Women in Combat? Why?

Where most of us agree, is that standards (physical and intellectual) should not be
lowered merely to accommodate someone who otherwise would not qualify.

Let's take infantry as an example.

Assuming the job requirements include heavy lifting over long distances,
then if someone is unable to do this...they should DQ...man or woman.

Provide them the opportunity is what many of us are asking. Don't close the door
just because they are female.

Frankly if a military man can't deal working with a woman, then good luck in the
civilian work force...

Two words for that ...tough cookies....

If a woman is fully qualified to do a particular job in the miltiary...then learn to deal
with working with someone of the opposite sex; eventually you'll have to anyway
once you leave the service.

 

The problem is that politicans and or higher military officers will lower the standards. What happens when 1000 females try and only 20 of them pass? What are politicians/femminists going to say? Do you think they're going to say "look 20 women in infantry, great!" There not, there going to start screaming that is biased and sexist. Herk you've been in the military, you know how it works. Politics come first. Especially during peace time.

Look at pull ups, one of the Marine Corps male PFT tests. Women are physically less capable of doing them (less upper body strength, lower center of gravity). Femmists/politicans will claim its a biased test because it discriminates against women. They'll say that Pull Ups aren't integral to combat and have the standards changed. Slowly the standards will be eroded. You should know that. I know where your coming from and what you mean when you say don't lower the standards. The problem is that in today's world we cannot think objectively on controversial issues like gender/race/sexuality. The "agendas" will trump common sense.

 

Women can do almost anything men can do, but, as I said before, men and women are different designs made for different purposes. I'm saying that one percent has to be permitted to get in there and play the game at a man's level because that's the right thing the military to do. If a woman can hold her own in that environment, she'll be fine as a soldier. If she can't handle the training, she's got no business downrange. You know that, I know that.

But you also point out something here--political correctness forcing decisions that are not very intelligent--that you refuse to acknowledge at the same time. Political correctness is going to force women into combat arms, like it or not. We can either be prepared for it and try to keep the standards where they need to be with reasoned logic or we can fight it all the way and be totally disregarded as misogynistic cretins.

 

You want to give women the chance to serve in combat. Why? They're not needed. So few of them will be able to pass the training it won't justify the investment. Infantry is a highly desired field in the military today, its not lacking for volunteers. Why do we need to let 1% join.....a 1% that at the very least will bring a boatload of sexual harassement cases? A 1% that physically, will be comparable to the bottom half of men at best. What is this 1% going to provide? Women should be able to serve in every position except below the regimental level in combat arms units or in Special Forces units. There will still be women on the battlefield, just in positions that are less physically demanding that don't present a myraid of sexual issues.

What happens when 1 woman gets assigned to an infantry platoon with 40 mostly 19-22 year old men? What happens when they're on a week long field op in the desert without any cover or privacy? What happens when that woman has to go to the bathroom or change in the middle of the flat desert with 40 guys looking on? What happens if she decides she doesn't want to do it? What happens if one of these particular men makes fun of her for doing so? Can you not see the recipe for disaster here? I just went to a veterans meeting where I listened to 5 or 6 support guys talk about all sexual harrasement/sexual assault incidents that they dealt with. I was shocked to hear them talk about how it happened constantly. I never had to deal with this because I was in an infantry unit. If these support units, which operate with much nicer and seperate facilities, are already having trouble, what happens when women join infantry units?

Serving isn't a right. The military is about providing the best force possible for the cheapest. I'm not going to let the politicans and ignorant civilains ruin the military if I can help it. The best way to prevent this from happening is to nip it in the butt now. There's this ridiculous concept in modern society today (I spent all my formative years at school being taught it) that men and women are the same. This is certainly untrue. Take one look at a college campus or a bar. There are very obvious differences between the sexes that we CANNOT ignore and must acknowledge for the sake of defense.

 

Why not? jesus

 

Read the thread and get back to us with something constructive.

