Women In the Infantry

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: berto



Heather Mac Donald, writing ironically, quoted from: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338613/wrong-women-warriors-heather-mac-donald

I love Heather Mac Donald. She made an excellent point about gender-integrated football teams. Now, those who have no problem with women in combat, I propose we force the NFL to allow women to start on their football teams. Please respond and tell us where you stand on this issue.

Since you asked . . .

The issue of women in combat is stats. The NFL are elite males in the areas being measured. The SEALs if you will. Few male soldiers are SEALs (or GBs, or Rangers.)

To be acceptable a female soldier has to be as good as your worst male. He's acceptable; then so is she. And a lot of women are as good as the worst male in terms of push-ups and sit-ups. And they bring lots of other qualities to the table.

I don't know where you cavemen have been for eleven years, but woman are out there NOW. They patrol for weeks at a time with male units. They go into hot LZs. They man MCs in convoys. They engage in fire-fights on a regular basis. They just aren't officially "in combat." Now they will be.

It's also comical to watch you guys act like it's "your" military and you'll decide to let them in or not. They're citizens. They're the majority of citizens in fact. It's their country and their military as much as yours or mine. And the 20-something women of today are not the women you knew in the 60s and 70s. Meet a few of them.

warspite1

Its also comical, as you put it, to listen to you "progressives" who want to encourage women to be men and men to be women. I would rather be a caveman than a progressive liberal any day of the week.

I think this has been said already but is worth repeating. To me this has nothing to do with how fit you are or how many press-ups you can do. It's far more important than that. Like it or not, females have the babies, they bring life into the world and nurture those children - they have THE most important job in the world.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: laszlozoltan
Finally, without regard to how it may seem, I have no emotional involvement in this discussion; I don't know any of you and you neither me- this is not about being right or wrong- this is about communicating an idea, accept that I have respectfully given you an idea to consider- and I see that thus far you have not yet considered it.

To belittle someone and call them names is emotional. Apology not accepted. [:'(]

RR

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: laszlozoltan
Finally, without regard to how it may seem, I have no emotional involvement in this discussion; I don't know any of you and you neither me- this is not about being right or wrong- this is about communicating an idea, accept that I have respectfully given you an idea to consider- and I see that thus far you have not yet considered it.

To belittle someone and call them names is emotional. Apology not accepted. [:'(]

RR

What's going on? We have a right to know the truth!

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: parusski
What's going on? We have a right to know the truth!

That is what our government should be doing ... telling the truth, that is! [;)]

My buddy laszlozoltan, is "emotionally unattached" to the debate. But, he felt the need to launch an ad hominem against me. Someone asked that he apologize. This was his next post. Not quite an apology. So, I figured I poke a stick in the bars, to rattle the cage. [8|]

RR

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: parusski
What's going on? We have a right to know the truth!

That is what our government should be doing ... telling the truth, that is! [;)]

My buddy laszlozoltan, is "emotionally unattached" to the debate. But, he felt the need to launch an ad hominem against me. Someone asked that he apologize. This was his next post. Not quite an apology. So, I figured I poke a stick in the bars, to rattle the cage. [8|]

RR

I see. You missed my joke. Think AIRPLANE!

Anyway, I have lot's of discussions about politics and there are quiet a few people who get angry because I don't agree with them. They perpetually demand I change my views. When I try to discuss an issue with them, like the Bill of Rights, they jump to name calling. Recently someone was telling me I had no reason to own an AR-15 or a clip holding more than a few rounds of ammo. My response was to tell him that our Congressman was proposing a law making it illegal to speak in any negative way about any amendment. He actually believed me and said he had a right to free speech. "Oh really?" I said. So you can tinker with my 2nd amendment right to own certain guns, but I can't tinker with your 1st amendment right? His only response was to say 2nd amendment freaks were as*holes. Don't you just love people who devolve to name calling?

[rhondabrwn]

I guess I should put my two cents in here.

