View Full Version : Women Break Combat Barrier as War Evolves
In today's Pravda on the Hudson.
Richard
G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier as War Evolves
Lizette Alvarez, NYT, 15 Aug 2009
Before 2001, America’s military women had rarely seen ground combat. Their jobs kept them mostly away from enemy lines, as military policy dictates.
But the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, often fought in marketplaces and alleyways, have changed that. In both countries, women have repeatedly proved their mettle in combat. The number of high-ranking women and women who command all-male units has climbed considerably along with their status in the military.
“Iraq has advanced the cause of full integration for women in the Army by leaps and bounds,” said Peter R. Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who served as executive officer to Gen. David H. Petraeus while he was the top American commander in Iraq. “They have earned the confidence and respect of male colleagues.”
Their success, widely known in the military, remains largely hidden from public view. In part, this is because their most challenging work is often the result of a quiet circumvention of military policy.
Women are barred from joining combat branches like the infantry, armor, Special Forces and most field artillery units and from doing support jobs while living with those smaller units. Women can lead some male troops into combat as officers, but they cannot serve with them in battle.
Yet, over and over, in Iraq and Afghanistan, Army commanders have resorted to bureaucratic trickery when they needed more soldiers for crucial jobs, like bomb disposal and intelligence. On paper, for instance, women have been “attached” to a combat unit rather than “assigned.”
This quiet change has not come seamlessly — and it has altered military culture on the battlefield in ways large and small. Women need separate bunks and bathrooms. They face sexual discrimination and rape, and counselors and rape kits are now common in war zones. Commanders also confront a new reality: that soldiers have sex, and some will be evacuated because they are pregnant.
(cont'd) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Blitzzz (RIP)
08-16-2009, 12:14
An arguement on this subject must be empty of any PC language.
I'll say some things that will anger many, but then that's the nature of PC absent talk.
This subject would not need be addressed if indeed women were equal to man.
If there was equallity with regards to this subject, then there would be no issue here. History would record the deeds of warrior women as much as men. The Generals and military leaders would be as many Women as Men.
Women have proven in the past that they are quite capible of waging war.
Pioneer women had to fight.
Most of women in warfare comes from the consiquences of situations...Survival of family and community. The greater the threats and the closer to home the more female involvement.
If women have been relegated by men to be non-warriors and more societal nurturers. Then equality can't be common to all or men would be non-warrior nurturers.
Female combat units would need to be segregated with the necessary concessions and therefore a modified combat effectivness value
If there were no concessions then there should be female or mixed Ranger battalions and SEAL teams. Enough for now...probably too much.
I'm not saying women arn't good combat soldiers just they are reared that way and the good ones will be far and few between.
The Reaper
08-16-2009, 12:29
In today's Pravda on the Hudson.
Richard
...Commanders also confront a new reality: that soldiers have sex, and some will be evacuated because they are pregnant.
Okay, I'll say it.
Only one gender will be evacuated for that condition.
Why do we have separate men's and women's teams in sports, anyway?
TR
frostfire
08-16-2009, 12:29
Commanders also confront a new reality: that soldiers have sex, and some will be evacuated because they are pregnant.
how on earth:confused: is this a new reality.
Then again, as discussed in a different thread, to adapt to the enemy's tactics and still maintain rapport, female presence in a combat unit does have its merits.
An arguement on this subject must be empty of any PC language.
I'll say some things that will anger many, but then that's the nature of PC absent talk.
This subject would not need be addressed if indeed women were equal to man.
If there was equallity with regards to this subject, then there would be no issue here. History would record the deeds of warrior women as much as men. The Generals and military leaders would be as many Women as Men.
Women have proven in the past that they are quite capible of waging war.
Pioneer women had to fight.
Most of women in warfare comes from the consiquences of situations...Survival of family and community. The greater the threats and the closer to home the more female involvement.
If women have been relegated by men to be non-warriors and more societal nurturers. Then equality can't be common to all or men would be non-warrior nurturers.
Female combat units would need to be segregated with the necessary concessions and therefore a modified combat effectivness value
If there were no concessions then there should be female or mixed Ranger battalions and SEAL teams. Enough for now...probably too much.
I'm not saying women arn't good combat soldiers just they are reared that way and the good ones will be far and few between.
Blitzzz....
I agree with your assessment and if I may add also, I think that if females were in combat units their demise (death, wounding, rape) would only reduce morale as males are raised to protect females. I, personally, do not believe females have any business being in combat units. Not taking away from our fighting ability, I think if many of us were actually confronted with the imminent demise of our children or a loved one, we would fight to the ends to protect and then kill the threat. I know I would!
