Should females be allowed in a combat MOS?

[DearMilSpouse]

Lets try to keep this civil as possible!

Votes cannot be seen by other members. However, feel free to state how you voted and why if you would like.

[V8403]

We all know that females have been serving in combat zones for some time , some as medics, and in other key aeras. They have even been dying for this country in Iraq & Iran. Many females are able to any job that a man can do sometimes better , They have been fighting for years for equal rights well it is time they have full rights to fight also.

[marcgalb]

I would welcome a female warrior.

[gunga55]

Oh man I got the only Who Cares vote going.

[vietvet_67_68]

Have any of you ever seen a female KIA up close and personal? I processed a female reporter's remains when I was assigned to graves in Phu-bai in '67. I processed Hundreds of KIA's, but none effected or stuck with me the way seeing a dead and mangled female did. Give THAT some thought before you jump on the bandwagon. Sorry V8403, I don't agree with your assessment. Marcgalb, you may welcome a female warrior till you had to honor a DEAD one, and Gunga55...who cares??? Just my 2 cents worth.

[gunga55]

My point was there are two sides to the story plus and minus to each version. I personally do not really care one way or another on which one comes out. I see both sides of the version and personally I am not weighing in either way.

[vietvet_67_68]

Thanks for your honest reply, gunga. I personally can see no upside to allowing females participate in combat ops. Too much of a distraction, and could definitely get somebody killed, JUST because there were a female present. I think the psychological impact would be too great. Just too many variables for my liking, IMHO.

[gunga55]

I don't think that I would ever agree to having women in straight combat units, at least the 03 field. However with the fluid battle fields that we see today, any female in country would have a chance to see combat. If anyone wears the eagle globe and anchor they had better be a force to be reckoned with no matter the gender. Woe be it to any one who thinks that taking on a Marine is going to be a push over. Just because Marines hang out with Death doesn't mean that he is there for them.

I don't think that females should be intentionally put in the line of fire, but if that does happen (and it does) then they need to be trained and ready as all Marines should be, and to bad so sad for the bad guys.

I guess my thoughts are there is a bare minimum that is required to be a Marine. Every one who wears the EGA must live up to that minimum standard. If a female has to work harder then so be it. If one doesn't have what it takes hey the Air Force is always looking for some pansies I mean some oh never mind I will stick with pansies.

[UDMarionette]

We all know that females have been serving in combat zones for some time , some as medics, and in other key aeras. They have even been dying for this country in Iraq & Iran. Many females are able to any job that a man can do sometimes better , They have been fighting for years for equal rights well it is time they have full rights to fight also.


Have any of you ever seen a female KIA up close and personal? I processed a female reporter's remains when I was assigned to graves in Phu-bai in '67. I processed Hundreds of KIA's, but none effected or stuck with me the way seeing a dead and mangled female did. Give THAT some thought before you jump on the bandwagon. Sorry V8403, I don't agree with your assessment. Marcgalb, you may welcome a female warrior till you had to honor a DEAD one, and Gunga55...who cares??? Just my 2 cents worth.

I feel that having females in a combat MOS would be disastrous. Just as vietvet_67_68 said, a man does not want to see a woman dead, or hurt. WM's in a combat MOS would distract the males far too much. I would not want those two men at my door telling me that my husband or son had died trying to save an injured woman that could not even be helped. Grunts are male only (obviously), that would mean more money to build facilities and other necessities for the females as well. Woman Marines don't even have the same standards as the males and now we're talking about WM's in combat?! Not to mention the percentage of men and woman cheating on their spouses would sky rocket! That brings us to another problem, pregnancy. Now, I'm sure if males could get pregnant to avoid deployment they probably would, but they can't. Men and woman in combat with all that stress, gosh knows what would happen. I believe there are just too many things to overcome to allow a female into a combat MOS. I don't mean to go off-topic but just as the "Don't ask, Don't tell" has many problems, from having to separate the homosexuals and lesbians from the straight males and females, to the new problems that arise such as straight men beating on the homosexuals and etc. The customs and traditions of a United States Marine have been there for hundreds of years and I doubt they would ever change them. (Just my thoughts, although I am not in the military..) I'm sure that there are tons of other reasons why this should not be allowed, as well as tons of reasons why it should be, but I believe it's just too much of a hassle for something like that to ever happen.

[gunga55]

Woman Marines don't even have the same standards as the males and now we're talking about WM's in combat?!
That would need to change 1st and foremost. I think that it should change. There should only be one standard and that is Marine.


The customs and traditions of a United States Marine have been there for hundreds of years and I doubt they would ever change them
My Dad told me of how he came back stateside during WWII and seen his 1st "Black" Marine, and how shocked he was. At the start of the War one had to be White, 5'10", and I believe 180 lbs to even be considered for the Marines. That obviously has changed, without I might add any detriment to the abilities of Marines to do what it takes to get the job done.

With the one standard one either puts up or shuts up. One makes it or they don't no excuses no exceptions. But that is just me. OK I know a lot of others feel the same way. Some day there may even be non humans serving in my beloved Marines. Those lippy Alpha Centerions need to be smacked down.

[V8403]

The reality is that there is absolutely no intelligent, logical, sensible reason for women not to be in combat roles with the technological style of warfare that abounds today.

There are political, patriarchal, religious, and misogynistically stupid reasons to preclude women but they all belong in The Museum of Natural Idiocy next to chastity belts, urban legends, homophobia, promise creepers, senile senators, proselytizing preachers, and military machismo. The antiquated concepts that fill the closed minds of the "brotherhood of the sword", - the military establishment - with its tailhook mentality and its martenetistic attitude - have created a brain-lock that has polluted everything from the Congress to the media.

