Re: Women in Combat (general) vs. Women in Infantry -- Stellar Conflict Online

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:43:27 10/28/02 Mon
Author: Bill
Subject: Re: Women in Combat (general) vs. Women in Infantry
In reply to: James Tolcino 's message, "Re: Women in Combat (general) vs. Women in Infantry" on 00:33:26 10/26/02 Sat

>
>The fact that men can be drafted. BIG issue. WOMEN
>cannot. IF/when a war happens, we will draft men.
>WOULD we draft women? IF we do, will we pick and
>choose women who are only able to physically make it?
>Would those women want to?

That's not really relevant to women being *capable*.

>Second issue. IF a man is drafted and shoots himself
>in the foot. HE faces a court-martial and is called a
>coward. What if a woman shoots herself? Same thing?
>YES. BUT what if she gets pregnant? What if she is a
>Squad leader? A leadership position just isn't handed
>to anyone. IT takes training. SO if a woman got
>pregnant to get out of combat, is that cowardice?
>Doesn't that cause excessive money, time and effort
>for everyone else?

Possibly under current rules a female (squad leader) could use that particular excuse. However, regulations can be put in place saying, to the effect, that by getting pregnant she compromised the safety/interegty of the unit, etc. In that case, a woman could be punished.

>HYGIENE. Being a 15 year infantryman, I'll say we get
>real dirty. Sorry, no tampons in MRE's(meals ready to
>eat, ie C-RATIONS to old dogs). Hygiene is paramount.
>NO showers aren't because we hate taking them. JUST
>because after a 30 day field training exercise(FTX),
>showers are a luxury.

That's a non-issue. Women have been working in the field - whether military or civilian - for ages. Hygiene is very important for everyone in the military - both men and women. You don't have to be a woman to fall ill because of germs, parasitic infection, viruses, etc.
As far as "showers" not being available, how do you suppose women got along 5000 years ago? If women could not survive (healthy) without modern facilities, how on earth did they make it to live today?
And I'm sorry if you think it's funny, but tampons, etc., can easiily be added to MREs, if necessary.

>Last issue. Say a female platoon sergeant has a sexual
>affair with a lower ranking corperal. SHE then gives
>preferential treatment to that corperal. Fair? WHY add
>addition issues beyond "BEANS, BULLETS, and BAND-AIDS"
>to include CONDOMS, tampons and midol?

That issue is being dealt with, pretty successfully, today in the other MOS's and branches of the military.

>NO matter how many "SEXUAL HARRASSMENT" classes or
>orders for soldiers to not have sex/affairs they will
>still do it. NO amount of training can stop that. It
>will happen. WOMEN will get pregnant.

Again, that is a current situation in the military. Nothing new there.

None of your arguements *disqualifies* a woman from perticipating in combat, or being in the infantry.

- Bill

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Women in Combat (general) vs. Women in Infantry -- Matt Murdock, 15:36:15 02/28/03 Fri