metalmom
Verified Military
Raped on the battlefield? That still happens? Im out of this thread and need to keep my jaw bone shut.Will still be watching it.Interesting but some stuff pushes triggers.
Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
macNcheese
Member
Well... A hysterectomy I suppose. I don't think that can be a requirement for entry. Why not just segregate them into an all women's unit? Instead of saying "you can do what the men do", make a small unit for all the rousey-types and give them the opportunity to do something that men CANT do.
What fucking trigger did I push? Yes raped on a battlefield, this maybe the internet, but I ain't talking of fantasyland.
Yes it happens, if you get captured, male or female, you can look forward to being raped. You have a possibility of also being raped on the FOB by someone wearing your own uniform,and happens to male and female soldiers.
Yes it happens, if you get captured, male or female, you can look forward to being raped. You have a possibility of also being raped on the FOB by someone wearing your own uniform,and happens to male and female soldiers.
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,586
Lesbians can be attacked the same way as heteros, and can concieve.
Last edited:
Indeed...there are still people that think those types of things are for TV only and that they don't occur in the real world. That is a point of view taken through the lens of ignorance. Not everyone that we meet or shall meet in the future battlefields will care less about raping a capture female combatant.
People act like that would be unheard of. My answer to them is that they need to have a wakeup call and a dose of reality. Battlefield rape will be an issue to be concerned about!
Last edited:
First I've heard about the "Dempsey Rule."
Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course
Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course
I refer to those types of things as the "small print" that none of us will ever know about until it's enacted.
Now the changing of the standards shall begin....
metalmom
Verified Military
I didnt hear the word captured.Just thought he was stating it still happens in the ranks in the field as it has..I am not ignorant nor do I need a wakeup call.
I assure you it does happen in the field. It happens all over the military.
I didn't call you ignorant or in need of a wakeup call....
Last edited:
I met Gen Dempsey when he was a 3 star, and I was at the WTB to pitch a wounded warrior to trainer program. I had the backing of many senior O's and NCO's and had a solid presentation. I left that brief with absolutely zero respect for him....I had actually typed out the story but deleted it because its poor measure on my part to air that dirty laundry.
Rape is one thing, I thought he was talking about consensual sex.
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,586
The roll of things got a tad confusing, and I did not look back beyond this :
We're beyond that now, and sorry for the confusion
, amigo.
If we're talking about consensual sex, and if a general order of no pregnancy prep/deploy is issued, the choice of birth control or abstaining from sex would be the women's. It's pretty simple and I'm really not understanding your post's. What is your point, and or question?
macNcheese
Member
So if the standards are dropped and an 18x says "I was a woman born in a man's body", wouldn't they be forced into letting them test as a woman with a lower standard? This can open up a lot of nasty doors in combination with the "gender identity" situation
I think GEN Dempsey is an incredibly smart strategic leader – so is GEN Milley and GEN Odierno. I think these stories – and the narrative they generate – are missing the point.
DoD leaders – uniform and civilian – have made a calculus that full gender integration is the future of the all-volunteer force. I wish they would express more fully why they made that decision – though I don’t think it’s hard to guess. The narrative that it’s just a bunch of politically correct hippies kowtowing to feminists is, I think, falsely reductionist.
I think the DoD’s leaders see the military of the future needed to be smaller, more technologically savvy, and all-volunteer. They recognize the military will have to compete for the most talented individuals from an American society that is increasingly divorced from the physical and emotional commitments required for military service – as well as an increasing cultural divide between military and civilian pursuits.
Looking at those demographic and cultural changes strategic leaders recognize the military will need to draw from essentially all of the qualified pool of citizens. The continued most under-represented group in the military (of able-bodied citizens) is women – half the population but only around 15% of the total force (highest percentage in the USAF at ~20 and lowest in the USMC at ~6).
Opening up all jobs to women is the first step – but it must be far from the last. True integration means equality of opportunity – the ability to advance. Even if everything worked perfectly on the current track we’re still 15 years away from female IN BN CDRs – 20 from DIV CDRs. There’s no way that is going to be even close to fast enough. Ranger qualification helps enlisted, but is not a requirement – there’s no IN officer that makes it past MAJ in the active force who is not Ranger qualified anymore. Look at the advancement rates of AR LTCs to COL and BDE command after IN and AR merged to the ‘maneuver’ branch – it’s extremely low. Not a big deal to anyone not a senior AR officer but very telling for how the culture of Army advancement works.
I think service leaders – especially the Army – need to start thinking and acting quickly to get a plan to make gender integration work or start resigning their commissions in protest. Integrating onesy-twosey into any kind of unit is a recipe for disaster. You’re going to put a single female lower enlisted into a unit with zero first, second, third, or even fourth line leaders of the same gender? Nobody but the Citadel thought that was a good way to integrate a military college – much less a military unit.
Standards will not be able to remain the same. You’ll never get the density of women required to pass the current physical standards. Further, the group dynamics, team-building mechanisms, and motivating factors are going to be different. The sooner we start working on those changes the better – they’re not going to get easier the more time passes. We change standards all the time. Standards exist to help us get after our objectives – to fight and win wars. When the desert phase was dropped from Ranger school nobody said ‘all those graduates now are a bunch of pussies.’ Actually, somebody probably did say that – but it doesn’t really change things.
We’re going to lose things in the transition – some of which we’ve already started losing over the last 30 years. Units will not be able to meet the same collective physical standards of strength and endurance. Many of the tried-and-true methods for building esprit and teamwork will not work. But, we have the opportunity to gain greater participation from a segment of the population with significant talent and brain-power to bring to the force.
I think we just need to be honest about what we will be able to do less well in the transition to what we’ll be able to do better. To me, that is a political problem – but it’s not the politics of our elected leaders, it’s the politics of our military leaders. It’s the same politics that makes us say ‘there’s no difference in AC and RC forces, they can do the same job’ – ‘we’re the toughest fighting force on the planet’ – ‘DCGS-A works great.’
We’ve been moving away from fighting an enemy face-to-face for some time (or maybe our adversaries have moved away from it due to our dominance). The American way of war is overwhelming firepower, technology, and resources. We’re not fighting our enemies in the bush – except when the enemy chooses. We load our infantry up with 180lbs of lightweight gear to chase guerrillas around the mountains. We don’t have a BN CDR or above in the force that will send a squad to take a dump without persistent overhead surveillance.
There’s a powerful argument to be made that we’re not training or fighting the right way, that this view of a net-centric, disaggregated fighting force has significant weaknesses. But, nobody is making that argument. The argument being made is all the mean-feminist/liberal/PC Nazis are making us let girls into our beloved tough-mudders and camping trips. Girls, who make our dick jokes less funny and sow dissension in the ranks with their wiles will ruin our superb fighting force that has gone from victory to victory for the last 50 years (except for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam but you’re a dirty liberal politician, dirtbag if you have the temerity to count those against our glorious fighting forces).
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,301
Most IUD's are over 99%. In the shape they will need to be in their fertility will be diminished anyway.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Ft Bliss is definitely the best installation in the Army when it comes to amenities, training areas, and not having a shit town immediately outside the gate. We may not have chosen El Paso, but she is the Desert Flower as my last BDE CSM was bound to say. And CSM Hendrex is always on point.
lol, I'm going to absolutely disagree with you. But either way, to each their own.
Similar threads