First they squawk and squeal about the strength issue - well that was disproved years ago by several studies.

Second they fall back on the old "unit cohesion", "male bonding”, and "good order" balderdash that is left over from the Roman Legions. It's rather like saying that women can't play major league baseball because they can't spit, scratch and rearrange their cod pieces as well as the boys - regardless of whether or not they can throw a baseball from left field to third base. Units comprised of women and men have bonded, cohesed, and maintained good order for centuries - or did they have separate sex wagon trains pioneering the west? Military units of mixed sexes have quietly maintained order, accomplished missions, and passed operational readiness inspections with flying colors. They're too busy doing their jobs to worry about who use which latrine. Desert Storm is a classic example of mixed units performing as cohesive and effective teams even under fire.





Third there's the "killing thing" - women can't do it - say the brain atrophied leaders and policy makers. My honest opinion is that it is not necessarily a male-female thing even though society portrays it that way. I have known some pretty weak men who wouldn't protect the back of their own mother in a crisis or combat situation and some strong women who would go to the wall for a total stranger in the trenches - and vice versa. Many women are excellent shots with pistol, carbine and automatic weapons, many men can't hit a cow with a target painted on it. Women pilots can handle some jet fighters better than men and male pilots can handle heavy bombers slightly better -and women can "pull G's" better than men.

But when it comes to the trenches, fox holes, covert operations, guerilla warfare, etc. I think it takes a particular personality type - almost on the edge of a pathological one - to even want to become a trained killer. This can have appeal for both men and women, but hopefully very few of either sex.





The answer to the "men only want to protect women" spiel is in a great quote by Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, Civil War Medal of Honor recipient - "You men are not our protectors... If you were, who would there be to protect us from?"



Many of these points are rather moot given the technological nature of future wars - little will be done hand to hand and a lot will be done in the realm of virtual reality, computer and satellites and probably robotics. The direct ground combat - gut slitting, bayonet stabbing, and grenade tossing - will be minimal - and if each branch of service wants to maintain its own little group of cutthroats then let it be an equal opportunity band - I seriously doubt that too many women will apply. - and of course the religious right, the aging suits in congress and the anti choicers will hue and cry so loud it will never happen.

Meantime, if there is another conflict, I think the one with the most electronic toys will win. We all know either sex can handle computers, pilot roles, VRML, Virtual Reality, multimedia, Mars sojourners, satellite tracking, robotics, unmanned aircraft, unmanned tanks, and ships, and computerized combat software. And believe me all of this and more is already in the works -" The Ultimate Warrior" for example.



Today, over 200,000 women serve in the armed forces, comprising more than 17 percent of the total force. About 80 percent of the jobs and more than 90 percent of the career fields are open to women. Sadly women still face barriers. This should not be. Nor should it be a religious, political, gender based, protective, feminist, emotional, rhetorical issue.



The pure and simple point is that all jobs should be open to women and men - if and only if - the women and men are qualified, capable, competent, and able to perform them! Nothing more, nothing less.

[gunga55]

or did they have separate sex wagon trains pioneering the west?
Not a good example, as those were mostly families. To say that a husband and wife and kids can't get along or do get along has nothing to do with the military.


Third there's the "killing thing" - women can't do it -
Not mentioned is the fact that during WWII many of the russian snipers were females

Now as a prime example of how a mixed unit does not perform worth Jack one can always watch starship troopers those guys sucked. Yeah they got along but what a cluster F***

Not a bad post John just got to hit the bad parts just to be fair and honest.

[Guide Plt.2129]

Third there's the "killing thing" - women can't do it - say the brain atrophied leaders and policy makers. My honest opinion is that it is not necessarily a male-female thing even though society portrays it that way. I have known some pretty weak men who wouldn't protect the back of their own mother in a crisis or combat situation and some strong women who would go to the wall for a total stranger in the trenches - and vice versa. Many women are excellent shots with pistol, carbine and automatic weapons, many men can't hit a cow with a target painted on it. Women pilots can handle some jet fighters better than men and male pilots can handle heavy bombers slightly better -and women can "pull G's" better than men.

But when it comes to the trenches, fox holes, covert operations, guerilla warfare, etc. I think it takes a particular personality type - almost on the edge of a pathological one - to even want to become a trained killer. This can have appeal for both men and women, but hopefully very few of either sex.
I bet a silver dollar that when the stuff hit the spinning thing she (my wife) would empty both clips and reload. and this is just at a Denny's. And believe it or not, she actually likes them snot nosed overbearing loud mouthed undisciplined bratty kid things.
Personality traits and the wonder of pulling that trigger when set a notch up from "FIRE", to "ROCK-N-ROLL" and watching those empty beer bottles vaporize is a lot different than actually having another persons life in your sights. Once that trigger is pulled that bullet is on it's course, on target, and either male or female, some folks can't live with that after the fact. it's the after effects of combat that will tell if male of female could be counted on in the next situation..
Male or female, neither should have to be put in a combat situation.
Standards? Toss that out on the plane ride, there are few standards when life suddenly turns o shi! and pandemonium rules the moment.
Are you willing to bet your life on another Marine. I didn't say a male or female, I said another Marine.
Bring them up to speed and turn them loose.
Don't think because that your the male your superior, I can show you some females that would scare you to death.
And Dan, I'm with ya Brother:
Some day there may even be non humans serving in my beloved Marines. Those lippy Alpha Centerions need to be smacked down.

[gabeh49]

They say they can do anything a man do. The only MOS's I wouldn't won't to see them in is 0311.
0331 , I believe they could do well in Mortors,Artillery,Tanks MOS's. Infantry that's another story.