Women in Combat? Why?

Check out the Police force.

 

And I have and do work in teams with men and have to live with them like family and it's fine. It's a culture. They'll get used to it.

 

Riots in the UK are a bit different to the ones in Iraq in 2003.

 

Yes, it is a choice for women to make whether they decide they are stupid enough to go to war or not.

Do you want to debate or derail? You're not dodging anything, if you don't mind just respond to the point or don't bother posting derailing comment.

That is definitely a personal attack.

However, thank you for supporting my point that males have no authority to prevent women from taking the field should they choose to do so...it will go through legitimate channels, not through the misogynist dinosaur boys club.

Don't misquote me. That comment was not directed at you.

 

I suppose there is a case to be made there, if you look at what happened to the female reporter in Egypt. It's up to the management to decide how to deploy, as it is with female Police.

Now it's 3 a.m. Night all.

Edit] 3:27.....!

 

Since you're the one trying to derail, the question has no merit.

Exactly, so how about doing likewise?

Truth hurts, don't it.

Don't tell me not to do what I never did in the first place.

Who the Hell do you think you're kidding?

 

From the person who has pointed out other people's personal attacks.

 

1) What happens when an IED goes off and injures half your fireteam leaving only 2 females unharmed? Who's going to drag the 200 pound men in full equipment to the LZ 400 yards away? What happens when your squad assaults a walled compound and everyone has to haul themselves in 70lbs of gear over an 8 foot wall because all the doors and windows have trip wires on them? You can't call out and play to your teams "strengths." In war its the lowest common denominator.

2) It takes years and year to design and implement weapons. Designing a whole knew set of weapons just for women would cost tens of millions of dollars. What happens when the enemy is able to carry better weapons that aren't subject to "female" weight standards? Weapons guys carry a 240B currently which weighs 30+ pounds. It provides a great base of fire with a large 7.62mm weapon. Are we suppossed to replace them with the lighter M249 which only weighs 20lbs and fires a much smaller and less effective 5.56mm round so that women can carry them. And don't say you can just give them to the men...remember combat is all about the lowest common denominator.

3) How will the women be better than the men? I once saw a dozen Iraqi Army soldiers completely and utterly ignore a female Marine Lieutenant and try and steal a bunch of soda off of a truck. This small 5 foot nothing lieutenant was screaming at them and they just continued on as if nothing had happened. The second I came around the corner and yelled at them they stopped in their tracks. The female Lieutenant outranked me by a mile but might as well not have been there.

 

Here are some better pictures of what the sleeping/living conditions often are. The picture Herk posted would be the "rear". These pictures are the "field" which is where grunts spend most of their time

 

Wow, good times there! Brings back a lot of memories.

I still remember my time in the Grunts fondly. 2 weeks in the North Carolina summer, emptying out the BK when we finally got out because we wanted a hot meal as soon as we got back. Spending weeks tromping through the jungles of Panama during Jungle Warfare School.

Hopping out of an LCM in waist deep water and wading the remaining 150m to shore. Then hiking another 15 miles before being able to bed down like in the picture.

The problem with so many here is that they really do not know or understand the military, or what demands are nessicary to be a part of it. They simply have some kind of agenda, and do not care how well it will affect the needs and mission.

They often go on and on about accepting the "10%" that may be able to meet the needs. But that is never how it really works out. Because the 10% is then seen as a persecuted minority, and since more then 10% should be able to make it, the standards are loosened and it becomes 20%, then 35%. And with the more lax standards, when the defecation hits the rotating blade, you have increased casualties.

If you want an idea what it would be like, look at the US Army Air Assault School. This is one of the most challenging schools that most Soldiers get to go through. And on average, it has a 30% drop rate. For females though, it is closer to a 60% drop rate. Most simply lack the upper body strength to meet the demands of the Obstical Course on Steroids, and the 12 mile ruck march with 65 pounds in 3 hours or less.

And that is the kind of demand that most grunts face on a daily basis. Not just for 12 days, but during their entire career. I went through the old Jungle Warfare School when it was in Panama. And I have been told by Air Assault instructors that it was much harder then even their course is.

Sure, there is a lot of things said in here about female cops and firefighters. And very few women make it as a fireman because of the strength requirements. But yes, some can make the 65-100 pound weight carrying requirement for 5-10 minutes.

Now increase this demand to wear the gear for a 25 mile hike (the standard MCCRES), and see how many women are able to make that.

