Women in Combat? Why?

It is all social conditioning. When I grew up, I did not even know to play "house" or "dress up." It was start learning the necessary skills to survive in life. How to use a gun, how to field dress, how to cook with limited resources, filter water, ect. That is the way things work in the lesser developed parts of the world. You will not find many of the types you are referring to.

Girls that grow up here are exposed to different environments. It is time people learned to start identifying people as individuals and not based on a larger group. That is a horrible way to go through life.

As for equal PFT standards, I agree. When I was training in high school and before, I aimed for the men's standards. I wanted to get where I am now and know I earned it. I could not meet the men's standards for push-ups, but that was my own lack of discipline. Instead of splitting the standards by gender, it should be done by MOS or AFSC. You want to be a pilot? Work your arse off. You want to be a shoe clerk? Go ahead and do the 1.5 mile in 14 minutes.

Sorry if the syntax is poor, I only had two hours of sleep.

 

Mate you really need to get out more. Women are exactly the same as men, their only differences lie in physical disposition and slight psychological differences - for example, girls learn better amongst only girls and perform worst with boys whilst the reverse is the case for boys. Women are more valuable than men, technically speaking, given their quality as a female. Other than that there is virtually no difference between male and female. They are both equally virtuous and capable of productivity. Your social constructs and views have absolutely no bearing on the human female mind or ability and it speaks a lot of your sexist ignorance, which is really quite pitiful. Men dont women? Merely your opinion. Women need men? Merely your opinion., Generally speaking they dont need either, and to the view of other they may need each other immensely. Regardless, such views have no bearing on this thread.

 

In my decade in the Army, including two years in Iraq, I have met my fair share of women that have the ability to meet or exceed any physical standard required of their male counterparts. While in Iraq, we've had women in our convoys, on foot patrols, on perimeter guard, on firing batteries, on quick-reaction medic teams, etc. There isn't much in combat that they don't do already. The only difference I've noticed is that they can't be rewarded for any combat-related service. They can't be awarded the Combat Infantry Badge under any circumstances, and it's nearly impossible for them to receive the Combat Action Badge. Depending on the unit, the criteria for a Purple Heart can also be more strict for females than it is for males.

If a woman wants to be a part of the Infantry, Artillery, or Calvary, they should be allowed to as long as they are held to the same standards as their male counterparts. Same APFT standards, same training model, same everything.

I'm sure my Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airmen brothers will agree with me on this: When we're in the thick of combat, I don't care if the Soldier beside me is a man or woman, I only care that they are capable of pulling their weight.

 

Wow, I can tell you are a teenager there.

And I hate to tell you this, but there are most definately differences between men and women. We both think and behave very differently. We approach situations differently, and we react totally differently.

And those differences are not slight.

Way back in the Dark Ages, I took a few college courses, one of them was a Business course. And we had to show how men and women think differently. Now most students went for the obvious, how products are organized in a store, percentage of "women only" stores compared to "men only" stores in the mall, things like that. I went a way that almost got me thrown out.

I set up in the Quad with 2 store manequins. On each one was a bra, and I asked various students to describe the clasp. That was all, describe the clasp, and I broke down the results by sex.

And the differences were staggering. Around 85% of the women would describe the clasps as "front closing" or "back closing". While around 93% of the men described them as "front opening" and "back opening".

Now it may not seem like much, but it shows he we can each approach the same item with a mindset completely opposite from the other. And I have seen women in uniform that I often wonder why they are where they are in ("Princesses"). One I even sent back to basecamp during a patroll because she would not stop whining about how dirty it was and that she had broken a nail (no joke). Then I have met those that are, forgive the expression, bull dykes. More agressive then almost any man, they will no go around or over mountains, they bully their way through them. Because many feel they have to be "10 times better then a man to make it".

But most of them are just like anybody else.

 

You are absolutely right. Men and women are different, we do think differently, we do approach situations differently.

And that's precisely why females are valuable on the field.

Anyone who is willing and able, no matter man or woman, can be trained to be a competent and capable Soldier. Different perspectives on the battlefield makes any given squad or unit more adaptable. Your example is only proving why females are needed on the battlefield.

 

good points with the PFT.


the physical qualifications for women would have to be brought UP to the standards that have been established as nessesary for war fighting, not lowered.

 

Liberals in our governments do not want to do any meaningful studies on women in infantry combat roles. They only want the change, the equality. Negative consequences are of little concern.

 

The problem is that it is not as simple as that. No matter what you do, men and women are just different.

The ratio of muscle mass to fat is different, the strength of the muscles, even the way our legs and hips are sonctructed is different. And the difference may seem small, but when you take 20 men and 20 women at random and have them do similar tests (say hiking 25 miles with 75 pounds of gear), when it comes to the purely physical feats, the women will almost universally do worse.

This is just how we are. I have served now for over 14 years, and have seen this in action over and over again. And even the PT tests do not show everything. I have known people (me for example) that averaged 5-10 pullups on a test, but then the next day do a 20 mile forced march where "300 point PT studs" fell out of. One of the guys in my platoon now aces his run and scores 285 on the test, but he is one of the last ones to come in on a 5 mile hike with gear (his time is just under 1 hour).