First, I think you are all wrong in your approach to women's physical fitness for combat. While it is true that if you took an "average" female vs an "average" male the male is going to be stronger, but if you take your female subject from the top 10% of all women (height, weight, physical conditioning) I suspect that they would be comparable or superior to your average male. Obviously, tiny, petite women aren't going to be seeking combat, but their are plenty of well conditioned, physically fit women who may want that opportunity for equality in the armed forces. One of my 8th grade female students has gone on to become Brigade commander of the Pinon High School JROTC, leads the brigade's "Ranger" Battalion in physical skills (and they do the extended road marches and extra physical conditioning), and is a state finalist in Cross Country. She wants to make the Army her career and wants to be in a combat unit. And I'll tell you, I wouldn't want to be in her sights on a battlefield... she's one tough Navajo warrior. So, yea, she could have that chance if she wants it.

Second, the arguments you guys are putting out there are the same ones that were used to oppose female police officers, fire fighters, heavy machine equipment operators and so forth. I thought we were past this sexism of defending "men only" careers.

Third, I agree with the logistics problems of having men and women serving in a really close living environment like a combat platoon or squad, but I don't see any problem with having all female units. In fact, I suspect that women would make better scout and reconnaissance units and definitely great sniper teams. We're naturally "sneakier"... haven't you guys had your wife sneak up and surprise you? LOL

I might add that after my service overseas in SE Asia, I came back in 1972 to the US for my final year of service in the army to become an intelligence briefer for a 10th Special Forces "A" team (I was Military Intelligence). Although in a non-combat support role, I was required to get out there every morning and do the conditioning drills and several miles of running. Now, admittedly, most of the 10th were slavic exiles (it was targeted on East Europe in the event of World War III) and a bit older than the "Rambo" image you might have had of green berets back in 1972. They surprised me actually... highly trained in stuff like Nuclear demolition... HALO... all kinds of specialties... but most of them weren't what I expected physically. Anyway, I was quite concerned that first morning, but soon found I was having no problem keeping up with those guys as I heard the huffing and puffing going on around me. Just a bit of memorabilia I'm throwing in here.

Women should have the opportunity to serve in any position in the US Military if they can do the job... period. Logistical problems can be handled, they aren't a dis-qualifier... only a poor excuse. Women should also be drafted if we ever re-establish the draft. Actually, I think everyone (no exceptions) should have to serve their country in some fashion for a year or two after high school... military or some civilian service. I think our country would be the better for it.

[Titanwarrior89]

Sorry rhonda, alot of women on fire and police departments are not holding their on. Thats the truth of it. I have to disagree with you there.[;)]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I guess I should put my two cents in here.

First, I think you are all wrong in your approach to women's physical fitness for combat. While it is true that if you took an "average" female vs an "average" male the male is going to be stronger, but if you take your female subject from the top 10% of all women (height, weight, physical conditioning) I suspect that they would be comparable or superior to your average male. Obviously, tiny, petite women aren't going to be seeking combat, but their are plenty of well conditioned, physically fit women who may want that opportunity for equality in the armed forces. One of my 8th grade female students has gone on to become Brigade commander of the Pinon High School JROTC, leads the brigade's "Ranger" Battalion in physical skills (and they do the extended road marches and extra physical conditioning), and is a state finalist in Cross Country. She wants to make the Army her career and wants to be in a combat unit. And I'll tell you, I wouldn't want to be in her sights on a battlefield... she's one tough Navajo warrior. So, yea, she could have that chance if she wants it.

Second, the arguments you guys are putting out there are the same ones that were used to oppose female police officers, fire fighters, heavy machine equipment operators and so forth. I thought we were past this sexism of defending "men only" careers.