We are not talking about ."EO". We are not talking about sexism. We are talking about the physical differences between the sexes. And in the end, that is what will tell the difference when the metal hits the meat.

I for one am not interested in seeing more of my brothers and sisters return in body bags just to meet some whiny liberal's ideas of "what is fair".

 

Women have fought in war, slept in the jungle which is far worse that the silly pictures you lot have put up.The Vietnamese did all that. ffs..

 

I think I understand your point. Nevertheless, I believe the risks are still worth letting men serve.

 

Actually the whining is coming from the (so-called) conservatives. I have yet to see ANYONE make the claims you and others seem to think is the leading argument here. No, everyone so far (here at least) has said women should be allowed to serve, if and where they are capable. Clearly the problem is whiny conservatives, scared men will be too horny to fight correctly. Well (*)(*)(*)(*) if they're dumb enough to get killed on the job because they're busy staring at their colleagues' ass, they brought it on themselves. The fact is, if women can pass the tests and do a job, they should have full support. If they cant pass tests, then they cant do the job and hence wont - no one here is disputing that.

 

"Hello Kitty" ... I think I understand your image of a woman and the basis for your belief that a woman cannot do the same job as a man.

 

Nice projection.

The discussion is about allowing women to serve in ground direct combat units...


No where in any of posts have I inferred women can't do other jobs a man can.

Women can and do, the job I had while in the military...
I have absolutely no qualms with that or issues.

However mixing up males and females in combat units is the core issue...
whether a female can do this job given the assumption they have the same
physical testing standards as male...probably a few could do it...but
we shouldn't be turning the combat arms into co-ed shared close quarter living
conditions.

Please stay on the core topic, instead of insinuating
you even know me or my level of character.

You decided to take my comment out of context...which was a sarcastic
response to another poster who alluded that a "curtain" would provide
the necessary privacy in a combat environment.

thanks, and have a great day.

 

Nothing was taken out of context, I provided your entire quote for review. You suggested a "hello kitty" seat cover for soldiers serving in the field. Unless you intended to offer hello kitty accessories to male soldiers, your sarcasm demonstrates is revealing of a difference in how you see male and female soldiers. That difference in perspective is relevant to your suggestion of different treatment.

If the "curtain" suggested to accommodate your sensibilities is insufficient, well... the problem then isn't with women soldiers.

People serving in the field, living in the field, may experience inadverdent nudity. I assume you don't walk around with it all hanging and you avert your eyes if another man drops his drawers to change. Do the same for your fellow soldiers who happen to be female and don't assume your plumbing is of anymore interest to Jane than it is to Joe.

 

Why would I think that women have no place in the military or deploying
in a combat service support role?

They serve a valuable role assisting our ground troops...

Where I don't think they should be is on the ground, deployed with predominantly male squads,
directly engaging bad guys

If that makes me a misogynist, then so be it.

There is no shame in combat service support I did it myself as an activated reservist.

 

My favorite post so far. This is what we call "thinking outside the box". Make way for a new breed of warrior, the Infantry Princess. I'm tired, carry my rucksack you big dumb brute.

This one made me laugh too.

 

Well, I don't know how much military experience you have to make this kind of claim.

Personally, I could not care less if they would be temping people to have sex or not. It means about as much to me as the gays in the military question some people have. I could not care less, as long as it happens off duty and away from base.

100% of my opinion is based simply on ability. And it is not just women, a lot of men can't handle the Infantry either. I invite you to go to Camps Lejeune or Pendleton and watch a grunt unit doing a 15+ mile forced march. Probably 5-10% of the unit will be dragging arse behind everybody else because they can't keep up.

I am sorry if the PC Police do not like it, but it is a simple fact of body design. The upper body strength and other things like hip placement just make it harder for women to do the intense and physically demanding chores that are demanded of Infantry. And to try and adjust things to allow the maybe 10-15% of women that can make it is not only wastefull, it can cost lives.

And heck, if women want to do "Grunt Work", they can join the MPs. They pretty much do the exact same things that grunts do now, just not with the same intensity. If somebody thinks that women deserve to be grunts, then let them start by seeing the results of female MPs in battle areas and comparing their effectiveness to male MPs in the same area.

But with most of the cultures we have been at war with for the last 20+ years, I bet they would be even less effective. A call for an enemy to surrender in an Islamic culture to a female would simply result in a fight to the death. Where the same call for surrender from a man might cause them to lay down their arms.

Because in those cultures, surrendering to or being defeated by a woman is the ultimate in disgrace.