 

Because war is not politically correct and is not something most nations can afford to lose.

 

It would seem people are putting this into polar extremes. Yes, women can serve in combat. Why? because they are capable. Granted some things they can't, physically do, but this is no reason to say they can't actually play a role in combat. I'm sure if it were that bad the army would have made arrangements ages ago.

 

Anyone who hasn't been in the military (or even combat) but responded to this should promptly delete their posts.

 

By that "logic", blacks should not have voiced any opinion about segregation in the military.

 

What makes you think someone who hasn't been in the military should not post here? Is there some sort of requirement I am unaware of that requires you to be in the military to exercise your right to free speech? I don't seem to recall that in the Bill of Rights.

People in the military have no more rights than any other citizen of the United States. Perhaps you should take the time to actually talk to someone in the military about what they stand for before you make a statement like the one above again. IMHO, your statement--if not made solely to instigate--is strikingly ignorant. And, before you ask, yes, I have been in the US military for quite a while, and yes, I've been deployed several times.

 

The United States Military acts on behalf of the American people. The American people, veterans, active duty, or civilains, are the ones that need to make this decision. That said, a great deal of care needs to be taken to listen to the men and women in the military. Unfortunately, most civilains don't understand the issue and see it as only gender discrimination. If they bothered to look at the facts they'd probably come to a much different conclusion. I find it hilarious when this topic comes up in a social or academic enviornment. All the women are instantly for Women in combat arms and all the wimpy men who are trying to get laid agree. Its only the occasional informed male (usually already with a girlfriend on his arm) or veteran that disagrees.

 

Bump.

I support women being allowed to serve in certain combat roles
Well, I'm not trying to "get laid". Whether or not I'm "wimpy," I suppose
that's debateable...never thought of myself that way...

but I digress...

Air Force CV-22s might be used in AFSOC missions...
therefore this young Lieutenant could be on an immediate track
to get into the fight and support people on the ground very soon.

March 02, 2011
Air Force News|
KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- After nearly three years of flight training w
ith the Air Force, she recently became the first qualified female pilot of the CV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft.


http://www.military.com/news/article/air-force-news/1st-female-cv22-pilot-finishes-training.html

 

What's missing here is any acknowledgment of the psychological dynamics between men and women and its effect on battle readiness. Women are not allowed to serve alongside men to improve military capability, but to provide opportunities for women to play traditionally male roles; and I am aware of no evidence indicating the change has been anything but detrimental. We have not faced anything like such capable and determined opponents as the Axis powers since 1945; but should we face such opponents in the future, I'm pretty sure that having a significant contingent 22% of which believes its members have a right to get pregnant any time they want will not be an asset, all things considered.

 

I don't think it really matters if women serve or not. If they're qualified, then why shouldn't they be able to serve their country? I do believe, however, that the standards should be exactly the same for both genders on their PFTs. Men have to be able to do a certain number of push-ups, sit-ups, etc. in a certain amount of time and women should have to do the same. If both are capable of meeting those standards, however low or high they may be, then they ought to be able to be in the military.

I've considered enlisting sometime in the future myself. I'd like the option to still be open in a few years...I think I'm capable. I can do more push-ups than over half the kids in my class, so I know I'd be better suited for it than some other kid, even if they are male. It's only fair- if you can do the job, you should have the job.

 

What is a detriment, in terms of our current conflicts of the past decade or so,
is the heavy reliance upon the Guard and Reserve components of the Armed Forces
to fill the vacuum of low retention rates and recruiting in the active duty component.

In the past few years, as the economy has entered a recession, retention and
recruiting hasn't been as big an issue..but it certainly was at the height of the Iraq war.

Multiple tours of duty and rotations that has placed a great deal of stressors
on not just the active duty, but nearly broke the Reserve components.

Therefore the reality that so few were stepping up to serve, to assert that
females who were willing to do so...are not only not an asset, but a detriment?

