Women in Combat? Why? (Part II)

In case you've somehow forgotten, the overarching purpose of the US military is not to "show appreciation and gratitude" to anybody, but to be the most feared entity on the planet; and no one in his right might thinks admitting women to the infantry contributes anything to that end, to be as charitable as possible.

 

Page glitch.

 

I think as whole, women are far more self-centered and sadistic than men. Our military are the rock stars of war. The person pulling the trigger or pushing the button, as long as physical standards are met, doesn't necessitate a penis. And having our women in control of the tools of the trade scares me far more than the thought of men in control of them. So as to that argument, fear not.

 

El Rushbo says the purpose of the military is "...to kill people and break things."

I think women can do that just as well - if not better than - the average man.

 

Among their other duties...as long as I was given accurate weight and balance calculations,
and they were good at spotting SAFIRE through a set of NVGs...having a penis
was to no advantage for a loadmaster. I've worked with female airman, and even
being the only female on a crew with 4 other males. We didn't feel over-protective towards her
or compelled to give any sort of "special" treatment. Just another
crew member.

Nevertheless, I suppose we should let the infantry worry about their own. They seem less
able to handle working alongside someone who doesn't have a penis.

 

Not sure what your point is, but I should think it obvious that I meant our military should be feared by America's enemies, not by Americans.

 

I guess that's a blunt way to put it...but kind of off putting.

The Infantry is not a place for a social experiment, and lets be realistic, I do NOT see them raising PT standards for women to the men's standard, I just don't.

I also think it's financially stupid to waste that much money to train 100 women only to get 2-3 who may make it. Women, a huge majority, just simply cannot handle the weight.

Random question: what would happen if we're out in the mountains and a woman has that "time" of the month while we're out on mission for days on end. Do we halt the patrol, set up security so she can go off and try and find privacy to change her tampon?

What she's in a LRS team, and in a hide site or surveillance site and needs to change the tampon or pad or what have you? She would have NO CHOICE but to undress and change it right there next to two other guys at her shoulders. What then?

Is that an ex girlfriend reference?

 

The ban should be lifted. Women who are capable of performing on the same level as men (without any tailoring) during physical fitness tests should be permitted to engage in ground combat.

 

LOL. Same results either way. You think there is an Arab who wants to tell "Allah" a woman handed him his ass? It matters not what the people want anymore, anyway. Be prepared for booster seats in the cockpit on take your kid to work day.

 

It's different jobs in different environments...I wouldn't pretend to know what a rifleman
does on a daily basis in the Marines or Army...
I only have the environment I've worked in, to base my opinion on.

Judging from many of the comments, and beyond the physical elements of being
an infantryman...it seems to me they simply don't want to work with women.

At one point in the past decade or so (not so much now as enlistment standards
have increased) the infantry will let a convicted felon get in (with a waiver), someone with a prior
gang affiliation (with a waiver)...or even health issues (with a waiver)...
but a vagina? No thanks, you're not welcome in our squad.

I hear about how a female would cause disruption in unit cohesion,
and maybe that's the case...but the infantry has allowed a lot of (*)(*)(*)(*) bums to serve
in the past when standards had to be slackened to meet the enlistment quotas
because of an on-going unpopular war. No one seemed to care about that at the time,
as long as they had a penis of course.

With a bad economy and troop drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan...the infantry doesn't need a lot of warm bodies any more..
they can increase the standards. However, given the nature of geo-politics, who knows what's on the horizon
or if the (*)(*)(*)(*) hits the fan again and the ground forces are once again involved in a protracted war.

They'll lower their standards again to get the warm bodies...as long as they have a penis of course
and can lift 150lbs. like a pack mule; with no consideration about looking into better
qualified females to possibly join their ranks...better in terms of character at least.

 

That's not on the Infantry, that's on big Army or Marines and recruiters. Personally, it p*sses me off.

 

Allowing women to serve in the Infantry is some kind of prize to be given? That's a very scary mindset you have. I suspect you're of the PC crowd. Infantry is the most physically demanding job in the military and has the least amount of privacy. It is also where the rubber meets the road. You don't scarifice the quality of this branch just to appease women. The DoD's job is to provide the U.S. with the most effective force possible. Allowing women into the Infantry does not provide the most effective force possible. Even if you consider the tiny minority of women who are equivalent to the average male (notice I didn't say meet the minimum standard), it still costs significantly more to find and train that small number of females. You have to revise training, find female instructors, build new barracks, and pay for 90%+ attrition (very expensive). When you take these considerations into account and combine them with sexual harrassement issues and the significantly higher nondeployability rate of women you are NOT fielding the most effective force possible.