Third, I agree with the logistics problems of having men and women serving in a really close living environment like a combat platoon or squad, but I don't see any problem with having all female units. In fact, I suspect that women would make better scout and reconnaissance units and definitely great sniper teams. We're naturally "sneakier"... haven't you guys had your wife sneak up and surprise you? LOL

I might add that after my service overseas in SE Asia, I came back in 1972 to the US for my final year of service in the army to become an intelligence briefer for a 10th Special Forces "A" team (I was Military Intelligence). Although in a non-combat support role, I was required to get out there every morning and do the conditioning drills and several miles of running. Now, admittedly, most of the 10th were slavic exiles (it was targeted on East Europe in the event of World War III) and a bit older than the "Rambo" image you might have had of green berets back in 1972. They surprised me actually... highly trained in stuff like Nuclear demolition... HALO... all kinds of specialties... but most of them weren't what I expected physically. Anyway, I was quite concerned that first morning, but soon found I was having no problem keeping up with those guys as I heard the huffing and puffing going on around me. Just a bit of memorabilia I'm throwing in here.

Women should have the opportunity to serve in any position in the US Military if they can do the job... period. Logistical problems can be handled, they aren't a dis-qualifier... only a poor excuse. Women should also be drafted if we ever re-establish the draft. Actually, I think everyone (no exceptions) should have to serve their country in some fashion for a year or two after high school... military or some civilian service. I think our country would be the better for it.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Sorry rhonda, alot of women on fire and police departments are not holding their on. Thats the truth of it. I have to disagree with you there.[;)]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I guess I should put my two cents in here.

First, I think you are all wrong in your approach to women's physical fitness for combat. While it is true that if you took an "average" female vs an "average" male the male is going to be stronger, but if you take your female subject from the top 10% of all women (height, weight, physical conditioning) I suspect that they would be comparable or superior to your average male. Obviously, tiny, petite women aren't going to be seeking combat, but their are plenty of well conditioned, physically fit women who may want that opportunity for equality in the armed forces. One of my 8th grade female students has gone on to become Brigade commander of the Pinon High School JROTC, leads the brigade's "Ranger" Battalion in physical skills (and they do the extended road marches and extra physical conditioning), and is a state finalist in Cross Country. She wants to make the Army her career and wants to be in a combat unit. And I'll tell you, I wouldn't want to be in her sights on a battlefield... she's one tough Navajo warrior. So, yea, she could have that chance if she wants it.

Second, the arguments you guys are putting out there are the same ones that were used to oppose female police officers, fire fighters, heavy machine equipment operators and so forth. I thought we were past this sexism of defending "men only" careers.

Third, I agree with the logistics problems of having men and women serving in a really close living environment like a combat platoon or squad, but I don't see any problem with having all female units. In fact, I suspect that women would make better scout and reconnaissance units and definitely great sniper teams. We're naturally "sneakier"... haven't you guys had your wife sneak up and surprise you? LOL

I might add that after my service overseas in SE Asia, I came back in 1972 to the US for my final year of service in the army to become an intelligence briefer for a 10th Special Forces "A" team (I was Military Intelligence). Although in a non-combat support role, I was required to get out there every morning and do the conditioning drills and several miles of running. Now, admittedly, most of the 10th were slavic exiles (it was targeted on East Europe in the event of World War III) and a bit older than the "Rambo" image you might have had of green berets back in 1972. They surprised me actually... highly trained in stuff like Nuclear demolition... HALO... all kinds of specialties... but most of them weren't what I expected physically. Anyway, I was quite concerned that first morning, but soon found I was having no problem keeping up with those guys as I heard the huffing and puffing going on around me. Just a bit of memorabilia I'm throwing in here.

Women should have the opportunity to serve in any position in the US Military if they can do the job... period. Logistical problems can be handled, they aren't a dis-qualifier... only a poor excuse. Women should also be drafted if we ever re-establish the draft. Actually, I think everyone (no exceptions) should have to serve their country in some fashion for a year or two after high school... military or some civilian service. I think our country would be the better for it.

That may be so (I have no recollection of seeing any documentation of how women are failing as police officers or fire(wo)men though). However a lot of them must be working successfully or we would be seeing a lot of demand to remove them.

However, my point is not that any woman can serve in a combat role any more than an "any woman" can be a fighter pilot. I'm just arguing that there are women out there who can hold their own and should be given that opportunity. I'm with you if you are arguing that standards must be kept up and no woman (or man) should be placed into a job that they are not capable of fulfilling.

