Community Chat

[NoelSeven]

---

@jubilant wrote:

---

@NoelSeven wrote:

Jubilant -

I have no problem with anyone's age.  It doesn't matter to me, but I will admit I find negative comments about "older women" irritating. 

I am 65.  This year I am feeling it in my body but in my brain....I don't think I am.  Maybe that is why I can joke about it. I didn't mean to irritate anyone.  I love women of all ages. 

---

---

**********************************

I appreciate women, too   My grandmother was writing a thesis when she died in her early 80s. 

[Puzzle Piece]

Never dumb down the test and never relax the rules and the training. 

If a female wants to get her butt and boobs shot off, or captured maimed and tortured before being killed, it's her choice.  Entirely her choice. 

[jubilant]

I know this is a serious subject but I just have to tell you what DH just said.

I just asked him why he wouldn't want women fighting next to him (outside the physical strength thing)  His answer has me in stitches.  Here is what he said....."I don't want to see some woman squatting to pee who may be on the "r-g"!  So much for my big brave hero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For those of you who wonder how a large man can be carried look up

Fireman's Carry in Wikipedia.  The military teaches several of these techniques.

[hckynutjohn]

If women want to go into combat I say let them go. Everyone of either gender has to pass physical tests to be a part of every branch of combat of our Armed Forces. Special Forces, even moreso.

Didn't read the thread or any of the other posts, just stating how I feel based on the title of this thread.

hckynut(john)

[Kachina624]

---

@Jackaranda wrote:

Oh goody a bunch of older women on a shopping board discussing women in combat who probably have never served a day in their life. Let the games begin.....

---

I beg to differ.  This old lady on a shopping board served time as an officer in the USAF.  My class in Officer Training School was the first to be allowed to try qualifying on the pistol range.  It was strictly voluntary with 12 of my class of 18, volunteering.  Of that 12, 7 qualified as "expert marksman".  We used the heavy .38 Smith & Wesson Police Special which most cops at the time used.

That being said, I'm not in favor of putting women in positions where they might engage in hand to hand combat or perform in a war zone.  The military can trot out all the prime female examples they wish, the fact remains that women are just not as strong physically as men and can almost always be overcome in a physical scenario.  We must generalize and consider the capabilities of women in general and not just 3 or 4 prime specimens.  Also, in dangerous situations, men tend to try to "protect" women and in doing so, may jeopardize their own lives.  It's a very complex issue and one that should be carefully considered.

[Kachina624]

---

@NoelSeven wrote:

TWO WOMEN JUST BECAME NAVY SEALS.

THEY PASSED THE EXACT SAME TESTS THE MEN HAD.

If they want to do that and pass as those women did, they should have the right.

---

@jubilantThe information I find online says the Navy hasn't made a decision on this subject.  You may be confusing this with the two women who graduated from Army Ranger School.

[nomless]

Kachina is correct....two women passed the Army Ranger training.  What an accomplishment!

The Navy has not started training female Seals.

[jubilant]

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

---

@Jackaranda wrote:

Oh goody a bunch of older women on a shopping board discussing women in combat who probably have never served a day in their life. Let the games begin.....

---

I beg to differ.  This old lady on a shopping board served time as an officer in the USAF.  My class in Officer Training School was the first to be allowed to try qualifying on the pistol range.  It was strictly voluntary with 12 of my class of 18, volunteering.  Of that 12, 7 qualified as "expert marksman".  We used the heavy .38 Smith & Wesson Police Special which most cops at the time used.

That being said, I'm not in favor of putting women in positions where they might engage in hand to hand combat or perform in a war zone.  The military can trot out all the prime female examples they wish, the fact remains that women are just not as strong physically as men and can almost always be overcome in a physical scenario.  We must generalize and consider the capabilities of women in general and not just 3 or 4 prime specimens.  Also, in dangerous situations, men tend to try to "protect" women and in doing so, may jeopardize their own lives.  It's a very complex issue and one that should be carefully considered.

---

**************  That was another big concern of mine and something I also discussed with DH.  Many of these men have been taught to "look out" for women and it is deeply engrained.  I mean look around....I see lots of men still getting doors for women, or  catching the baseball that might be coming towards your head in the bleachers.    Yes, I know we can catch that ball ourselves or get the door but chivalry still exists in many men and it is deeply engrained.  There is a lot to be weighed and safety for our men and women always has to come first.  That is really my #1 concern.

[Say Nay]

Just speculating but if we are going to place women into combat roles equal to that of their male counterparts does this mean women can compete equally with men in the arena of pro sports? If we're saying women have the same strength and endurance as the other gender shouldn't women be able to step onto the football field or into the boxing ring and compete under the same rules? 

[raven-blackbird]

I found the article fascinating..........now if we were to look at women in combat roles.......even supporting roles, say as a medic or someone who removed the wounded or the dead from the battlefield........according to the military this was the PAST requirement (past as in 2013)


• Move a casualty — individual carry, 165 pounds average Marine casualty with 83 pounds assault load on him, carrying own 83 pounds assault load for a 20 meters distance (distance proposed GCE standard) (total casualty weight 248 lbs.)


So a woman would have to be able to drag or carry 248 lbs, 20 meters.........a little over 65 1/2 feet...........then I image, they would have to be able to lift and load............seems a little tuff for a woman, since we don't have the upper body strength that men do.


But it also seems that they have lowered the requirement, to make it so NOW more woman can qualify for this position


• Casualty Evacuation: Participants, wearing a fighting load of 43 lbs., evacuate (drag) a simulated casualty for a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). The casualty’s total weight will be approximately 208 pounds (rescue mannequin of 165 lbs. plus a 43 lb. fighting load). Participant sprints 25 meters to the casualty.


Now I guess you only have to run 27 yards (little over a quarter of a football field) to the causality then drag 208 lbs. to safety................interesting stuff..............................................raven