IMO, there are many jackbooted, bra-burning, male castegating femi-nazis that would vehemently disagree with you. Thank goodness, we don't have to be around those self-loathing gender fantasists!!! :D:lifter
There are many myths and legends of warrior women throughout history but as some readings will claim, sometimes it is hard to distinguish fact from myth. Do I sound like a woman disparaging her own gender?
The Reaper
08-16-2009, 12:49
I love women.
Women are doing a lot of great jobs, some occasionally involving combat.
I just don't see them as combat arms peers.
TR
Why do we have separate men's and women's teams in sports, anyway?
Keeps the groping to a minimum in the scrums.
Richard
Utah Bob
08-16-2009, 13:52
Blitzzz....
Do I sound like a woman disparaging her own gender?
No, you sound realistic and logical.
No, you sound realistic and logical.
:D It was sort of a rhetorical question Bob but thank you. I get bashed a lot by female friends, many active duty, when I voice my viewpoint on this subject. They feel I am robbing them of power and the ability to be equal to men and while I defend my side with the argument of nature v. nurture and the physiological differences between males and females, they still get angrier than a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs!
Blitzzz (RIP)
08-16-2009, 14:34
"Peter R. Mansoor's comment “They have earned the confidence and respect of male colleagues.”, torched me to write. It just seemed too broad a brush. That type of respect is won individually. Men, in general, don't have that respect unearned.
The percentage of men to women that "rise to the occasion" when needed is probably not too different.
My belief is not based on culture or upbringing, it's just that we are different. I can't give birth to a child, and Demi Moore can't by a Ranger.
armymom1228
08-16-2009, 14:58
Blitzzz....
IMO, there are many jackbooted, bra-burning, male castegating femi-nazis that would vehemently disagree with you. Thank goodness, we don't have to be around those self-loathing gender fantasists!!! :D:lifter
I disagree..I cannot, by any remote sense of the word ,be described as above.
I HAVE played with the boys, by the boys rules to put it bluntly. Did I keep up, most of the time and the rest I would have bit out my tongue before I complained and cryied 'unlce." Wore lipstick most of the time too...:D. There are things that women can do better, there are things that guys can do better.. To categorize woman in one niche and guys in another is a disservice to both genders.
OH and I don't own a bra, therefore I have nothing to burn... I like guys, they are cute most of the time.. boots.. oh hel no, I prefer barefeet.. :D
There are many myths and legends of warrior women throughout history but as some readings will claim, sometimes it is hard to distinguish fact from myth. Do I sound like a woman disparaging her own gender?
I really think you need to do some better research into women in history. Some stories are NOT myths but facts.
Why not start with the WASP's...and go backward from there and the women astronaut program.
Women in SF...NO.. for any number of reasons the Boys have all stated before and I agree with. So it goes..
While you are at it... might want to look at the women in Texas own history.. defending homes is combat by another term.
incarcerated
08-16-2009, 15:21
Didn't we already have this chat?
I disagree..I cannot, by any remote sense of the word ,be described as above.
I HAVE played with the boys, by the boys rules to put it bluntly. Did I keep up, most of the time and the rest I would have bit out my tongue before I complained and cryied 'unlce." Wore lipstick most of the time too...:D. There are things that women can do better, there are things that guys can do better.. To categorize woman in one niche and guys in another is a disservice to both genders.
OH and I don't own a bra, therefore I have nothing to burn... I like guys, they are cute most of the time.. boots.. oh hel no, I prefer barefeet.. :D
I really think you need to do some better research into women in history. Some stories are NOT myths but facts.
Why not start with the WASP's...and go backward from there and the women astronaut program.
Women in SF...NO.. for any number of reasons the Boys have all stated before and I agree with. So it goes..
While you are at it... might want to look at the women in Texas own history.. defending homes is combat by another term.
Those women I was describing are femi-nazis (my intention is not to describe any female on this forum, in the military nor is it to offend)! Those kind of women I have absolutely no respect for, nor can I tolerate their rhetoric that they can do everything a man can do and most of the time better! They are the ones that think they can be SF, Rangers, Navy SEALs.....as for astronauts, I am all for that too but that it is not a combat position, courageous yes.
And you are right, there are many great women in history,...but as I have said "as some readings will claim, sometimes it is hard to distinguish fact from myth". This is one site that I have found when I was looking for Boudicca (who a man once said I reminded him of) http://www.distinguishedwomen.com/subject/military.html .
She was a warrior queen but some of what she did has lent itself to legend (the History Channel did a great piece on her last year).
