and war crimes.

They can be combatants in support roles like controlling drones or in logistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s worth it to have women in combat. Sure, some awesome women could do it, but I think on average the men are stronger and can take the rigors of combat deployments for a longer period of time.

It's worth it to the women who want to move up the chain and for the most part you only do so if you've seen combat.

There are women generals in all fields of the military: nursing, medicine, supply, transportation, etc. You absolutely do not need “combat” as in infantry, SF, armor, artillery to advance in rank

You are misinformed (no one said “as infantry”).

They have to deploy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think women already have a very hard time balancing a military career and a family. To pressure them to also go into combat is a stretch.
Perhaps there are some women who would voluntarily go, the majority would not due to family commitments.
Women in this country do not even have paid maternity leave, so a lot would need to change for the military to be able to be a friendly workplace for women

I know this is shocking, but not all women want families. If a woman wants to do it, she should, but they should not be required.

At present, more men want to have children than women.

Catch up. It is not 1950.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s worth it to have women in combat. Sure, some awesome women could do it, but I think on average the men are stronger and can take the rigors of combat deployments for a longer period of time.

on average the men are stronger OK, if we're talking hand to hand combat
on average the men can take the rigors of combat deployments for a longer period of time No way, women outlast men in any stressful situation including deprivation, physical pain, psychological stress, etc.

[Anonymous]

The misogyny persists, as evidenced by this thread. Why are MAGA so fearful? I’ve never seen so much collective anxiety borne as hatred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s worth it to have women in combat. Sure, some awesome women could do it, but I think on average the men are stronger and can take the rigors of combat deployments for a longer period of time.

It's worth it to the women who want to move up the chain and for the most part you only do so if you've seen combat.

There are women generals in all fields of the military: nursing, medicine, supply, transportation, etc. You absolutely do not need “combat” as in infantry, SF, armor, artillery to advance in rank

You are misinformed (no one said “as infantry”).

They have to deploy.

That isn’t what “in combat” means for this argument. Women in every beach in every field have always been deploying. We are talking about women in combat arms fields

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s worth it to have women in combat. Sure, some awesome women could do it, but I think on average the men are stronger and can take the rigors of combat deployments for a longer period of time.

It's worth it to the women who want to move up the chain and for the most part you only do so if you've seen combat.

There are women generals in all fields of the military: nursing, medicine, supply, transportation, etc. You absolutely do not need “combat” as in infantry, SF, armor, artillery to advance in rank

You are misinformed (no one said “as infantry”).

They have to deploy.

That isn’t what “in combat” means for this argument. Women in every beach in every field have always been deploying. We are talking about women in combat arms fields

*branch