Britain to review combat ban for female troops

[Richard]

And so it goes... ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Britain to review combat ban for female troops
USA Today, 25 May 2009

Britain's female soldiers could soon battle enemy forces in face-to-face combat, if a ban on women serving in the most dangerous warfare roles is lifted for the first time.

In keeping with a wider overhaul of equality laws in Britain, military officials are considering whether to allow female troops to be deployed with previously all-male units on perilous missions behind enemy lines.

Armed forces minister Bob Ainsworth said a new study will decide whether to lift a long-standing ban on female soldiers, sailors and air force personnel taking part in close quarter combat.

The review comes amid an examination of gender equality across British society, including moves to expose pay gaps between men and women and to encourage affirmative action.

Britain last reviewed the role of female troops in 2002, when officials concluded that women were less able to carry heavy loads, more prone to injury and had a lower capacity for aggression than men. It said single-gender units also were likely to bond better and work more effectively.

But Brig. Richard Nugee said experience of wars in recent years meant those assumptions needed to be tested again.

"The real point is that we now have practical experience of women in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we want to see, genuinely want to see, what effect that will have on our military," he told the BBC. "This is a very open-minded review. We have no conclusions yet."

Only Israel and the former Soviet Union have deployed women as combat troops in modern history, though Israel hasn't sent women into front line fighting since 1948.

The United States doesn't allow women to serve in infantry or special forces units.

British women played a prominent role in World War II, joining auxiliary units of the regular armed forces and serving as officers with the clandestine Special Operations Executive, members of which were deployed behind enemy lines to disrupt or gather intelligence on the enemy.

Britain's defense ministry said that around 18,000 women currently serve in the U.K.'s armed forces, out of a total of around 188,000 personnel. Scores of women are deployed along front lines, carrying out dangerous tasks such as attack helicopter pilots and medics — but none are involved in infantry missions to track and kill enemy forces.

Since the 1990s, women have been able to serve on ships and as air crew, but are not permitted to work on submarines.

Ainsworth said the new review is legally required under European Union equality laws, but is chiefly an attempt to learn lessons from recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The study will interview troops who've served in mixed-gender teams and their commanders to assess the impact on their work.

But he confirmed the study won't consider lifting the ban on women serving aboard submarines.

Some former senior officers believe physiological factors — the fact that female troops typically are not as strong as male counterparts — mean rules should remain in place.

If the ban was lifted "there would be concerns that operational effectiveness, particularly in the infantry, could be and probably would be jeopardized," said Gen. Mike Jackson, a former head of the British army.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-05-24-uk-troops_N.htm?csp=YahooModule_News

[incarcerated]

We’ve covered this ground before, though I cannot remember the name of the US Navy vessel on which the vast majority of its small complement of female sailors became pregnant during the Clinton social experiment with the military.
From The Heritage Foundation:


Congress Should Hold Hearings Before Allowing Women in Combat

by Luddy, John
Backgrounder Update #230
July 27, 1994

…What has been the experience of nations that have mixed men and women in combat units?
Answer: History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle. For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield.
17 These findings will come as no surprise to most Americans; in a recent national survey, two-thirds of those who favored the current policy barring women from ground combat cited the potential loss of mens' effectiveness as a reason….

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/bu230.cfm

[Team Sergeant]

Women cannot beat men at golf and some think it's a good idea to place them in combat?

Brilliant!

TS

[incarcerated]

Women cannot beat men at golf....


In Exercise Physiology, we were taught that the absence of testosterone in the blood makes female muscle tissue less durable (i.e. more prone to injury), slower, and less strong than male muscle tissue. It’s one of the reasons that the female athlete experiences sports injuries at four times the rate that their male counterparts do. This can be seen across the spectrum of athletic performance.
The U.S. Women’s National Soccer team plays to about the level of a good high school varsity boys team. In 1995 and 1996, the team was closer to its prime (easily in the top three women’s teams in the world) and played a California boys under-16 club team (Nomads of La Jolla; they were nationally ranked at the time), and lost both times narrowly 1-0. The Women players loved it, saying that they got a challenge in the physical dimension of the game that they could not get elsewhere (i.e. against other women’s teams; IIRC it was Jill Akers-Stahl that said that). Coach Tony DiCicco remarked at the time that people were constantly telling him that he should train the team against college men’s teams. He said that this wasn’t possible, and that people didn’t understand what would happen if they tried. This is one of the dirty little secrets of women’s soccer.