I have played with the boys too, grew up with 3 males cousins and "whining" wasn't allowed so I didn't bother, I gave as good as I got and if I got hurt....<shrug>. I was also in the army and played with the big boys as well. And I do not negate the women in Texas history nor the countless other women throughout the history of our great nation that fought in defense of their homes, loved ones and for freedom. Many times they were in roles as "assets" only later on to find themselves manning a gun at the fall of their husbands (Molly Pitcher, the second women in combat in the Revolutionary war, after Margaret Corbin). There are examples from the Civil War as well, often disguised as men so they may fight alongside their husbands (Mary Owens, Frances Clayton, Loreta Velazquez). But I know I don't need to give anyone a history lesson in that. Those women are the exception!
incarcerated...
Yes, you are right, we have, now that you mention it. I was typing my post when you must have posted, caught it only after I was done.
incarcerated
08-16-2009, 15:54
how on earth:confused: is this a new reality.
Well, obviously, this is new. People weren't doing this, uh, whatever he was talking about, before.
:rolleyes::D
Why do we have different PT scores for males and females?
monsterhunter
08-16-2009, 16:12
I don't recall if it was in the late 70's or early 80's when the army tested some of these theories out in a co-ed basic training. It was stopped after a period when it was determined the women simply could not keep up with the men.
In 9th grade science, this topic came up. My science teacher mentioned a study (of which I have no first hand information) comparing an average male and female.
He said the study revealed that given the same amount of food and exercise, the male still developed faster and stronger than the female. This is simply due to the characteristics of the individual sexes.
This seems apparently true, as mentioned in a previous post, by just watching professional sports. I believe there is the occasional female who can keep up with some of the more high speed males, but it is the exception.
IMHO (be it a very strong one), this cannot be overlooked with any logic in the thought process: women in a combat MOS is not practical, and the complications that come with making it so are not worth making it happen.
I believe women should be combat trained, as it is inevitable, that some will wind up in a combat situation anywhere near the lines. Those that perform well should be commended, but I don't feel it a policy changer.
armymom1228
08-16-2009, 17:55
Why do we have different PT scores for males and females?
Because you boys complained and we dumbed it down for you? :D:p
S..the 'boys' I played with were adults and the AO was not my backyard treehouse.
It is what it is, and no amount of complaining is going to change it.. I read an article awhile back that the Army had found out that women made most excellent EOD Techs. Apparently they were more methodical and patient than males.
I kinda sorta have always thought bombs were kinda like guys. You have to be patient and gentle to defuse them beacuse if they went off it got all messy and stuff... no?:lifter
Why do we have different PT scores for males and females?
Because in the ever evolving, becoming more PC Army, men that don't have the ability to adhere to and attain the standards on their own scale can attain a much higher average and still feel good about themselves.
:D
Just another reminder of the decline in western civilization.. :boohoo
SkiBumCFO
08-16-2009, 18:30
Wow - this is a very touchy subject but i am impressed by the level of your discussion and that nobody is overly sensitive. My first night in 10th group my roomate's girlfriend showed up with a very attractive friend tagging along. She was an ultra feminist and i was young and stubborn. I spent all night over many drinks arguing with her about why women in combat would never work and we parted ways. On Monday morning after my roomate told the story to everyone else they decided that i was an idiot and should have just agreed with everything she said! especially since i was spending sooo much money on beers. With many years of hindsight I think they were absolutely right - what an idiot ;). Later I married an Army Interogator who became the first female soldier to win the 7th IDs Lightfighter of the quarter award. As her personal trainer it was fun to watch her smoke a couple of Ranger Qualified soldiers with their SGMs fuming that a 5 foot 4 inch petite young lady could do more pushups than their best troops. However, she would probably be the first to tell you that women in combat roles makes no sense for a multitude of reasons most of which have been raised. Some day it may have to happen as there are a lot of weak backboned men out there :o
Today's offering to the current bonfire of opinions.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In
Steven Myers, NYT, 16 Aug 2009
Part 1 of 2
FORWARD OPERATING BASE WARHORSE, Iraq — There is no mistaking that this dusty, gravel-strewn camp northeast of Baghdad is anything other than a combat outpost in a still-hostile land. And there is no mistaking that women in uniform have had a transformative effect on it.
They have their own quarters, boxy trailers called CHUs (the military’s acronym for containerized housing units, pronounced “chews”).
There are women’s bathrooms and showers, alongside the men’s. Married couples live together. The base’s clinic treats gynecological problems and has, alongside the equipment needed to treat the trauma of modern warfare, an ultrasound machine.
Opponents of integrating women in combat zones long feared that sex would mean the end of American military prowess. But now birth control is available — the PX at Warhorse even sold out of condoms one day recently — reflecting a widely accepted reality that soldiers have sex at outposts across Iraq.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the first in which tens of thousands of American military women have lived, worked and fought with men for prolonged periods. Wars without front lines, they have done more than just muddle the rules meant to keep women out of direct enemy contact.