I was 6'2" and 158 pounds when I was in the army and I had no desire to be given an M-16 and sent into the jungle to fight! Still, I think I could have held my own if USARV HQ had been attacked, at least as well as all the other paper pushers in that big building on the hill at Bien Hoa! I had an M-16 and a bandoleer of filled magazines in my quarters. Me and the other four women in our tiny little MI unit (we all had specialized college degrees and education that were useful). Did some interesting stuff, too bad I can't talk about a lot of it. My time with the 10th SF was really full of top secret clearance stuff, mostly about nuclear demolitions and planned sabotage in an un-named Warsaw Pact country. It was too bad that when I got out of the Army it was the wrong time to get into the CIA or DIA (which I tried to do) since in 1972 they were cutting not hiring. I often wonder how my life would have been so different if I had become a CIA spook LOL Probably better the way things worked out, no regrets.

Anyway, I'm just saying women should have their equal chance at any job that they can do and I think we can do a lot more than you guys give us credit for.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
Anyway, I'm just saying women should have their equal chance at any job that they can do and I think we can do a lot more than you guys give us credit for.

Here is where I can agree with you.
But, you may not with me?

Women as firemen stink. Fire training has been "dumbed down" to allow women to join. Not on an equal basis but, on a skewed basis. Hand a woman a forty foot ladder and watch her stumble around. Tell here to grab the 4" hose line and see what happens when you turn the water on. Have her do a dead man lift and throw a 170lb firemen (as part of a rescue) onto her shoulder and run for safety.

Same with police work. They can not do many things that males can do. [:)]

If women want to do equal work they should pass the PT and tasks equally.

Just sayin'!

RR

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
That may be so (I have no recollection of seeing any documentation of how women are failing as police officers or fire(wo)men though). However a lot of them must be working successfully or we would be seeing a lot of demand to remove them.

Because we all know Government and unions make everyone pull their fair share , unions would never put up with incompetence, never …………..lol

[wodin]

I have met some women though who could knock a man out in one punch..just saying

[Titanwarrior89]

Ronda, I do agree with you on your second point. Yes they shoud be, if they all meet the same standards.[:)] That includes males, they must meet the standards to.

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Sorry rhonda, alot of women on fire and police departments are not holding their on. Thats the truth of it. I have to disagree with you there.[;)]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I guess I should put my two cents in here.

First, I think you are all wrong in your approach to women's physical fitness for combat. While it is true that if you took an "average" female vs an "average" male the male is going to be stronger, but if you take your female subject from the top 10% of all women (height, weight, physical conditioning) I suspect that they would be comparable or superior to your average male. Obviously, tiny, petite women aren't going to be seeking combat, but their are plenty of well conditioned, physically fit women who may want that opportunity for equality in the armed forces. One of my 8th grade female students has gone on to become Brigade commander of the Pinon High School JROTC, leads the brigade's "Ranger" Battalion in physical skills (and they do the extended road marches and extra physical conditioning), and is a state finalist in Cross Country. She wants to make the Army her career and wants to be in a combat unit. And I'll tell you, I wouldn't want to be in her sights on a battlefield... she's one tough Navajo warrior. So, yea, she could have that chance if she wants it.

Second, the arguments you guys are putting out there are the same ones that were used to oppose female police officers, fire fighters, heavy machine equipment operators and so forth. I thought we were past this sexism of defending "men only" careers.

Third, I agree with the logistics problems of having men and women serving in a really close living environment like a combat platoon or squad, but I don't see any problem with having all female units. In fact, I suspect that women would make better scout and reconnaissance units and definitely great sniper teams. We're naturally "sneakier"... haven't you guys had your wife sneak up and surprise you? LOL

I might add that after my service overseas in SE Asia, I came back in 1972 to the US for my final year of service in the army to become an intelligence briefer for a 10th Special Forces "A" team (I was Military Intelligence). Although in a non-combat support role, I was required to get out there every morning and do the conditioning drills and several miles of running. Now, admittedly, most of the 10th were slavic exiles (it was targeted on East Europe in the event of World War III) and a bit older than the "Rambo" image you might have had of green berets back in 1972. They surprised me actually... highly trained in stuff like Nuclear demolition... HALO... all kinds of specialties... but most of them weren't what I expected physically. Anyway, I was quite concerned that first morning, but soon found I was having no problem keeping up with those guys as I heard the huffing and puffing going on around me. Just a bit of memorabilia I'm throwing in here.