 

Lighten up, Francis.

 

Yeah I just saw a program on snipers where a woman viet-cong sniper, who was particularly bloodthirsty, get nailed by an American sniper team. Good show.

 

What part of my claim requires military experience, may I ask?

Good to know.

Again, how does this mean women cannot apply to enter into these jobs?

Who are the PC police? Republicans and Democrats are very PC, but who are the "police" you are referring to?

Yes I already know all of this. Dont waste your breadth. It doesnt change ANYTHING I have said. Did you actually read what I wrote???

An "Islamic culture"? What is that exactly?

So...get a man to do the negotiating in that instance. Still no reason to kick women out.

Which ones? They can't be called "Islamic", rather "Afghan" or Iranian etc.

 

I have spoken to some veterans of the military. Some would rather be stuck in a fox hole with a woman. This being that if she has kids, she is going to fight hard. "Harder than some men," as they put it.

 

What part of your belief seems to mandate the dictation of your beliefs into things that you have no knowledge of? You seem to have this belief that women (or a small percentage of women) can do the job just as well as men.

Fine, and who sets those standards? The main job of Infantry is in killing others, and keeping themselves alive.

Period.

So tell me, who sets the standards for allowing women in the Infantry? Because in the US Army, job placement is decided before a person even leaves for boot camp. In fact, the Basic Training for Infantry is at Fort Bening. And it is harder then the other Recruit Training Centers, and is male only. How many tens of millions of dollars are we going to spend in order to establish the facilities for female recruits there?

And what are we going to do, create even higher standards for female recruits who want to become infantry? And what happens to the majority that wash out anyways? Spend even more money?

Here are some facts. Basic training alone costs around $35,000, and the normal attrition rate in boot camp is around 15%. Infantry training costs around $50,000, and the normal attrition rate is another 15%. And those amounts are per person. And for those that wash out for injuries, it can add up to many times that for medical expenses.

So we are going to spend $85,000 per person, and probably wash out 80% of the females, in your attempt to create female infantry. On top of the tens or hundreds of millions spent to upgrade the facilities in the first place. All so that a small handfull of women who are capable of holding their own are given the chance to do so?

And trust me, 80%+ will not make it to completion unless they seriously cut down the requirements of the training.

So how about some other changes first then. First, all women that want to be in Infantry must be able to pass the full APFT for a man to a 60% score before they even depart for boot camp. Also ensure that they can keep up with the rigors by having them complete a 15 mile ruck march with a 65 pound pack. And stop along the way every 3 miles and drag a 200 lb dead weight at least 30 meters.

But we can't do that, because then we would be discriminating.

You keep talking from some kind of belief, that is totally removed from facts and the "real world".

*sighs*

That is not how it is done. When you need to do something like negotiate a surrender, the highest ranking person on the other side wants to talk to the highest ranking person on your side. So if they have a Sergeant and you have a Sergeant, they do not want to talk to a Private. To send anybody but a person of equal or higher rank (when one is available) is an insult. It shows both a lack of respect for them, in addition to the possible intent of deceipt.

And if your Sergeant is female, there goes the negotiations.

Yes, they are Islamic. I am sorry if you find this offensive, but it is true. And I saw this first hand just over a year ago.

In our bases overseas, we have TCNs, or "Third Country Nationals" who perform many of the day to day duties on the base. And for every group of TCNs, there are 1 or more "escorts" that go everywhere with them.

And the first rule they taught us in Escort Class is that a male can be left alone with the TCNs, but a female could never be left alone with the TCNs. Either they would abuse her, or ignore her. Or even worse, assault her. The co-ed escort teams I saw, it was pretty much universal that the male did all the communication with the TCNs, and the females just stood there.

And it is not an "Iranian" or "Afghan" thing. The TCNs came from various areas, including Malaysia, Philippines, Palestine, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and other nations. The one thing they all had in common is that they were Muslim.

I have even stepped up a few times when a female was following a TCN who had left the area he was supposed to be in. She would be yelling at him to return to where he should be, and he ignored her. It was only when myself or another male stepped up that they would smile and apologize, then return to where they should be.

OK, so fine, have it your way. It is not "Islamic". Instead it is an issue when dealing with people from Indonesia, Pakistan, Banfladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Sudan, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Iraq, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Suadi Arabia, Usbekistan, Yemen, Syria, Kazakhstan, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Philippines, Senegal, Tunisia, Guinia, Somalia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Sierra Leone, Libya, Jordan, UAE, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Chad, Lebanon, Kuwait, Albania, Maurirania, Oman, Kosovo, Gambia, Bahrain, Quatar, Comoros, Djibouti, Brunei, Maldives, or one of a few dozen other nations.