My Ex Phys prof also said that he caught hell for teaching the facts of the differences between the male and female athlete, but that we owe it to the athletes under our responsibility to tell the truth and suffer the consequences. Beyond differences in construction of the female knee (not made to support lateral movement) and arm/shoulder (we guys can’t pitch underhand quite the way women do), training regimens must be composed differently for the two sexes. The female athlete requires smaller increments of increase. This is a big deal, and is widely ignored.

OTOH, nothing can match the vicious, destructive qualities of some of the women where I work. But for them to be effective in combat, they would have to be fighting for the other side. :rolleyes:

[MARSOC0211]

Women cannot beat men at golf and some think it's a good idea to place them in combat?

Brilliant!

TS

That is a great compairison TS, I am going to use that later if you don't mind. But on a more serious note, how about the psych effect on men and dealing with "expectants" and "routine" casualties in combat? Considering how most of us were raised, are we going to make a decision based on logic or on emotion... I do believe Col Grossman has written extensively on the subject.

[AngelsSix]

[QUOTE=incarcerated;266483]We’ve covered this ground before, though I cannot remember the name of the US Navy vessel on which the vast majority of its small complement of female sailors became pregnant during the Clinton social experiment with the military.


If I remember correctly, it takes a man to get a woman pregnant, they cannot do it by themselves, being on board a ship has nothing to do with it, President Clinton damn sure had nothing to do with it. Women get pregnant because they have unprotected sex with men and that had been going on since the Earth came to be.

I can accept the arguments that women are weaker, more prone to injuries, more emotional, etc, but leave pregnancy out of it unless you want to give the men who aren't smart enough to use protection during sex some of the credit. It takes two to tango. It has nothing to do with why women are not in combat roles. I do agree that women are a definitive distraction and that when you put a woman in a male unit that they are invariably going to get down and dirty if they so choose, but it is a CHOICE they make, it has nothing to do with the military or combat roles.

There have been numerous papers and studies done on the subject, and there is not any one branch of the military that does not have it's own problems with pregnancies.

Here is a copy of a study done at the Air Command and Staff College about Army Pregnancy issues:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf

[incarcerated]

Men USUALLY use an underhand attack, and women an overhand attack. I wonder if the diffrance in arm/shoulder construction is the reason.


Women’s Knife Fighting being one of the less popular events at the college level (except at Santa Ana College, and Compton Community Colege) and generally frowned on by the NCAA, I will enquire among some less educated people I know who happen to have a little expertise in this regard.

[incarcerated]

If I remember correctly, it takes a man to get a woman pregnant, they cannot do it by themselves, being on board a ship has nothing to do with it, President Clinton damn sure had nothing to do with it. Women get pregnant because they have unprotected sex with men and that had been going on since the Earth came to be.



So that’s how that works…
AnglesSix, are you suggesting that Clinton Defense Secretary Les Aspin’s 1993 policy of putting women on naval combat vessels was not new at the time?
For most of the soldiers and Marines I know, sex isn’t any more a choice than it is a question. It’s more of a certainty, dependant only upon skill.
Are you suggesting that it’s a good idea to put women on Navy combat vessels? The issue of who’s responsible for pregnancy is irrelevant to that question.
(I take it that you’re a believer in Safe Sex. If we turn this into a discussion about Safe Sex, Team Sergeant is going to kick my ass for hijacking Richard’s thread.)
What does the Air Force have to say about pregnancy in the Navy?

[Expatriate]

This comes as a result of EU interferance, rather than strictly at the behest of the Brit government. Apparently, because the ban on Female troops in combat is in contradiction to EU Equal Opportunities legislation, Britain has to review the policy every 8 years in order to keep certain pen pushers in Brussels happy.