They have changed the way the United States military goes to war. They have reshaped life on bases across Iraq and Afghanistan. They have cultivated a new generation of women with a warrior’s ethos — and combat experience — that for millennia was almost exclusively the preserve of men.
And they have done so without the disruption of discipline and unit cohesion that some feared would unfold at places like Warhorse.
“There was a lot of debate over where women should be,” said Brig. Gen. Heidi V. Brown, one of the two highest ranking women in Iraq today, recalling the start of the war. “Here we are six years later, and you don’t hear about it. You shouldn’t hear about it.”
In many ways, General Brown’s career trajectory since the war began reflects the expanded role for women at war.
In 2003, as a colonel, she commanded a Patriot air-defense brigade that joined the push from Kuwait to Baghdad, losing nine soldiers in a maintenance battalion outside Nasiriya three days after the invasion began. One of them, Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa, was the first woman killed in action in Iraq; Pfc. Jessica D. Lynch was captured in the same attack. Now, as the American role in the war declines, General Brown will oversee the logistics of withdrawing the vast amounts of military hardware in Iraq over the next year.
“We’ve needed — needed — the contributions of both our men and women,” said Brig. Gen. Mary A. Legere, the director of intelligence for the American war effort here and the other highest ranking woman in Iraq.
The military, of course, is not gender blind, especially in a war zone.
Sexual harassment in a still-predominantly male institution remains a problem. So does sexual assault. Both are underreported, soldiers and officers here say, because the rigidity of the military chain of command can make accusations uncomfortable and even risky for victims living in close quarters with the men they accuse.
As a precaution, women are advised to travel in pairs, particularly in smaller bases populated with Iraqi troops and civilians. Capt. Margaret D. Taafe-McMenamy, commander of the intelligence analysis cell at Warhorse, carries a folding knife and a heavy, ridged flashlight — a Christmas gift from her husband, whom she lives with here — as a precaution when she is out at night on the base.
Staff Sgt. Patricia F. Bradford, 27, a psychological operations soldier, said that slights, subtle and not, were common, and some were easier to brush off than others. Women are still viewed derisively at times in the confined, occasionally tense space of an outpost like Warhorse.
“You’re a bitch, a slut or a dyke — or you’re married, but even if you’re married, you’re still probably one of the three,” Sergeant Bradford said.
At the same time, she and other female soldiers cope with the slights, showing a disarming brashness.
“I think being a staff sergeant — and a bitch — helps deflect those things,” she added.
The issues that arise in having women in combat — harassment, bias, hardship, even sexual relations — are, she and others said, a matter of discipline, maturity and professionalism rather than an argument for separating the sexes.
Sergeant Bradford recalled the day during her first tour when her convoy moved south while a soldier with whom she was then engaged to be married moved north on the same highway. She listened on the radio as his convoy came under an attack that continued after she was out of range.
“For four days, I had no idea what happened to him,” she said, “but I still had to continue my mission, because that’s what you do when you’re a soldier.” (He emerged unscathed, she later learned.)
Unforeseen Issues
Such issues were not foreseen when the war in Iraq began in 2003, even though the initial invasion force included women in the vanguard.
On a practical level, the military was not prepared to house and otherwise address the specific needs of women in a war zone — including issues like health and privacy.
Early on, bases were largely makeshift and far more dangerous. Few soldiers, male or female, had more than rudimentary quarters or latrines. None had much privacy.
Sgt. Dawn M. Cloukey, a communications specialist, spent her first tour in Iraq in 2005 and 2006 as the only woman among 45 soldiers, operating a retransmission station in the mountains of northern Iraq and then in the center of Baghdad. She lived out of a rucksack, with no toilet or room of her own. She described the experience as isolating.
“I always felt like the plague,” she said at Warhorse, on her second tour in Iraq, where she handles communications for the commander of the First Stryker Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division.
As the United States military settled into more permanent bases, many initial difficulties abated, as the Army gradually adapted to the new reality of waging war with a mixed force. So have the soldiers themselves.
Women have sought acceptance in a still-predominately male environment not by emphasizing their sex but rather by displaying their toughness, their willingness to adjust to conditions that are less than ideal.
“I’ve kicked my guys out of the truck to pee in a bottle like that,” Sgt. Joelene M. Lachance, a soldier with the 172nd Military Intelligence Battalion, said at Warhorse, pointing to one of the liter water bottles that are ubiquitous at bases in Iraq. “Cut the bottle off and pee in the bottle and then dispose of it. Sometimes it’s an issue, but most of the time, I just make do.
“I don’t try to, like, ‘I can’t sleep here,’ ” she continued. “If they’re sleeping there, I’m sleeping there. I spent five days out in the truck once — with six of my guys, sleeping on the floor.”
