Women In the Infantry

[Jagdtiger14]

I cant respond the way I would like to, but lets say I very strongly disagree with you on the outcome...and that the policy will most definitely change. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this.

I'm not sure if we can talk gambling on this site (forgive me if I violate that rule)...but I have a friend in London that has placed a couple bets for me: 1,000 pound bet at 9-1 odds that Trump wins, and a 1,000 pound bet at 11-1 odds that Cruz wins. What I don't get is how highly Marco Rubio is rated...for some reason odds makers in London think he's got a great chance...and I may have been a bit late for my bet on Cruz.

[Titanwarrior89]

Come on guys back on subject...No...Politics...Please. Women in the Infantry...Pro's and Con's, that is all.[:-][;)]

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: waltero

ORIGINAL: JW

Well, I have to go back to something I asked earlier. How many women will be playing in the NFL games (American pro football) today? How many will be playing in NBA games? How many in the Premier League this week? Why is that? Sexism? Are men preventing qualified and talented women from playing these elite professional sports? Or do you think that if a woman could perform at the elite professional level that professional teams would sign her in a heartbeat for the publicity? And there would be a huge drumbeat from the media to see that woman play. But there aren't any. Only a small group of men can play at that elite level. Now imagine a decree that the NFL will have to accept and play female players....

Irrelevant[:-]

Relevant. If there are no gender distinctions or differences between men and women, as has been claimed and defended here, then shouldn't we be seeing women in growing numbers playing "men's" professional sports at the highest levels, or even at lower levels? We don't even have women playing football or basketball or baseball at the lowest collegiate levels of American sport, with a very few exceptions, and usually in specialty positions like kickers.

[JWW]

Interesting story on US Marine Corps study on use of women in other military forces, including the vaunted amazons of the IDF.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... bat-in-ot/

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: JW
Relevant. If there are no gender distinctions or differences between men and women, as has been claimed and defended here, then shouldn't we be seeing women in growing numbers playing "men's" professional sports at the highest levels, or even at lower levels? We don't even have women playing football or basketball or baseball at the lowest collegiate levels of American sport, with a very few exceptions, and usually in specialty positions like kickers.

Because that would require end-to-end institutional support, as in if you want women to be playing professional baseball, there'd have to be a structure going down to as early as women little league games for the players to filter up through to the rest of the system.

Not only is there a lack of such, it is quite likely that that would have significant opposition, from these same circles, for these same reasons.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: JW

ORIGINAL: waltero

ORIGINAL: JW

Well, I have to go back to something I asked earlier. How many women will be playing in the NFL games (American pro football) today? How many will be playing in NBA games? How many in the Premier League this week? Why is that? Sexism? Are men preventing qualified and talented women from playing these elite professional sports? Or do you think that if a woman could perform at the elite professional level that professional teams would sign her in a heartbeat for the publicity? And there would be a huge drumbeat from the media to see that woman play. But there aren't any. Only a small group of men can play at that elite level. Now imagine a decree that the NFL will have to accept and play female players....

Irrelevant[:-]

Relevant. If there are no gender distinctions or differences between men and women, as has been claimed and defended here, then shouldn't we be seeing women in growing numbers playing "men's" professional sports at the highest levels, or even at lower levels? We don't even have women playing football or basketball or baseball at the lowest collegiate levels of American sport, with a very few exceptions, and usually in specialty positions like kickers.

Not relevant. Oh, by the way, http://www.wnba.com/

How many infantrymen weight 290-320lbs, which is the average weight of NFL linemen?

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Finally I don't want to live n your world where there is some assumed natural distinction between genders.g memory fast enough.

In that case, can you explain why militaries around the world have lower physical fitness standards for women than for men?

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: Karri
It's really simple in the end: if the woman can serve to the standard that is required from frontline infantry then they need to be able to serve if they want to. Otherwise you are treating women with the opposite idiotic standard as those who would reduce standards for women so they can all serve in infantry. If women serving in infantry automatically means to you that your GOVERNMENT and ARMY will reduce the performance requirements then the issue is not with women, it's with your god damn country.

And I mean it's frontline infantry, cannon fodder. Come war they'll take take any man, woman, boy, dog, or tree stump that will fit the casualty reduced standards...but that's another discussion.