[echoes]

And so it goes... ;)
British women played a prominent role in World War II, joining auxiliary units of the regular armed forces and serving as officers with the clandestine Special Operations Executive, members of which were deployed behind enemy lines to disrupt or gather intelligence on the enemy.
Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard,

This is something that sparks my interest, from a historical perspective. Will have to use some spare time to research this topic more indepth, as it sounds facinating if accurate.

As far as the topic of Women in combat roles...can just say that when I began reading PS.com, I did not understand the argument. However, after learning from the QP's posts on the topic, it made sense to me! It is a No-Go.

And A6, Good Points!

Holly:munchin

[afchic]

[QUOTE=incarcerated;266483]We’ve covered this ground before, though I cannot remember the name of the US Navy vessel on which the vast majority of its small complement of female sailors became pregnant during the Clinton social experiment with the military.


If I remember correctly, it takes a man to get a woman pregnant, they cannot do it by themselves, being on board a ship has nothing to do with it, President Clinton damn sure had nothing to do with it. Women get pregnant because they have unprotected sex with men and that had been going on since the Earth came to be.

I can accept the arguments that women are weaker, more prone to injuries, more emotional, etc, but leave pregnancy out of it unless you want to give the men who aren't smart enough to use protection during sex some of the credit. It takes two to tango. It has nothing to do with why women are not in combat roles. I do agree that women are a definitive distraction and that when you put a woman in a male unit that they are invariably going to get down and dirty if they so choose, but it is a CHOICE they make, it has nothing to do with the military or combat roles.

There have been numerous papers and studies done on the subject, and there is not any one branch of the military that does not have it's own problems with pregnancies.

Here is a copy of a study done at the Air Command and Staff College about Army Pregnancy issues:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf

You were reading my mind!!!

[afchic]

So that’s how that works…
AnglesSix, are you suggesting that Clinton Defense Secretary Les Aspin’s 1993 policy of putting women on naval combat vessels was not new at the time?
For most of the soldiers and Marines I know, sex isn’t any more a choice than it is a question. It’s more of a certainty, dependant only upon skill.
Are you suggesting that it’s a good idea to put women on Navy combat vessels? The issue of who’s responsible for pregnancy is irrelevant to that question.
(I take it that you’re a believer in Safe Sex. If we turn this into a discussion about Safe Sex, Team Sergeant is going to kick my ass for hijacking Richard’s thread.)
What does the Air Force have to say about pregnancy in the Navy?

You are joking aren't you, please tell me you are, because if you aren't I feel awfully sorry for you. You honestly are trying to tell me that men do not have the "choice" when it comes to having sex? You are trying to tell me that the rumors I have heard all my life are true, that men really are ruled by their little head and not their big one?:confused:

And your smart ass comment about the certainty of sex being based on skill leaves a little to be desired. I am sure you didn't mean it the way it came out, but that could be taken to mean that men are "certainly" going to get laid, using whatever means necessary.

If pregnancy on combat ships is irrelevant to the discussion, how come it always seems to be in the top two statements men make about why we shouldn't be there? Explain to me why you don't believe women should be aboard combat ships?

As for what the AF has to say about the Navy, you once again have to be joking. It has about as much relevance as a civilian who has never served, offering "insight" as to what men and women in the military think. Since when did any service keep its mouth shut about what the other branches were doing, or how they handled certain situations? It's obvious you are a civilian, because you have obviously never been a part of such a discussion. Does one branch have the end all be all answer about everything, and everyone else should just keep their mouths shut?

I believe Angle Six was coming from the frame of reference of BEING A WOMAN, and not from the fact she is AF.

[The Reaper]

If I remember correctly, it takes a man to get a woman pregnant, they cannot do it by themselves, being on board a ship has nothing to do with it, President Clinton damn sure had nothing to do with it. Women get pregnant because they have unprotected sex with men and that had been going on since the Earth came to be.

If we cannot prevent men and women in units from having sex, and therefore from getting pregnant, then the only sure way that I can think of to prevent pregnancies is to send only all male or all female crews to sea.