Warhorse still reverberates with the rumble of armored convoys and the thud of helicopters ferrying troops and, at times, the wounded. It is just north of Baquba, the regional capital of Diyala Province, one of the most restive provinces in Iraq. Here, the war is not over. Warhorse will very likely be among the last bases to close in Iraq before American troops withdraw in full.
At the outset of the war, the introduction of women into outposts like Warhorse raised fears not just of abuse or harassment, but also of sex and pregnancy. The worst of those fears, officers say, have not materialized.
In fact, sex in America’s war zones is fairly common, soldiers say, and has not generally proved disruptive.
(cont'd)
An "FUD" :eek: - is that like an Elmer or some other Fud? :D
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In
Steven Myers, NYT, 16 Aug 2009
Part 2 of 2
In April, the latest iteration of General Order No. 1, the rules governing the behavior of soldiers in Iraq broadly, quietly relaxed the explicit prohibition on sex in a war zone, though it still bars sex with Iraqis and spending the night in someone else’s CHU. Some commands, including Baghdad, retain broader restrictions, for example, on being in CHUs belonging to members of the opposite sex.
“The chain of command already has to deal with enough,” Captain Taafe-McMenamy said. “They don’t really want to have to punish soldiers for dating.”
Women do become pregnant — a condition that, intentional or not, in or out of wedlock, requires the woman to be flown out within two weeks, causing personnel disruptions in individual units.
The Army and Marine Corps declined to say exactly how many women left Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of pregnancies, but it appears to be relatively rare and has had little effect on overall readiness, commanders say. At Warhorse, the First Stryker Brigade, which has thousands of soldiers, has sent only three women home because of pregnancies in 10 months in Iraq, the brigade said.
“There was a fear if we integrate units, you will have a bunch of young people with raging hormones, and it will end up in too many unwanted pregnancies, and it’s more trouble than it’s worth,” said Peter Mansoor, a former battalion commander in Iraq who, until retiring recently, served as Gen. David H. Petraeus’s executive officer. “With good leadership and mentorship, we have been able to keep those problems to a minimum.”
Taking On New Roles
Roughly 1 in 20 of the 5,600 soldiers at Warhorse is female, a smaller ratio than in the military as a whole. Nonetheless, they are fully integrated in the base’s operations.
Many of the women at Warhorse serve in jobs that have traditionally accommodated women: the base hospital, food service, supply and administration.
Others, though, serve on the brigade staff, in intelligence and psychological operations, which until recently were part of the Special Forces and thus off limits to women.
“We have changed so much,” Col. Burt K. Thompson, the commander at Warhorse, said of the Army, noting that every time he leaves the base, his patrol includes two women, including Sergeant Cloukey “on comms” — communications — and a medic, Sgt. Evette T. Lee-Stewart. “To have a female on an infantry brigade staff? Oh my God.”
Like many commanders who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, he said that women have ended the debate over their role by their performance.
“I’ve relieved males from command,” he said. “I’ve never relieved a female commander in two and a half years as commander.”
The nature of the war has also done much to change the debate over combat roles. Any trip off the heavily secured bases now effectively invites contact with the enemy.
Many women have also been pulled off their regular jobs and trained to search Iraqi women at checkpoints because of local cultural sensitivities, putting them as much at risk as any male counterpart.
When Specialist Jennifer M. Hoeppner goes “outside the wire” at Warhorse, as going on patrol is known, she clambers into what she calls “the best seat in the truck,” the turret atop the Army’s newest armored vehicle, the MRAP.
“I’m the gunner on all our missions,” she said, having qualified for the M240B machine gun at an expert level.
“I think some of the males are a little confused when I go up,” Specialist Hoeppner said. “They’re like, ‘Who’s your gunner?’ ”
Women are also increasingly “attached” to infantry and armored units that train and advise Iraq’s police and military forces. Now that almost all American combat forces have pulled back to bases outside of Iraq’s cities, that training has become the main mission in Iraq.
The involvement of women in it has been a cultural shock for Iraqi men far less accustomed to dealing with women professionally, especially in the military.
Women spoke of inappropriate comments or uncomfortable flattery, and even gifts. “It was everything from candy to lingerie,” said Capt. Victoria Ferreira, 29, who spent a year with an 11-person squad training Iraqi officers. “How do you react to that? ‘Thank you?’ ”
For the most part, though, Iraqis seem to accept the role of women in the American military — they have even expanded their own ranks for tasks like searching women at checkpoints — even if it seems unlikely that women will be incorporated more widely into the Iraqi armed forces anytime soon.