Women should have the opportunity to serve in any position in the US Military if they can do the job... period. Logistical problems can be handled, they aren't a dis-qualifier... only a poor excuse. Women should also be drafted if we ever re-establish the draft. Actually, I think everyone (no exceptions) should have to serve their country in some fashion for a year or two after high school... military or some civilian service. I think our country would be the better for it.

That may be so (I have no recollection of seeing any documentation of how women are failing as police officers or fire(wo)men though). However a lot of them must be working successfully or we would be seeing a lot of demand to remove them.

However, my point is not that any woman can serve in a combat role any more than an "any woman" can be a fighter pilot. I'm just arguing that there are women out there who can hold their own and should be given that opportunity. I'm with you if you are arguing that standards must be kept up and no woman (or man) should be placed into a job that they are not capable of fulfilling.

I was 6'2" and 158 pounds when I was in the army and I had no desire to be given an M-16 and sent into the jungle to fight! Still, I think I could have held my own if USARV HQ had been attacked, at least as well as all the other paper pushers in that big building on the hill at Bien Hoa! I had an M-16 and a bandoleer of filled magazines in my quarters. Me and the other four women in our tiny little MI unit (we all had specialized college degrees and education that were useful). Did some interesting stuff, too bad I can't talk about a lot of it. My time with the 10th SF was really full of top secret clearance stuff, mostly about nuclear demolitions and planned sabotage in an un-named Warsaw Pact country. It was too bad that when I got out of the Army it was the wrong time to get into the CIA or DIA (which I tried to do) since in 1972 they were cutting not hiring. I often wonder how my life would have been so different if I had become a CIA spook LOL Probably better the way things worked out, no regrets.

Anyway, I'm just saying women should have their equal chance at any job that they can do and I think we can do a lot more than you guys give us credit for.

[Titanwarrior89]

Like I said earlier in this thread, the worst racket ball beating I ever got was from a female......Her mother loved watching.[:D]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I have met some women though who could knock a man out in one punch..just saying

[parusski]

I want to join the army. But I am 46 and was told "your to old". That is discrimination.

The reason I want to join is because of the young woman below, a newly promoted captain:

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I have met some women though who could knock a man out in one punch..just saying

When I was fighting full contact 20 years ago I met a lot of women that could wipe the floor with any man.

There are little guys too that can not qualify to be fire fighters and such.

I'm all for women having an equal opportunity.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Second, the arguments you guys are putting out there are the same ones that were used to oppose female police officers, fire fighters, heavy machine equipment operators and so forth. I thought we were past this sexism of defending "men only" careers.

I don't think anybody is arguing here whether to deny women military careers. The primary issue in doubt is whether to deny them front-line, direct-combat, ground soldier roles.

The American armed forces have perhaps the longest logistical "tail" of any nation. For every front-line combat soldier (or airman, sailor, or marine), there are at least ten or so personnel in various forms of background support.

So, better than 90% of the jobs in our armed forces are open to women. That's an awful lot of career opportunity right there.

Throw in some suitable combat positions (just not absolutely all of them) -- that adds several percentages more.

Is denying women the remaining few percentage of all military jobs "sexism" or "defending 'men only' careers"? I don't think so.

Third, I agree with the logistics problems of having men and women serving in a really close living environment like a combat platoon or squad, but I don't see any problem with having all female units.

That might work. Until it's observed that the female-only units are getting the softer duties and assignments (base security? UN peacekeepers?). I doubt very much that, in an actual shooting war, all-female companies/battalions/regiments would be assigned to forward, front-line positions alongside their male-only counterparts.

Women should also be drafted if we ever re-establish the draft.

I 100% agree with you on that.