We could require contraceptive use, but some refuse, some cheat, and all methods short of sterilization have failure rates.

Rather than argue whose fault it is, it might make more sense not to send mixed gender crews to sea. The argument that the Navy does not have enough male sailors to man their ships fails when you consider the number of replacements or empty billets that result from shipboard pregnancies.

You can UCMJ these kids all you like, but the fact of the matter is that given an available member of the opposite sex, young service members are going to seek an outlet for their sexual drive. IIRC, the policy in the Box has been rewritten several times after large numbers of service members were discovered to be having sex in theater.

I am not sure what the Navy policy is, but if I were King, I would personally require the both of the pregnant parties to remain at sea till their last trimester, and to be returned to sea to complete their cruise as soon as possible after delivery. That might remove the appeal of early return from the cruise as an attraction, and would minimize personnel turbulence.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Richard]

Explain to me why you don't believe women should be aboard combat ships?

This social quagmire of an issue is not a problem - as long as one accepts the 'separate but equal' and 'there'll always be someone around to do that for me' arguments which were a part of the discussion that resulted in a change to the previous requirements for a general seaman on such a ship to be able to carry a wounded sailor of equal or greater bodyweight up a ladder during an emergency. Since the theory has not - as far as I know - been tested to date, life has gone on pretty much as before with our combat vessels being staffed by members of both sexes.

Saw the same thing in the Air Force when female aviation mechanics were first assigned to an SOS at Rhein-Main AFB and couldn't carry their tool boxes to the flight line during an EDRE as required because they were too heavy and the males had to carry them. But the requirement was simply waived with the stroke of a commander's signature, the males were upset until the change became a matter of routine, and life went on.

Also dealt with the physio- and psychological effects on trainees and cadre (both male and female) of the standards (85% physical capacity) issues in regards to women and airborne training. The standards remain in place, some people still don't like it, and life has gone on.

Personally, IMO the greater problem remains less one of physical capabilities and continues to arise more from the proverbial 'battles of the sexes' - a distracting element for any male-female unit's chain-of-command and an issue for which there may never be other than a compromise of a solution.

Now, as an educator, the issues I deal with on a nearly daily basis among the faculty and student bodies are not all that much different and the only measurement I've come to use is whether anyone can successfully perform the duties of their job description or not. Go figure. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[11B2V]

*Disclaimer - I speak only from an Infantry MOS standpoint. I do not claim to know the opinions of Cav/Arty/SF/etc. branches...

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the effects that female soldiers would have fighting along side males in combat today(?). Remember that Army commercial "there are over 212 ways to be a soldier" referring to MOS's? Well I think that only about 200 of those should be equal opportunity. My PERSONAL experience has been (coming from a male only Infantry unit) that any, and every time I go to an Army school for example, the standards are deluded to the point of being a joke. The dudes I work with want to be challenged to do incredible things all the time. The females I work with (I'm now in a joint unit) have to be challenged to meet the MINIMUM standards ALL THE TIME. If the women in my unit were made to take a Male/17-21year old APFT, I will go out on a limb to say that not one would pass. (Start the paperwork!) There are of course exceptional women out there who, in any given scenario might perform exceptionally well. This does NOT constitute opening a floodgate into combat arms MOS's and muddying the waters!
Now, every once in a while we would have dudes that we would call Sally, Suzy, or Barbie. This MAY or MAY NOT have been because of a lack of combat agression, or the presence of female like physical capabilities. I can tell you that it is NOT a compliment for an 11B to be called Sheila, Barbara, or Britney.
Women in the military have my utmost respect, and do a damn good job! That being said, I would not ever want to walk point for one in the mountains of A'Stan. I hope this does not offend anyone, but if it did....oh well. Walk a mile under my ruck before you judge me right?.

[Team Sergeant]

To me it's quite simple, when women stand toe to toe with men in the Olympics then and only then should they be allowed to fight shoulder to shoulder with men.

It's a fact, women are not ('cept those women from the Great State of Texas) as physically strong as men.

I've little doubt that if allowed to expand their military role all that will happen is the combat "standards" will be lowered to accommodate women.