“I think now, six years since the war started, they’ve learned to adapt or tolerate the fact that in the American Army we have high ranking positions that are filled by women,” said Capt. Violeta Z. Sifuentes, who commands the 591st Military Police Company.
It was not always so, she recalled of her first tour in Samarra in 2006. “They always thought my platoon sergeant or my squad leader was the one in charge until I was like, ‘Listen here. I’m in charge whether you like it or not.’ ”
The captain’s remarks were typical. The women serving in today’s military represent a generational shift. They are confident young women who have not had to fight the same gender battles their predecessors in uniform did.
“I never felt like I had to fight to succeed in the Army” was how Captain Taafe-McMenamy, who is 27, put it.
Adapting to the Tasks
Women in today’s military say they do not feel the same pressure to prove themselves. They adapt and expect others to adapt. They preserve their femininity without making much of it.
Specialist Hoeppner and her roommate, Sergeant Bradford, belong to the 361st Tactical Psychological Operations Company, which patrols the towns and villages of Diyala with infantry squads to spread and collect information.
On a recent patrol in the small village of Shifta, they seemed more of a novelty to the Iraqis they encountered than the soldiers they patrolled with, taking up defensive positions alongside their male colleagues whenever they paused.
“I actually had this million-dollar idea my first deployment,” Sergeant Bradford said of her tour as a truck driver hauling supplies in 2004. “I was like, I need something that’s like a beer bong that I can hold in place so I can pee standing up without pulling my pants down. Cause we were truck drivers. We’d stop on the side of the road. There’s no bushes. I was telling one of my soldiers about this great idea, and he said they already make that.”
She produced from her bunk in her CHU a device sold by REI called a “Feminine Urinary Director.” “It’s even pink,” Specialist Hoeppner interjected.
Warhorse’s supply officer — a woman — acquired dozens of them.
“The first time one of them came around a truck and saw me peeing on a tire,” she said of one of her male colleagues, “I thought he was going to have a heart attack.”
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=278987
Team Sergeant
08-17-2009, 10:54
Didn't we already have this chat?
Yes we did.
There's a reason the INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE separates the Men's & Women's Sports......
The US military does it for the very same reasons. This is a dead horse and the new york times is in full "spin" (bullshit) mode.
Team Sergeant
Those women I was describing are femi-nazis (my intention is not to describe any female on this forum, in the military nor is it to offend)! Those kind of women I have absolutely no respect for, nor can I tolerate their rhetoric that they can do everything a man can do and most of the time better! They are the ones that think they can be SF, Rangers, Navy SEALs.....as for astronauts, I am all for that too but that it is not a combat position, courageous yes.
And you are right, there are many great women in history,...but as I have said "as some readings will claim, sometimes it is hard to distinguish fact from myth". This is one site that I have found when I was looking for Boudicca (who a man once said I reminded him of) http://www.distinguishedwomen.com/subject/military.html .
She was a warrior queen but some of what she did has lent itself to legend (the History Channel did a great piece on her last year).
I have played with the boys too, grew up with 3 males cousins and "whining" wasn't allowed so I didn't bother, I gave as good as I got and if I got hurt....<shrug>. I was also in the army and played with the big boys as well. And I do not negate the women in Texas history nor the countless other women throughout the history of our great nation that fought in defense of their homes, loved ones and for freedom. Many times they were in roles as "assets" only later on to find themselves manning a gun at the fall of their husbands (Molly Pitcher, the second women in combat in the Revolutionary war, after Margaret Corbin). There are examples from the Civil War as well, often disguised as men so they may fight alongside their husbands (Mary Owens, Frances Clayton, Loreta Velazquez). But I know I don't need to give anyone a history lesson in that. Those women are the exception!
Saoirse,
Thank your for posting this great history of women in Service, and the tone with which it is delivered makes me want to research some of these names in the future!
More importantly though, your opinion (as well as those here who have Served,)holds water on this issure due to the fact that You have Served!!
My thanks!
Holly
I don't know why anyone thinks living with their spouse, in a combat environment is a good thing.
When the war first started, the hubby and I had been married for just over 4 months, having spent only our honeymoon weekend together, before we both deployed.
6 months into the war, we found ourselves deployed to the same base. After not seeing him for so long, and having worried about the things he had been doing (spending too much damned time with the Army!!!) I was estatic about us being together.
It turned out to be the worst 2 months of my marriage. As newlyweds we were trying to spend as much time together as we could, and that just doesn't work in a wartime environment. Our jobs were are primary focus, which didn't leave much time for one another, which lead to some resentment on both of our parts.
I will NEVER EVER EVER deploy with my husband again. Yes it was nice to see him every day and know that he was alive. But it was a distraction that neither of us needed, given the mission we were involved in. Anyone that thinks otherwise has never done it, or is fooling themselves.
greenberetTFS
08-17-2009, 16:25
Saoirse,
Thank your for posting this great history of women in Service, and the tone with which it is delivered makes me want to research some of these names in the future!