Does that make you feel better?

The reason why I think having a clue about what the military is and how it operates is important is that this way people are not talking from total ignorance. You obviously see the military as some kind of "Boys Only Club", and you only want to break it down so everything is equal.

Well, that is not how it is. Women are allowed in over 90% of the job fields. They are only kept out of a very few, like Infantry.

Now here is a fact. I was a grunt, and was one for over 10 years. But I am not any more. I am now a 46 year old man going through what my wife calls "Middle Age Crazy" and trying to relive my youth by being in the Army.

I am in no way phyiscally capable of doing the things I did 25 years ago. But I still run faster, hike faster and farther, and do more pull ups and push ups then probably 90% of the females in my Battery. And I am 46 years old.

Put me against them in my prime, and I can only think of 2 that would have beaten me in the run. But none of them would have beaten me in push ups, pull ups, or a ruck march. Heck, I have yet to find a female in my unit that can beat me in a ruck march even now. Even one that used to berate me for my slow run had to admit I walked her into the dirt on the 10 mile march we did a month back. To me it was a slow pace, and I was easily good for another 5 miles afterwards. She was drenched in sweat, and did not run for 2 days afterwards. This Staff Sergeant is in excellent shape, and prides herself in grading herself on the male APFT chart. She is half my age also, but could not keep up with me. She is far above average in phyiscal ability for a female, I am slightly above average in my age group.

But the APFT charts are way skewed in the Army. As a 46 year old male, I need 30 push ups to pass. A 25 year old female needs only 17. For the 2 mile run, I need to run in 18:42. The 25 year old female needs to run it in 19:36.

And the 25 year old male needs 40 push ups, and a 2 mile run in under 16:36. And that is the Army minimum of 60%. Most grunt units require 80% passing, which means 58 push ups minimum, and a run time of 14:48.

The female grade charts for pushups max out at 46 push ups and 15:36 for the run. So what is 100% for men would be in the range of 130% for women.

And in the Infantry, substandard performance results in body bags. Both the person that performs substandardly, in addition to those killed trying to keep them alive.

 

...?...I have plenty of knowledge. It may surprise you but knowledge of the army and of ethics does not require any military service, but you of course you have no idea what my relationship with anything military is anyway.

I dont care if women cna or cant - they should just be allowed to apply for the position and be given it if capable.

The army - they are already in place.

Yep.

Dont know, dont care. I thought women already serve in the US army.

Whatever is deemed necessary for survival, as you accurately describe it.

They obviously dont get in.

Why would you spend more?

My attempt? No, their attempt. They can attempt it. If the system is (*)(*)(*)(*), fix it - dont punish women for it.

Why do you have to upgrade facilities for women?

So what.

There you go, do that.

No you can. I mean why not lift the standard for all? If you are going to lift it for the female wannabes do it for the men as well.

Not at all, it is totally realistic.

Then change it and make it so. Stop crying about how (*)(*)(*)(*) the US army is and fix it.

Well obviously the circumstances change dont they. LOL You obviously don't live in the real world.

Looks like my point just flew over your head as it seems this whole thread has.

Sorry mate but I really am not going to take your word for it that sexual assaults are restricted to all Muslim males. I find it hard to believe, and yes a 46 year old soldier dude who is clearly very angry wont change that suspicion without hard data.

Not at all, although that culture does persist in many places, like Australia's armed forces.

Not at all. You see how ignorant you are - you just assume away and clearly haven't been able to calm down and actually listen to what I had to say.

Let them apply for infantry. If it is too costly - change it to make it less costly. You clearly already have some ideas to that end, so why are you crying?

What a waste.

I am in no way physically capable of doing the things I did 25 years ago. But I still run faster, hike faster and farther, and do more pull ups and push ups then probably 90% of the females in my Battery. And I am 46 years old.
So?

Well there you go, proves my point.

SO FRICKING WHAT? IF THEY CANT DO IT, THEY CANT DO IT.

Yep, so dont let those that aren't capable join the infantry.

I see your only qualm is with women in the infantry, which I would agree with if women were physically incapable of joining and did not want to. However clearly many want to and some are capable. I am not opposed to harder tests - I dont see how you can discriminate against women by making it harder for them and not men, I mean wouldn't you make it harder for both?