TS

[CPTAUSRET]

Disregarding the stupidity of the males who impregnate females aboard ship. I still have that (albeit) stupid male for duty...A pregnant female won't see much duty!

[afchic]

This social quagmire of an issue is not a problem - as long as one accepts the 'separate but equal' and 'there'll always be someone around to do that for me' arguments which were a part of the discussion that resulted in a change to the previous requirements for a general seaman on such a ship to be able to carry a wounded sailor of equal or greater bodyweight up a ladder during an emergency. Since the theory has not - as far as I know - been tested to date, life has gone on pretty much as before with our combat vessels being staffed by members of both sexes.

Saw the same thing in the Air Force when female aviation mechanics were first assigned to an SOS at Rhein-Main AFB and couldn't carry their tool boxes to the flight line during an EDRE as required because they were too heavy and the males had to carry them. But the requirement was simply waived with the stroke of a commander's signature, the males were upset until the change became a matter of routine, and life went on.

Also dealt with the physio- and psychological effects on trainees and cadre (both male and female) of the standards (85% physical capacity) issues in regards to women and airborne training. The standards remain in place, some people still don't like it, and life has gone on.

Personally, IMO the greater problem remains less one of physical capabilities and continues to arise more from the proverbial 'battles of the sexes' - a distracting element for any male-female unit's chain-of-command and an issue for which there may never be other than a compromise of a solution.

Now, as an educator, the issues I deal with on a nearly daily basis among the faculty and student bodies are not all that much different and the only measurement I've come to use is whether anyone can successfully perform the duties of their job description or not. Go figure. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard, I agree with your assessment whole heartedly. My response was somewhat sarcastic in that the individual I raised the question to pretty much pointed out that the AF shouldn't have a say in what the Navy does. My point is that if that is his thought process, then realistically, as a civilian, he doesn't really have a dog in the fight, and therefore should keep said theories to himself.

I went back to the old thread of women in combat, and read it enthusiastically, and I have to say that I agree with what the QPs had to say for the most part.

Do I think there are women out there that can hack it, without standards being dropped to do it, yes. Do I think money should be spent to find those few women that a) have the drive to do it and b) the required physical strength, no I do not.

I have never ever been a woman that believes just because a woman WANTS to do something, she should be able to, if it means relaxed standards. That puts everyone at risk, especially when it comes to things such as ground combat, firefighting etc.

But we have seen how the combat landscape has changed, in this war alone. We now have CS and CSS troops engaged with the enemy, where in the past it would only be combat troops. Women have been proving themselves in situations we never thought they would be in. Does this mean the floodgates should be opened, of course not. Do I see things being different in 10-20 years from now, I do.

I remember being a cadet my Junior year of college when the CSAF was addressing a large group of ROTC/USAFA cadets and said women would NEVER fly a combat aircraft. We had no place in fighter cockpits. Physiology was used as a reason, women not being able to handle the number of G's a man could etc, etc.... Things have changed quite a bit in the subsequent 15 years.

[Team Sergeant]

But we have seen how the combat landscape has changed, in this war alone. We now have CS and CSS troops engaged with the enemy, where in the past it would only be combat troops. Women have been proving themselves in situations we never thought they would be in. Does this mean the floodgates should be opened, of course not. Do I see things being different in 10-20 years from now, I do.

I remember being a cadet my Junior year of college when the CSAF was addressing a large group of ROTC/USAFA cadets and said women would NEVER fly a combat aircraft. We had no place in fighter cockpits. Physiology was used as a reason, women not being able to handle the number of G's a man could etc, etc.... Things have changed quite a bit in the subsequent 15 years.


Just so we're on the same sheet of music, there's a little difference between fighting an enemy from 30,000-80,000 feet AGL while sporting a 100 million dollar fighting machine strapped to your ass dropping $50,000 bombs or fighting "hand to hand" with a $500. rifle and bullets that cost less than 10 cents a round, a knife and a chew of tobacco.

