I wonder if the fellas in position of power are really doing women a favor by allowing them to serve in combat? It could eventually mean that if women are deemed capable and competent, they will not only be allowed to serve in combat, they will be required to. That will change the game for many women in the military I would think.
I`ve read that most of the casualties in the decades long illegal unnecessary evil middle eastern wars have been White men. Is there also a ban on non White men serving in combat? If there is, maybe they should first lift that ban instead of filling a possible shortage of combat soldiers with women.
It will be interesting to see what the demographics of women serving in combat will be. Hopefully it will not be yet further genocide of the White race. We are after all disappearing as planned and eventually will not exist as a race. We don`t need any further means to eliminate us, especially not in unnecessary wars for a foreign nation.
Regardless, is this really what most men want? Women defending them?
Israeli women soldiers are home defense. When it comes time to send out combat forces to meet any enemy they stay home.
They have their backs against the sea -- they know better. The men worry about them instead of focusing on opposing forces.
"Is there also a ban on non White men serving in combat?"
No Lavendar, there is no such ban. The US military will take women, homosexuals, africans, asians, hispanics, white people and even illegal immigrants and all of them defend their country in combat and many of them have lost their lives in combat.
But do you know what the US military won't take? Racist sacks of sh** like you.
Even savages kept their women out of combat. My daughter served in a Field Evac Hospital during Gulf War I. I gave her instructions on how to handle some creep that might try putting the make on her. Had that not worked I would have handled it in my own way. She left after her 3 year obligation was over
Nothing against women, but there are considerations that make this a bad decision. Over time perhaps the stigma of the 'weaker' sex and the protectionist attitude of many men would recede to a different level, but currently I think these are liabilities to women serving in combat.
Next would be the size issue. Many women are physically strong, but typically not as strong as most men. If a soldier is down and needs to carried, drug or lifted out of harm’s way and he is 200+ pounds, can she do it? If an enemy soldier attacks in hand to hand and is of a large size, can she win that battle, keeping in mind it is not some fat, lazy punk on the street attacking her but another well-trained soldier.
While I understand the quest for equality, there are some physical issues that make this decision questionable. I am sure that many women have the mental capacity, perhaps even and emotional edge on some men, but the physical issue still concerns me. I would have no problems with either of my daughters serving in the military, but being in combat would be a major concern.
The other issue is that there wasn’t much discussion or public debate about this issue, the SOD just ‘decided’ to change the rules.
"Over time perhaps the stigma of the 'weaker' sex and the protectionist attitude of many men would recede to a different level, but currently I think these are liabilities to women serving in combat"
This is just funny. Women can't serve in combat because winholder is old and has outdated ideas.
Women are already in combat, right now, as you read this. I don't think we should limit the capability and flexibility of our soldiers overseas just to keep from disturbing the weak sensibilities of some of those back home. Do you?