Gillibrand - women in combat

[Imsogone]

Hooorah. Someone gets it. For those of you who think this is only about putting women in danger, think again. Women, as has been pointed out, are already in danger and getting injured and killed on duty. This is about seeing to it that they get the benefits coming to them because of the job they're doing.

Yes, I have a daughter in the military. No, I don't particularly want to see her in combat, but if that's where she goes, then I want her to have the same rights and benefits as her male counterparts.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 18983.html

[Ovisterra]

Sweet.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'll support women in combat as soon as they have the exact same physical requirements as men.

[Imsogone]

I'll support women in combat as soon as they have the exact same physical requirements as men.

They already do. My daughter has to do the same pushups, same miles running, same pt in general, as the men. They're not differentiating.

[The Corparation]

Its about time. Right after I finish a research paper on it too.

[Ifreann]

Good stuff. Fingers crossed for it passing.

[Aquophia]

I'll support women in combat as soon as they have the exact same physical requirements as men.

They already do. My daughter has to do the same pushups, same miles running, same pt in general, as the men. They're not differentiating.

No, but they are decreasing the difficulty so the women can keep up with the men in training, which causes the men to get inferior training that is not suited to thier physical strength. It would be better for both sides to develop training programs that suit each gender's needs.

[Souseiseki]

There's also this thing woman do once a month that men don't. A thing that causes emotional swings that in an already stressful combat situation could prove fatal to the soldier and/or her comrades.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

There's also this thing woman do once a month that men don't. A thing that causes emotional swings that in an already stressful combat situation could prove fatal to the soldier and/or her comrades.

A good point.

Let us also not forget a chance of pregnancy.

[Dyakovo]

Hooorah. Someone gets it. For those of you who think this is only about putting women in danger, think again. Women, as has been pointed out, are already in danger and getting injured and killed on duty. This is about seeing to it that they get the benefits coming to them because of the job they're doing.

Yes, I have a daughter in the military. No, I don't particularly want to see her in combat, but if that's where she goes, then I want her to have the same rights and benefits as her male counterparts.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 18983.html

About fucking time...
Way to go Gillibrand!

[Northern Dominus]

I'll support women in combat as soon as they have the exact same physical requirements as men.

They do, and they've been exceeding them for longer than you'd care to think.

[Ifreann]

They already do. My daughter has to do the same pushups, same miles running, same pt in general, as the men. They're not differentiating.

No, but they are decreasing the difficulty so the women can keep up with the men in training, which causes the men to get inferior training that is not suited to thier physical strength.

Sauce?

It would be better for both sides to develop training programs that suit each gender's needs.

Why would men and women need different training to drive a tank or fire a rifle or march in a straight line or anything else soldiers do?

---

There's also this thing woman do once a month that men don't. A thing that causes emotional swings that in an already stressful combat situation could prove fatal to the soldier and/or her comrades.

How many of the 144 women killed in Iraq were menstruating when they died? How many would be alive if they had not been? Same questions re:the 800+ who've been injured.

---

A good point.

Let us also not forget a chance of pregnancy.

Rather less than the chance of injury, I'd think.

[Northern Dominus]

They already do. My daughter has to do the same pushups, same miles running, same pt in general, as the men. They're not differentiating.

No, but they are decreasing the difficulty so the women can keep up with the men in training, which causes the men to get inferior training that is not suited to thier physical strength. It would be better for both sides to develop training programs that suit each gender's needs.

And you know this because of your extensive training in which branch exactly?

[Souseiseki]

How many of the 144 women killed in Iraq were menstruating when they died? How many would be alive if they had not been? Same questions re:the 800+ who've been injured.

ah, but it's not just the women, is it? it's also the men with the women who may be killed by their periods. unfortunately, the politically correct establishment refuses to look into the effects of periods on the battlefield so we don't actually know.

[Souseiseki]

additionally, i believe that all 144 that died and many that were injured were bleeding. where this blood came from is admittedly a matter of controversy, but the fact itself is undeniable. (i would imagine that being shot for example would also cause the body to start producing a lot of extra horomones and steroids.)

[Arkinesia]

There's also this thing woman do once a month that men don't. A thing that causes emotional swings that in an already stressful combat situation could prove fatal to the soldier and/or her comrades.

Yes, because clearly that impacted Kim Campbell's ability to land an A-10 with no landing gear.

[Ovisterra]

How many of the 144 women killed in Iraq were menstruating when they died? How many would be alive if they had not been? Same questions re:the 800+ who've been injured.

ah, but it's not just the women, is it? it's also the men with the women who may be killed by their periods. unfortunately, the politically correct establishment refuses to look into the effects of periods on the battlefield so we don't actually know.

Unfortunately, screaming about the "establishment" suppressing all the research on your point of view does not constitute evidence.

[Cannot think of a name]

The Department of Defense says 144 women have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than 800 have been injured. But Natelson said that the lack of formal recognition for women's combat roles means that it is harder for them to advance, and harder for them to get veteran disability benefits when battle stress takes its inevitable toll.

"It's not really a change in fact, it's a change in law," Natelson said.

Huh, good point. Soldier on (I made a puny...)

[Souseiseki]

ah, but it's not just the women, is it? it's also the men with the women who may be killed by their periods. unfortunately, the politically correct establishment refuses to look into the effects of periods on the battlefield so we don't actually know.

Unfortunately, screaming about the "establishment" suppressing all the research on your point of view does not constitute evidence.

it does not constitute evidence, but it does explain why there is trouble getting statistics. they won't let us carry out the studies.

unfortunately, it means no side on the period debate has what they need.

[Northern Dominus]

Yes, because clearly that impacted Kim Campbell's ability to land an A-10 with no landing gear.

And that compromised this woman's supreme ability:
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2987.html

[Ovisterra]

Unfortunately, screaming about the "establishment" suppressing all the research on your point of view does not constitute evidence.

it does not constitute evidence, but it does explain why there is trouble getting statistics. they won't let us carry out the studies.

Source for the banning of such studies?

[Poorisolation]

I'll support women in combat as soon as they have the exact same physical requirements as men.

Oh I am sure they will be heart broken to learn of your lack of support, you realise that whatever the rules women have been serving in the fighting arms of the United States for well over a century? A tradition documented at least as far back as the American Civil War.

Hell I know this and I am a Brit.

[Souseiseki]

it does not constitute evidence, but it does explain why there is trouble getting statistics. they won't let us carry out the studies.

Source for the banning of such studies?

it's not so much banning as refusing to carry out or have no as yet been carried out. obviously you can't just get access to corpses in the battlefield and you'd need cooperation from the military. do you think they'd let you give dead soldiers gynecological exams?

[Ovisterra]

Source for the banning of such studies?

it's not so much banning as refusing to carry out or have no as yet been carried out. obviously you can't just get access to corpses in the battlefield and you'd need cooperation from the military. do you think they'd let you give dead soldiers gynecological exams?

So you have no source to prove why you have no source to back up a sexist claim.

I think we're done here.

[Souseiseki]

it's not so much banning as refusing to carry out or have no as yet been carried out. obviously you can't just get access to corpses in the battlefield and you'd need cooperation from the military. do you think they'd let you give dead soldiers gynecological exams?

So you have no source to prove why you have no source to back up a sexist claim.

I think we're done here.

i have no source to prove it. you have no source to disprove it.

why? use your head.