LOL! Karri, you need not be so "hot" about the topic.
I do not approach this from a stance of "feelings" about it.

And, I am glad to see that we agree. One standard for both? Then it is an even playing field with those "who can" being able to do the job.

As far as your cannon fodder statement? You might look at the article that JW linked in the post below #444?

Am glad that we could probably have this discussion in a pub where the other patrons won't think we are trying to kill each other! [:D]

[:'(]

RR

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: JW

ORIGINAL: waltero




Irrelevant[:-]

Relevant. If there are no gender distinctions or differences between men and women, as has been claimed and defended here, then shouldn't we be seeing women in growing numbers playing "men's" professional sports at the highest levels, or even at lower levels? We don't even have women playing football or basketball or baseball at the lowest collegiate levels of American sport, with a very few exceptions, and usually in specialty positions like kickers.

Not relevant. Oh, by the way, http://www.wnba.com/

How many infantrymen weight 290-320lbs, which is the average weight of NFL linemen?

Relevant. Question - Why is there a WNBA? Is it so women can have a league of their own because they cannot compete at the elite level with men? And just how good are the women of the WNBA, the elite female basketball players in comparison to men? Could they beat a good men's college team? An average men's college team? A good high school team? During my Army career I was quite a gym rat and not a bad basketball player, though certainly not college material. I was good enough to not embarrass myself as a role player in the #1 pickup games in the gyms. But I did play a lot against guys who had played in college (I remember one colonel from West Point who had a deadly jumper from the corner.) and women who had played in college in mixed gender pickup games. The women always had great ball skills -- better than mine -- but they were, relatively speaking, compared to the guys, slow and weak. That is not meant to insult them. It was just a fact. You don't want to see the WNBA champions go up against the worst NBA team, or even a good college men's team.

But let's look at a couple of sports where in the US there is a good support system for both boys and girls from a young age, and where physical size and height are less important, baseball and soccer. The support system with youth programs is there from age four or so. Women capable of competing with the boys do, but then at puberty things start changing, and fewer and fewer girls compete with the boys. By the time you get to good high school level (age 15-18) sports, you see virtually no girls competing with the boys. I teach at a large high school. I also take pictures at games. The difference between high school boys soccer and girls soccer is dramatic. Girls who five years earlier competed on basically an equal footing with the guys can no longer do it. The physiology prevents it. They are not as fast and strong. They might be just as technically talented, but they can't compete on the same field, with the exception of a few very elite female athletes who can compete at a marginal level with not quite elite guys. And then by the time we get past high school to college, they physical differences are so great that no women can compete at an elite level in baseball or soccer with men.

Let's look at track and field. I ran track in high school. I was pretty good. But nothing great. My best 400 meter times were between 50 and 51. I never won a big high school meet with those times. But that sets me up well, if I were 18 again, to compete well against the best female track and field athletes in the world. The winning times in the 2015 world championships for women were in the 49s. I would have been right there with them, a step or two behind. And I never really seriously trained, meaning I trained, but only what my coaches had me do. I did not train like an elite athlete. You could take the women's world champions and take them to a good high school track meet, and they would be hard pressed to win most events, because the elite female track athletes are running and jumping at a good high school male athlete pace.

Granted, during my Army career I knew many women who could blow me away on a 5k or 10k run. I was always rather mediocre at anything beyond 400 meters anyway. But put 70 pounds worth of field gear on us, and their advantage in a PT run went away.

There is a physiological barrier that is a real "natural distinction between genders" that simply exists and cannot be wished away. And I think that barrier is exemplified in the fact that women are unable to compete at an elite level in men's athletics in virtually any sport that requires more than primarily technical skill.

And we haven't even talked about the many studies that show injuries among women in highly physical jobs and sports occur at a higher percentage than injuries for men doing the same things.

And I believe that has great relevance in this discussion, since were are talking about the physical abilities needed to be an infantryman.

What we will get in our American experiment is some women who can meet the physical requirements at a marginal level. Will that be good for our combat readiness when they are called upon to perform as infantrymne?