Actually, I think everyone (no exceptions) should have to serve their country in some fashion for a year or two after high school... military or some civilian service. I think our country would be the better for it.

I'm not so sure about that.

However, my point is not that any woman can serve in a combat role any more than an "any woman" can be a fighter pilot. I'm just arguing that there are women out there who can hold their own and should be given that opportunity. I'm with you if you are arguing that standards must be kept up and no woman (or man) should be placed into a job that they are not capable of fulfilling.

Quoting from

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339178/awol-republicans-editors:

They [Republicans withholding their objections] are doing so on naïve assumptions. The first is that physical standards will not change, and only those few women who meet ones developed for men will be placed on the front lines. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has already breached that defense: “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” Thus were the Armed Forces welcomed to the world of disparate impact that corporate attorneys have already come to know so well.

Thinking that standards will not be lowered or "gender-normed" flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, I'm just saying women should have their equal chance at any job that they can do and I think we can do a lot more than you guys give us credit for.

I think there are all sorts of, yes, combat roles that women are eminently suited for, and should be allowed to perform (e.g., fighter pilot). (Not to mention the many, many suitable support roles.) I just don't feel comfortable with having women fighting "in the trenches" directly alongside, and among, the men. Must we strive for absolutely perfect equality and gender blindness here?

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: parusski

I want to join the army. But I am 46 and was told "your to old". That is discrimination.

The reason I want to join is because of the young woman below, a newly promoted captain:

Glad to see Ft. Bragg attempting to make "Clean-up-the Post" detail more fun...

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: parusski

I want to join the army. But I am 46 and was told "your to old". That is discrimination.

The reason I want to join is because of the young woman below, a newly promoted captain:

Glad to see Ft. Bragg attempting to make "Clean-up-the Post" detail more fun...

I usually don't have to say this word. But WHAT?

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: parusski

I want to join the army. But I am 46 and was told "your to old". That is discrimination.

The reason I want to join is because of the young woman below, a newly promoted captain:

Glad to see Ft. Bragg attempting to make "Clean-up-the Post" detail more fun...

I usually don't have to say this word. But WHAT?

Ft. Bragg, being a very large and open post, accumulates a lot of trash, especially in the more distant ranges/ftx areas. Thus, a rotating detail is formed to go out and clean up the trash. An entire company will spend all day wandering around the woods with trash bags, making half-hearted attempts to beautify the surrounding area while wondering what delicious MRE will be served for lunch. I always thought the detail should qualify for hazardous duty pay, since the number of people going on sick-call the morning of was easily three times the normal rate.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: ckammp





Glad to see Ft. Bragg attempting to make "Clean-up-the Post" detail more fun...

I usually don't have to say this word. But WHAT?

Ft. Bragg, being a very large and open post, accumulates a lot of trash, especially in the more distant ranges/ftx areas. Thus, a rotating detail is formed to go out and clean up the trash. An entire company will spend all day wandering around the woods with trash bags, making half-hearted attempts to beautify the surrounding area while wondering what delicious MRE will be served for lunch. I always thought the detail should qualify for hazardous duty pay, since the number of people going on sick-call the morning of was easily three times the normal rate.

Ahhh, I see the light.

How about this thought concerning women in combat: An assumption is that only women who volunteer for combat will ever have to engage in it. It has been reasonably well understood until now that any man who joins the military, whatever his reasons for doing it, becomes the military’s to use as it sees fit. There is no reason to think women will be treated any differently by a military that officially denies that average differences between the sexes should have any impact on its treatment of individuals. (Nor will there be any reason to restrict draft registration to men — as we trust the courts will find in short order once this policy takes effect.) So, would you support allowing women to choose whether or not to be used in combat?? If you do, then you must allow men in the military to say they do not want to be in combat. Does anyone not see a problem here?

Many women who have volunteered to serve our country in the military do not wish to play a combat role. As people come to see that a woman who joins the military may be effectively signing up for the possibility of combat, the number of female applicants may actually decline. The military bureaucracy will presumably see that as another reason to lower standards.