More importantly though, your opinion (as well as those here who have Served,)holds water on this issure due to the fact that You have Served!!
My thanks!
Holly
Holly,
Your absolutely right,Saoirse's opinion is respected because she has served.....:D
Big Teddy :munchin
Holly,
Saoirse's opinion is respected because she has served.....
Big Teddy :munchin
Teddy...
Good Call! :) And from prior discussions on this here at PS, am in agreement with all of the QP's!;)
Holly
I don't know why anyone thinks living with their spouse, in a combat environment is a good thing.
When the war first started, the hubby and I had been married for just over 4 months, having spent only our honeymoon weekend together, before we both deployed.
6 months into the war, we found ourselves deployed to the same base. After not seeing him for so long, and having worried about the things he had been doing (spending too much damned time with the Army!!!) I was estatic about us being together.
It turned out to be the worst 2 months of my marriage. As newlyweds we were trying to spend as much time together as we could, and that just doesn't work in a wartime environment. Our jobs were are primary focus, which didn't leave much time for one another, which lead to some resentment on both of our parts.
I will NEVER EVER EVER deploy with my husband again. Yes it was nice to see him every day and know that he was alive. But it was a distraction that neither of us needed, given the mission we were involved in. Anyone that thinks otherwise has never done it, or is fooling themselves.
Agreed. My wife and had had 4 years of history with eachother before getting married and deploying with the same unit to Iraq. After a year in country together, we were starting divorce paperwork less then a month of being back.
I don't know why anyone thinks living with their spouse, in a combat environment is a good thing.
When the war first started, the hubby and I had been married for just over 4 months, having spent only our honeymoon weekend together, before we both deployed.
6 months into the war, we found ourselves deployed to the same base. After not seeing him for so long, and having worried about the things he had been doing (spending too much damned time with the Army!!!) I was estatic about us being together.
It turned out to be the worst 2 months of my marriage. As newlyweds we were trying to spend as much time together as we could, and that just doesn't work in a wartime environment. Our jobs were are primary focus, which didn't leave much time for one another, which lead to some resentment on both of our parts.
I will NEVER EVER EVER deploy with my husband again. Yes it was nice to see him every day and know that he was alive. But it was a distraction that neither of us needed, given the mission we were involved in. Anyone that thinks otherwise has never done it, or is fooling themselves.
Agreed. My wife and had had 4 years of history with eachother before getting married and deploying with the same unit to Iraq. After a year in country together, we were starting divorce paperwork less then a month of being back.
AFChic and Fonzy....
I have a very good friend who was married prior to her deployment. Needless to say, both of them being in the same unit and having met on their first deployment, are now divorced. Not saying that all folks go thru that and I am glad you didn't, AF (and Fonzy I am sorry you had to)! I guess back in the "good old days" people had a different outlook on life and marriage and the norms were much more different than they are now. I guess it's true when they say, "times are a-changin'". :(
dirtyshirt
08-18-2009, 08:04
I think this country, including the U.S. Military, needs to go back to the way thinkgs were in the 1940-60's.
Society,for the morals, the un-"PC"-ness,which now pervades every damn thing in speech,print, movies, and T.V
The Military, for having women in the only roles they should EVER have,and what they did before all this "womens lib" and PC crap invaded the military due to weak leadership, and the desire to be "progressive"; Nurses and secrateries (personnel & admin).
I think this country, including the U.S. Military, needs to go back to the way thinkgs were in the 1940-60's.
Society,for the morals, the un-"PC"-ness,which now pervades every damn thing in speech,print, movies, and T.V
The Military, for having women in the only roles they should EVER have,and what they did before all this "womens lib" and PC crap invaded the military due to weak leadership, and the desire to be "progressive"; Nurses and secrateries (personnel & admin).
Sir,
Agree with you that Our nation needs to do away with PC, in all forms.
That is where the agreement will end.
Thank you for your service, sir.
Holly:munchin
My interpretation of these articles is not whether women and men are equal - but that some eight years of on-the-ground results have shown that some women can perform as well as some males under some combat situations and that this data should be recognized in any on-going debates over opportunities for women to serve in the military.
Beyond that...:confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I think this country, including the U.S. Military, needs to go back to the way thinkgs were in the 1940-60's.
Society,for the morals, the un-"PC"-ness,which now pervades every damn thing in speech,print, movies, and T.V
The Military, for having women in the only roles they should EVER have,and what they did before all this "womens lib" and PC crap invaded the military due to weak leadership, and the desire to be "progressive"; Nurses and secrateries (personnel & admin).