The Infantry isn't hurting for volunteers. Paying hundreds of millions of dollars extra to field women infantrymen means your detracting from military effectiveness.

 

Prove that women are more sadistic. You're playing into the modern GI Jane silliness that so many ignorant people perpetuate. Also, prove that being sadistic is somehow a component of being an effective Infantryman.

 

Well, if it would really stop there, fine. But the reality of the PCing of the millitary is that the standards will be declared "sexist" and dumbed down until the infantry is 50% women. It's the same in every situation that we've changed the rules for. At first its for highly qualified, but sooner or later it comes down to affirmative action -- meaning that a less qualified member of a protected class is more desireable than a highly qualified member of a non-protected class.

I've seen it quite often in promotions for public safety. We have dozens of open slots for officers in the STL fire departments. Unfortunately, not enough blacks are passing the test -- so the test is racist. Yet I don't see how you could make a test on basic firefighting knowledge "racist" in the least. What it means is that either the slots go unfilled (so the department can't be sued for racism) or the test (i.e the standard) goes down to allow more blacks to be officers. Both answers though officially non-racist effectively mean that the fire department is less able to fight fires. Which actually poses a big risk to people who's houses catch fire. Fewer leaders mean a less coordinated response to a fire.

 

Ever see a female search team in Iraq/Afghanistan get completely ignored by Arab men? Counter-insurgency involves interacting with the local population. Arab men tend to NOT listen to women giving them commands. It could be very upsetting to them if they're forced too. Ignoring commands in combat zone can have deadly consequences. So the idea that women would somehow be an achilles heel to Arab insurgents/men is wrong.

 

I was responding to a post that implied a military of women wouldn't be scary. I think women behind the wheel of a car is scary. Your perception and argument is completely different from the other poster's. Why would I have to justify my argument to a case it was never intended for in the 1st place?

 

I know I'm not following the commands of Chinese occupiers whether they are a woman or a man. Here's a noble idea, get the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of other people's nations.

 

Replace "have a penis" with "are physically larger, stronger, faster, more adaptive to unhygenic enviornments, significantly cheaper to train, less likely to cause sexual harrassement issues, and much less likely to be nondeployable."

To be blunt, Infantrymen don't want to work with women because most of them have had limited but unfavorable interactions with them. These interactions have been unfavorable because the women didn't jive with the "spirit/enviornment" of the Infantry.

 

You seemed to be implying that women would somehow be more "sadistic" and "scary" than men.

 

Now those are genuine arguments. I don't think women should be infantry either.

 

I can't help what I see with my own 2 eyes. All across society men have to face the consequences of their actions. Women are held to none. From getting his ass kicked, to going to jail, to paying child support, men have to think before they act. Everyone thinks "princess" could never do anything wrong. Such an environment has fostered a generation of women that are sadistic beyond the pale. You seriously underestimate them.

 

This is about women in ground combat roles. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of a given war. It has to do with the effectiveness of the military to carry out whatever mission it is given by the elected representatives of the U.S. In ever war in history the military has had to interact with civilians. In certain places women aren't as effective at dealing with these civilains. I made this point to counter an assertion that women would be more effective because of Arab men's distaste for deference to them.

Get it? Stop trying to steer the discussion into troubled waters.

 

The "ground combat" role to which you were using is foreign occupation and against the tenants of what our military is designed for in the 1st place. Our military is meant to hit hard and fast and get the (*)(*)(*)(*) out. Shock and Awe. Not woo and court.

 

I don't think women are generally any more sadistic than men. I think I agree with you though that in Society women tend to be a bit more insulated. They generally aren't encouraged to be as independent as men, and, when it comes to physical activites and discomfort, are more ample to quit or rely on others for help. There are of course exceptions to every rule, but in general it's true. (Governor will probably come afer me for saying this). This is a societal thing, and involves the complicity of both sexes. I definitely saw it in the military.

 

It doesn't matter whether its shock and awe or occupation, you still interact with civilains. Look at Germany and Japan after WWII or the Balkans. Were those not legitimate "occupations" where troops (many of them combat) had to interact with civilians. Conflicts today increasingly involve more complicated and dynamic battlefields. Civilain interactions are definitely part of that. Then when you consider disaster relief and peace keeping missions it becomes even more importantl.