[waltero]

Are we pitting Females against Elite 'American Men' (military)?
I remember reading about twelve monks that held off an entire army for 7+ days.
Pit women against the monks...not a chance, pit them against that same army...who ya!
I mean what are we talking; North Korea, China...our Women can kick the sh*t outa them.
How many 150-250 pound Asians do you run into...Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
marginal level is all that is needed.

Sometimes simple sheer numbers of participants allow for an expectable battlefield outcome.
Wars ultimately come from man power and, from this, the portion of the population that is actually able to assist in the war effort (able-bodied souls for fighting).

[SeaMonkey]

I know this is irrelevant, but why are the women's tee boxes different(closer) than the men's on every golf course in the World?

So if we got the women an exoskeletal enhancement would they be equal? Physically?

What about a combat equalizer(weapon)?

[waltero]

A Roman author, Ammianus Marcellinus, describes Gaullish wives as being even stronger than their husbands and fighting with their fists and kicks at the same time "like missiles from a catapult".

The Roman historian Plutarch described a battle in 102 B.C. between Romans and Celts: "the fight had been no less fierce with the women than with the men themselves... the women charged with swords and axes and fell upon their opponents uttering a hideous outcry."

Trying to keep up with the men on the football field or military training does not prove anything.
Lets see if they can keep up on the Battlefield.
Personally I could care less. If women want a chance to whoop up on our enemy...go sic em.

Women can fight!

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: waltero

A Roman author, Ammianus Marcellinus, describes Gaullish wives as being even stronger than their husbands and fighting with their fists and kicks at the same time "like missiles from a catapult".

The Roman historian Plutarch described a battle in 102 B.C. between Romans and Celts: "the fight had been no less fierce with the women than with the men themselves... the women charged with swords and axes and fell upon their opponents uttering a hideous outcry."

Now you're talking! Where did you got those quotes from?

I can name Dahomey Amazons. I quote Wikipedia:

The women soldiers were rigorously trained, given uniforms, and equipped with Danish guns (obtained via the slave trade).[citation needed] By the mid-19th century, they numbered between 1,000 and 6,000 women, about a third of the entire Dahomey army, according to reports written by visitors. The reports also noted variously that the women soldiers suffered several defeats, but that the women soldiers were consistently judged to be superior to the male soldiers in effectiveness and bravery.

Personally I could care less. If women want a chance to whoop up on our enemy...go sic em.

If they can keep up while carrying their packs & gear and throw hand grenade far enough, then why the Hell not?

[Jagdtiger14]

Ok, then how about this: Women go into all-female military units...where their sub par standards will not put males at risk? It would be up to the commanders in the field to determine how and where to employ these units (I would guess as reserve). We can put all the 'Chelsea' Mannings in there too.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

I know this is irrelevant, but why are the women's tee boxes different(closer) than the men's on every golf course in the World?

Clearly women shouldn't be allowed to play golf! [:D]

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Ok, then how about this: Women go into all-female military units...where their sub par standards will not put males at risk? It would be up to the commanders in the field to determine how and where to employ these units (I would guess as reserve). We can put all the 'Chelsea' Mannings in there too.

To my understanding such units already exist somewhere. At least in North Korea. How does it work out over there?

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Ok, then how about this: Women go into all-female military units...where their sub par standards will not put males at risk? It would be up to the commanders in the field to determine how and where to employ these units (I would guess as reserve). We can put all the 'Chelsea' Mannings in there too.

You do know you are word-for-word repeating the exact same arguments made for racial segregation of the forces, right?

Does that knowledge make you want to reconsider your logic?

[Jagdtiger14]

Alchenar: No I will not. Black men vs females...apples and oranges. In case you have not followed this thread, we are discussing infantry and reduced standards for women that are putting men in danger. I suppose you think most women are just as capable physically as most men?

This experiment will expire soon.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

This experiment will expire soon.

Someone will realize it is bad publicity to have women killed in action. Then even capable women, who pass men's standards, have difficulty to get into thick of it in any capacity, in infantry or out.

[Jagdtiger14]

I didn't think about that Matti. That would be a huge problem (100's of women killed). Another problem related to that could be that the anti-war activists (Code Pink, etc...) could/would seek to stop the war on that basis...and probably have more impact with that than their usual schtick.