Also, there is not a "war" in history where the combat support or combat service support personnel were not killed in action. This war is no different in that aspect. And yes, sometimes these personnel must fight in order to live. Having said that there is a fundamental difference with signing up to change the oil in an F-16 on a semi-secure base and blowing the door off the hinges and willfully entering a room to engage a dozen heavily armed & bloodthirsty bad-guys or spending months or years in "enemy" territory looking for a fight.

I cannot say I've ever heard of our enemies posting a "bounty" on the heads of our supply clerks, cooks or flight line personnel. There's a reason for that.

I believe women possess the same intellect as men, I do not believe they possess the same strength nor do I have too as that is a centuries old fact.

Engaging 300-400 "hundred" taliban from a cockpit at 30,000 feet AGL (or remotely from California) is not and never will be the same as meeting the same 300-400 taliban within "small arms range" and in their back yard. Unlike a "pilot" ground combatants do not get to go back to base and have coffee and steak when they run out of bullets....

Let me know when women start kicking ass on some of those UFC fighters I see on TV, then I'll believe that combat might not be far off for women. Until then it's a pipe dream, unless the standards are lowered to such a point as to allow women in combat outfits.

Firefighters LEO's, etc , are not at war and if need be can take a break or even quit if the going get's too tough. I cannot believe you use them as an analogy with combat soldiers.

Women cannot compete with men physically, period. It's the same reason the "INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE" does not allow women and men to compete against each other.

And no, I do not believe there are women out there that can "hack it", those women "hack it" only in hollywood movies....

Bring it.:p

TS

[charlietwo]

A question I would like to pose to afchic -- What ends do you seek in this argument, policy-wise? Is there be a policy that could be enacted based off arguments you are presenting?

These questions are in no way tongue-in-cheek... I think I'm just getting confused as to what ground you're fighting from.

Great thread, btw!

[afchic]

A question I would like to pose to afchic -- What ends do you seek in this argument, policy-wise? Is there be a policy that could be enacted based off arguments you are presenting?

These questions are in no way tongue-in-cheek... I think I'm just getting confused as to what ground you're fighting from.

Great thread, btw!

I am not seeking a change in policy. I think the policy as it is, in this time and place, is what it should be. The point to my argument is simply never to say never. We may not see women in combat in our lifetimes, or even my daughter's lifetime. But to say that it is NEVER going to happen, I don't know about that.

[afchic]

Just so we're on the same sheet of music, there's a little difference between fighting an enemy from 30,000-80,000 feet AGL while sporting a 100 million dollar fighting machine strapped to your ass dropping $50,000 bombs or fighting "hand to hand" with a $500. rifle and bullets that cost less than 10 cents a round, a knife and a chew of tobacco.

Also, there is not a "war" in history where the combat support or combat service support personnel were not killed in action. This war is no different in that aspect. And yes, sometimes these personnel must fight in order to live. Having said that there is a fundamental difference with signing up to change the oil in an F-16 on a semi-secure base and blowing the door off the hinges and willfully entering a room to engage a dozen heavily armed & bloodthirsty bad-guys or spending months or years in "enemy" territory looking for a fight.

I cannot say I've ever heard of our enemies posting a "bounty" on the heads of our supply clerks, cooks or flight line personnel. There's a reason for that.

I believe women possess the same intellect as men, I do not believe they possess the same strength nor do I have too as that is a centuries old fact.

Engaging 300-400 "hundred" taliban from a cockpit at 30,000 feet AGL (or remotely from California) is not and never will be the same as meeting the same 300-400 taliban within "small arms range" and in their back yard. Unlike a "pilot" ground combatants do not get to go back to base and have coffee and steak when they run out of bullets....

Let me know when women start kicking ass on some of those UFC fighters I see on TV, then I'll believe that combat might not be far off for women. Until then it's a pipe dream, unless the standards are lowered to such a point as to allow women in combat outfits.

Firefighters LEO's, etc , are not at war and if need be can take a break or even quit if the going get's too tough. I cannot believe you use them as an analogy with combat soldiers.

Women cannot compete with men physically, period. It's the same reason the "INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE" does not allow women and men to compete against each other.

