Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/2 ... -to-women/

Let the raping begin.

This is an enemy combatant's dream.

If they do this every woman should have a choice.....sign a waiver saying they will never sue military personnel, the federal government or any branch of the military........or they cant go.

You know there is one of D1Bs ex girlfriends that is so sex starved they would take a rape for some cash won in a lawsuit like this

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

93henfan wrote:http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/2 ... -to-women/

Let the raping begin.

This is an enemy combatant's dream.

Under whose definition?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

I just read that every female taken captive since 1991 has been gang raped, is that true?

andy7171 wrote:I just read that every female taken captive since 1991 has been gang raped, is that true?

There's a little thing called the Geneva Convention that our enemies don't bother to comply with.

Conjures up a hole new meaning to the term "Fox Hole"

Wedgebuster wrote:Conjures up a hole new meaning to the term "Fox Hole"

I don't have a problem with it.

What I expect is that the physical standards of certain positions will be lowered in order to accommodate the egalitarian push to allow women into those position.

I have no way of knowing if that will have an impact on effectiveness. Also, our military is so superior to anybody else's right now that a decline in effectiveness might not make much practical difference.

But I do expect that to happen. There are going to positions, I think, such that few if any women can pass the current physical demands. So the physical requirements will be diminished in order to allow women in.

And he can start with Michelle Obama.

JohnStOnge wrote:What I expect is that the physical standards of certain positions will be lowered in order to accommodate the egalitarian push to allow women into those position.

That's already happened on the non-combat level.

This is strictly "official" ground combat. Women have caught in land combat for decades when lines get over-run. Additionally, women have been "officially" going to sea and air combat for a long time as well.

I don't know how the Army runs things, but the Marines have allowed women in "grunt" organizations down to the division level, and recently even in some "separate battalions" for a long time. I think one or two even made it down to the regiment level, at least in 1st MarDiv while I was there.

Saw a thing on the military channel just the day before last about British intelligence operatives operating behind German lines during World War II. Had a thing where the woman who commanded female operatives was trying to track down information after the war to find out what happened to "her girls" that never showed up. She found out that three of them had been taken to a concentration camp. They'd been given some kind of injection that was supposed to kill them but in at least one case...maybe in all three cases...it did not. Then they were thrown into the oven; at least one of them alive.

So, yeah, females have experienced dying at the hands of the enemy.

The Soviets made good use of women in combat in WWII, particularly as militia fighters and pilots (look up the Night Witches). They were generally absent from the regular army ranks, though.

As it pertains to women, I have heard about a number of positions, but I have never heard of the "combat position". Can anyone please explain this to me?

I have no problem with it. As long as they can perform.

CAA Flagship wrote:As it pertains to women, I have heard about a number of positions, but I have never heard of the "combat position". Can anyone please explain this to me?

You put a football helmet on 'em and beat 'em in the back of the head with a pugil stick while you're...

SuperHornet wrote: I don't know how the Army runs things, but the Marines have allowed women in "grunt" organizations down to the division level, and recently even in some "separate battalions" for a long time. I think one or two even made it down to the regiment level, at least in 1st MarDiv while I was there.

SH, stick to what you know buddy. First off, battalion is subordinate to regiment. Second, there are absolutely no women allowed in any ground combat MOS (inf, arty, tanks) in the Marine Corps, and unlike all the other services, the Marine Corps completely segregates women from men in enlisted basic training. They are integrated with men for training at OCS (squad bays still segregated), but they have different (ie lower) physical standards and run modified courses during tested exercises.

You mention women in "grunt" organizations down to the division level. Sure, someone has to do the payroll, make the general's coffee, type up his memos, and we even let some of them, gasp, drive big vehicles. BUT, none are deployable to the front line. They get close, mind you, as the USMC is a very lean organization, but you won't find them out on patrol or leading an offensive.

Great...the enemy will now be able to push into the gaps in our defenses.

So what happens when the muslins come upon a squad of women that are all on the rag?

So does this mean women now have to sign up with Selective Service when they hit 18?

93henfan wrote:

SuperHornet wrote: I don't know how the Army runs things, but the Marines have allowed women in "grunt" organizations down to the division level, and recently even in some "separate battalions" for a long time. I think one or two even made it down to the regiment level, at least in 1st MarDiv while I was there.

SH, stick to what you know buddy. First off, battalion is subordinate to regiment. Second, there are absolutely no women allowed in any ground combat MOS (inf, arty, tanks) in the Marine Corps, and unlike all the other services, the Marine Corps completely segregates women from men in enlisted basic training. They are integrated with men for training at OCS (squad bays still segregated), but they have different (ie lower) physical standards and run modified courses during tested exercises.

You mention women in "grunt" organizations down to the division level. Sure, someone has to do the payroll, make the general's coffee, type up his memos, and we even let some of them, gasp, drive big vehicles. BUT, none are deployable to the front line. They get close, mind you, as the USMC is a very lean organization, but you won't find them out on patrol or leading an offensive.

And make all those sandwiches, how could you forget that?

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:If they do this every woman should have a choice.....sign a waiver saying they will never sue military personnel, the federal government or any branch of the military........or they cant go.

You know there is one of D1Bs ex girlfriends that is so sex starved they would take a rape for some cash won in a lawsuit like this

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

93henfan wrote:

SuperHornet wrote: I don't know how the Army runs things, but the Marines have allowed women in "grunt" organizations down to the division level, and recently even in some "separate battalions" for a long time. I think one or two even made it down to the regiment level, at least in 1st MarDiv while I was there.

SH, stick to what you know buddy.

Short list.

93henfan wrote:

SuperHornet wrote: I don't know how the Army runs things, but the Marines have allowed women in "grunt" organizations down to the division level, and recently even in some "separate battalions" for a long time. I think one or two even made it down to the regiment level, at least in 1st MarDiv while I was there.

SH, stick to what you know buddy. First off, battalion is subordinate to regiment. Second, there are absolutely no women allowed in any ground combat MOS (inf, arty, tanks) in the Marine Corps, and unlike all the other services, the Marine Corps completely segregates women from men in enlisted basic training. They are integrated with men for training at OCS (squad bays still segregated), but they have different (ie lower) physical standards and run modified courses during tested exercises.

You mention women in "grunt" organizations down to the division level. Sure, someone has to do the payroll, make the general's coffee, type up his memos, and we even let some of them, gasp, drive big vehicles. BUT, none are deployable to the front line. They get close, mind you, as the USMC is a very lean organization, but you won't find them out on patrol or leading an offensive.

First Marine Division IS what I know, 93. The vast majority of my Naval career was spent supporting Marines in some form or another. I was in 1st MarDiv for a LONG time. I never said females were in MOS 0311. A "separate battalion" is a battalion that is directly subordinate to Division Headquarters, NOT a regiment. That's like a Tank Battalion, an Assault Amphibian Battallion, or a Combat Engineer Battalion. I served in both 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion and 1st Combat Engineer Battalion at Camp Pendleton. While they had no females while I was there, females joined 1st CEB at some point after I left. Additionally, while I was at Camp Pendleton (that's early-to-mid-'90s, BTW), there were women at the Division level, and one who ended up at Pendleton's artillery regiment. That one was a bit unusual for the time, I'll grant you, but it DID happen. They were all in support MOS's, but they WERE there. And support outfits DO end up doing security patrols behind the lines. They'd be irresponsible not to.