And even though I am old and "broken", I still hike most of the kids I work with into the ground. Whenever I am placed in charge of the "walkers" for PT, everybody groans. Because my idea of a brisk walk is 3 miles in about 40 minutes. Everybody knows that the old guy can't run, but he is a hiking fool.

If combat involved doing convoy support, or base defense, or even short range patrols out of a FOB, I have no question that most women could do just as well as the men. My biggest concern is the other 10-15% that the job of Infantry consists of. The ones that saw me return from 2 weeks in the field, 15 pounds lighter and looking like death warmed over with black circles that stayed for days.

 

Women will be in combat to promote the myth that men and women are the same. Well, except one has babies. And PMS. And menstruates. And has less upper body strength. And so on and so forth.

 

The bull dykish Feminazi babes should indeed have their own Special Ops Units. Shoot them up with hormones and get them out there.

Lol.

 

When not wanting your kid to touch the glowing hot stove, you have 2 options, yell at him/her 1000 times, with him/her despising you for being so bossy. Or just let the lil' (*)(*)(*)(*) touch the stove. Then they will learn you weren't being a jerk, just looking out for their best interest. Let women touch the stove all. It's not like there's any real wars left. No Hitler is on his way here if we don't take him there. LOL

 

Were you an 03 Gunny?

 

I care. I don't doubt women have the courage. I don't doubt that women can be in convoys or pull guard. I don't know what a quick reaction medical team is.......we had Medevacs helos or were expected to drive casualties ourselves. I don't think they can lug 155 shells to the cannons as effectively as men or load SABOT rounds in M1s or break track. I also doubt that they can carry out many of the neccessary jobs Infantry are required to do.

I'm speaking in general here. There are of course rare exceptions to every rule. However, exceptions don't dictate policy and are never economically efficient.

Were you Infantry?

 

You basically said that everyone whose willing and capable of being trained can be trained. That seems rather obvious. The difference is that the vast majority of women cannot be trained to the same standard as men. Different perspectives can at times be valuable but they can also be DEADLY. When your doing a squad rush you want everyone to be on the same exact page.

 

Exactly. I went to Iraq lean and came back leaner. I keep seeing people post how so and so women returned fire in a convy and did wonderfully. Thats great, women can probably do many of the things that Combat arms are required to do. The problem is that they can't do ALL of them. Not being able to do all of these job means that people die, period. Being an effective Infantryman means adapting to any situation and getting the job done.

 

Those females were recruited from ODA teams and the 75th Ranger Regiment like virtually all of their male counter-parts? They underwent the same rigorous selection process that attrites many Green Berets with half a dozen combat deployments?

I also interestingly enough read that in their recruitment post they require Male only applicants between E-4 and E-8 over 21 years old.

It appears that these female "Delta Force" members are nothing but a support attachment no where near on the level of the incredible men that make up that unit.

 

Where was the hyperboli in what he said?

 

Excuse me? What makes you think women will ever equal men? That is ludicrous.

Can you state now even one aspect where women are closely similar to men ... ? Anything?

 

Lol.

Women always need someone to tell them what to do, how to "feel," and what to think. The best solution is for a man, "Mr. Right," to do that.

If you think women do not need leadership in their lives, then explain how Madison Avenue and the Media are able to manipulate them so well through consumerism and an ever changing pop culture of their making. Lol.

Women are often good managers, but are in fact poor leaders. Have you ever worked with women on the job and not seen that ... ? Lol.

 

Do your exceptional parameters disallow trends about all other women? Nope. Lol.

And, just like a woman, you are using "yourself" to supposedly "explain things." Lol. As well, just like a woman, you come up with a weak little excuse, a "reason," for being tired.

 

So you can show evidence of this?

I think negative consequences are a concern to every political group., Please dont turn this into some partisan 'liberal vs conservative' spiel because I'm just not interested. This issue has nothing to do with it.

 

It's inappropriate for women to take part in wars. It's bad enough that wars happen in the first place without women getting involved.

 

I was playing devil's advocate. Women think because there is a "girls club", that there is a "boys club" too. With ours being so much funner. They have no concept the pressure and cut throat mentality men have towards one another. Society is making us share the spoils of such a hard existence with them. I say let them share in it all. Women can do anything in life, and a group of people will clap for the lady. Men have one option, be successful, and reap the rewards, or die trying. Let them see how fun it is. If you want things to be as they should, it must happen. Like the kid who wants to touch the stove. They think you are being mean, not trying to save them the grief. So let them grieve.

 

What makes you think "difference" is a battlefield asset?

Perhaps you are "uncomfortable" with the Army's axiomatic principle of teamwork and strict compliance to training? Lol.

 

It's inappropriate for anybody to take part in wars.

However, that is not the point in question here. I doubt that you will find many in the military that are not pacifistic to one degree or another. Personally, I am very much a pacifist.

However, I am also a realist. And I realize that not fighting now (Sudetenland) can often result in even worse fighting later (World War II).

And I do not care that the person giving me the orders or assisting me in my job is male or female. I believe wonem should serve in the military if they choose to. I am one of those that simply places a few limits on where for what should be realistic and obvious reasons.

And guess what, women are involved in the wars anyways, no matter where they are. It has been like that throughout history. Including Joan of Arc and Molly Pitcher.