And no, I do not believe there are women out there that can "hack it", those women "hack it" only in hollywood movies....

Bring it.:p

TS

TS,

In no way was I comparing what combat ground troop do to what pilots do, in terms of physically. My argument was based on the fact that at one point in time the AF said women would NEVER see the cockpit of a fighter, for any number of reasons, to include the physical piece. That was the thinking only 15 years ago. It is no longer the thinking of today.

No where did I state that ALL women have the physical prowess of men. Do I think there are some out there, I sure as hell do, and I have met some of them. Doesn't mean I am advocating for them to be in combat units, as many of them wouldn't want to be, even if given the opportunity to do so; for the same reason that many men don't wish to do it either.


Did you ever think that the reason you don't see women UFC fighters is because women are too damn smart to ever think about doing something inanly stupid such as that, not because of their physical limitations.:p

My reference to firefighters was in no way a comparison to combat soldiers, other than to state that there are physical limitations to each, as far as women go. My father's best friend is a fire chief, and is constantly bitching about the standards for the women not being the same as for men, and how it puts lives in danger, I agree 100%, hence why I put it in my post.

[Razor]

Did you ever think that the reason you don't see women UFC fighters is because women are too damn smart to ever think about doing something inanly stupid such as that, not because of their physical limitations.

Psst, afchic...I think you had quite a few wander off the reservation...

http://www.fightergirls.com/

:p

Disregarding the stupidity of the males who impregnate females aboard ship. I still have that (albeit) stupid male for duty...A pregnant female won't see much duty!

Exactly. Justice or fairness aside, of the two that tangoed, only one becomes physically combat ineffective and a manpower issue for the command.

[incarcerated]

Most of the ground of this argument has been covered in the intervening posts.
Afchic, you are right about the limitations of my opinions about combat and the military. I am a civilian. I do not ask anyone to consider my remarks outside of that context.
Les Aspin worked with a Democrat controlled Congress in 1993 to revoke legislation that prohibited women from serving on combat vessels. The ensuing shipboard pregnancies evoked criticism from all quarters of the military that this new policy impaired the combat effectiveness of the ships involved. This is why I used the example of pregnancy in this discussion. The issue was beaten to death at the time.

The responsibility for Service pregnancies can be 100% the fault of the males, but it does not matter to the discussion. Pregnancy serves as an illustration of the effect of infusing women into this particular male domain. You cannot insert women into what has for centuries been an essentially male activity, and expect the activity to change and accommodate the new commodity. It will be a distraction, as the Israelis learned. Do Israeli women serve, and carry a weapon? You bet. It makes great sense. Do the Israelis limit female service? Yes. Would I be proud if my daughter chooses to enter the service in a capacity that requires her to carry a weapon? I would be proud beyond words. Do I want her in combat arms? No. That is her brother’s vocation, and that is my dog in this fight. Anything that might degrade the combat effectiveness or survivability of any element of the military will evoke my hostility and ridicule. For me, this applies especially to any policy initiatives (like budget cuts) that come from the current administration and appear to be politically motivated. IMHO, ridicule is one of the better weapons that we have at our disposal in what is essentially a political fight. I suspect that you and I may not disagree about any substantive point in this discussion. What you may rightly take issue with me over is the tone I used with AnglesSix.
Nothing in the public profile, especially the avatar, of AS suggested to me that I was speaking to a female. I would like to publicly apologize to AnglesSix for addressing her in that fashion. I would not knowingly speak to a woman that way, and I honestly hope that you don’t think I am being condescending.

And no, I wasn’t kidding when I described young manhood. The soldiers and Marines that I know range in age from 19 to 25. Patton’s comment, that a soldier who won’t f*#@ will not fight, applies to them with uncanny accuracy. And they are all fighters.
The essential problem with women in combat is that the practice places sexism/feminism (a political agenda) before what is going to keep people alive. Many women (former Congresswoman Patsy Schroeder comes to mind) do not have a problem with this, or that this advancement of Women’s Rights would be paid for with predominantly male blood. The sexism of Feminism, like common racism, produces such irrational beliefs.