That is complete and utter horse hockey and flies in the face of the reality
of a broken Army...which was stressed to it's limits because of the undue
burdens placed on it with poor retention rates and recruiting while simultaneously
fighting in two theaters of operation..

I'll reiterate, the fact that a woman wants to serve her nation and is willing to deploy
in harm's way...not necessarily combat...but certainly hazardous duty areas...
the fact this occurs should be commended.

Because for all the "ranting and raving" of the alleged men who are against women serving..
they aren't serving themselves....placing additonal burdens on those that do....

Taking women completely out of the Armed Forces equation altogether...claiming that
even in support roles they're a detriment...would BREAK an already stretched all-voluntary
Armed Forces; certainly our ground forces anyway...

Your argument against women serving in the Armed Forces, is therefore rendered
moot.

 

I've got no issue with Females flying in any capacity. When I say "combat arms" I mean ground units. Also, my "wimpy" reference was directed at civilains....not former military officers such as yourself.

 

I suggest you read back through the thread. Only a very small percentage of women would be capable of passing Infantry standards....something on the order of 5%. The expense of having female Infantry pass selection/training would be similar to what it is for Special Forces (not counting fancy schools here.) The higher the attrition rate the more costly it is. When you factor in the millions and millions of dollars that would be needed doing studies, social training, seperate living quarters, etc. etc. the cost would be overwhelming. Currently there is no shortage of men trying to serve in combat arms....spending an inordinate amount of money so that a few women can join the ranks would be a waste.

 

This makes sense if -- and only if -- the PFT standards are somehow indicative of being able to do the job.

That's not necessarily the case. The PFT standards are a proxy for general fitness, not a test of actual requirements.

If someone needs to be able to lug 150 pounds, then test them to see if they can lug 150 pounds -- don't use pushups as a proxy.

Then there's the fact that physical requirements vary by job, even in combat arms. The ideal tanker is different, physically, from the ideal infantryman. The guy with arms the size of tree trunks is great if you need to haul a mortar plate. But if you need to be able to cross long distances at reasonably high speed, the skinny marathoner is a better bet.

Hold everyone to the same standards -- but make sure the standards are actually relevant.

 

What you are forgetting is that the same devolution of male-female relations with which unprincipled politicians were pleased to infect the military had already been in progress in the general populace for at least 30 years, and naturally led to a decrease in males who were fit for military service.

If we had a broken Army, it's because we had a broken country; and things have only gotten worse since then.

Commendation of admirable intent is one thing, and a maximally effective military quite another.

I would certainly not claim that, but I don't think they have any business serving in the same units with men, much less in command positions over men.

 

Recalling our past wars, namely WWII, Korea, Vietnam...
these all involved conscription of able bodied young males.

With an all-voluntary military the game has changed...the
pool of able bodied young males who are willing to serve is much smaller
than having this be mandatory...

In the advent of another protracted ground war, we will need women in support roles that allow
males to fill the combat roles. That's just the reality of an all-voluntary force. It's always going to be "coed"
to some extent. A mixture of males and females in the same institution...the institution being our armed forces...
whether this be the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard or Marines.

 

It's two things -- the people running millitary policy have never been in the millitary (so it's just another gov't rob to them), and the Political Correctness POlice have declared that gender does not matter. So we're making our army weaker on prupose.

 

Define military in both senses, otherwise you are being COMPLETELY hypocritical.

Well, it doesn't.

How? Women can fight if they meet the standards already in place. Simple. How does this meet your assertion?

 

Women in combat?.....Why Not?.....They always wanted equal rights.

 

I can't help thinking about the discussions in Germany, France and the UK before WWI about using reserve troops in combat. The opinion at the time was that they could only be usded for garrison duty. A few years later the war started and the Germans, who had changed their view, almost overran the French and the Brits before they could be stopped.

Today using reserve troops is perfectly normal.

People today discuss whether homosexuals and women should be allowed to fight. The future will laugh at us.