So no female doctors or pilots or JAG officers?
Originally Posted by dirtyshirt
I think this country, including the U.S. Military, needs to go back to the way thinkgs were in the 1940-60's.
Society,for the morals, the un-"PC"-ness,which now pervades every damn thing in speech,print, movies, and T.V
The Military, for having women in the only roles they should EVER have,and what they did before all this "womens lib" and PC crap invaded the military due to weak leadership, and the desire to be "progressive"; Nurses and secrateries (personnel & admin).
How very misognystic of you to say. I sense some anger from you toward women. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am surprised you just didn't come out and say it more succinctly "a woman's place is in the home", perhaps barefoot and pregant too? :rolleyes:
It is clearly shown, by the articles posted by Richard, that there are SOME women that are quite capable. I still stand by my opinion that women should not be in combat roles (especially those in special operations); however, proof is in the pudding that there are women in those roles and some of them have more than proven themselves. I salute those female soldiers for their courage.
Thank you for your service. I hope that your opinion on here isn't something you sling around easily around any female soldiers THAT are capable...you might find them not so respectful of your opinion (and how un-PC of them to do that :rolleyes:).
I think this country, including the U.S. Military, needs to go back to the way thinkgs were in the 1940-60's.
The Military, for having women in the only roles they should EVER have,and what they did before all this "womens lib" and PC crap invaded the military due to weak leadership, and the desire to be "progressive"; Nurses and secrateries (personnel & admin).
One of the women, a true-Hero, Col. "Maggie" Raye.
dirtyshirt, please read the below link. It is inspirational!
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11537
Utah Bob
08-18-2009, 15:34
I think this country, including the U.S. Military, needs to go back to the way thinkgs were in the 1940-60's.
Society,for the morals, the un-"PC"-ness,which now pervades every damn thing in speech,print, movies, and T.V
The Military, for having women in the only roles they should EVER have,and what they did before all this "womens lib" and PC crap invaded the military due to weak leadership, and the desire to be "progressive"; Nurses and secrateries (personnel & admin).
Segregation, McCarthyism, Doctors advertising for cigarette companies, polio.
Ahh the good old days.:rolleyes:
NousDefionsDoc
08-18-2009, 16:31
I work with female soldiers practically daily. I have had to change my thinking. They are not "equal" nor are they the same. The use lies in the difference. A female soldier that has been in more than a year has learned what tools are in their toolbox and how to use them.
They have also learned that the "Army Way" was developed by men for men and doesn't usually work very well for them - so they learn to do it their way. Males have a different toolbox with different tools.
Many times, I would even say most times, it is not wrong. It is simply different.
And the good ones are good at it. When we quit insisting on telling them how to do it and instead simply measure the results, I have found they tend to stack up well IMO.
The 10% Rule is of course hard and fast.
And even an Ol' Dog can learn...
Roguish Lawyer
08-18-2009, 17:36
Holy smokes, I think I just saw me a flyin pig!
I think this country, including the U.S. Military, needs to go back to the way thinkgs were in the 1940-60's.
Society,for the morals, the un-"PC"-ness,which now pervades every damn thing in speech,print, movies, and T.V
The Military, for having women in the only roles they should EVER have,and what they did before all this "womens lib" and PC crap invaded the military due to weak leadership, and the desire to be "progressive"; Nurses and secrateries (personnel & admin).
By all means, let us not forget that all of us women should be chained to the stove as well as being barefoot and pregnant.
By all means, let us not forget that all of us women should be chained to the stove as well as being barefoot and pregnant.
No no no. If we're chained to the stove we can't fetch the beer and deliver it to him. Silly.
I think if this gentleman was trying to be funny he shouldn't quit his day job. But that's just me.
No no no. If we're chained to the stove we can't fetch the beer and deliver it to him. Silly.
I think if this gentleman was trying to be funny he shouldn't quit his day job. But that's just me.
You are right, with the name dirty shirt he is probably hoping to chain us to the washing machine instead.;)
And then after that, we can iron his shirts!!! :D
I work with female soldiers practically daily. I have had to change my thinking. They are not "equal" nor are they the same. The use lies in the difference. A female soldier that has been in more than a year has learned what tools are in their toolbox and how to use them.
They have also learned that the "Army Way" was developed by men for men and doesn't usually work very well for them - so they learn to do it their way. Males have a different toolbox with different tools.
Many times, I would even say most times, it is not wrong. It is simply different.
And the good ones are good at it. When we quit insisting on telling them how to do it and instead simply measure the results, I have found they tend to stack up well IMO.
The 10% Rule is of course hard and fast.
And even an Ol' Dog can learn...
I would hope more people would read your post and reflect on it's meaning.
Not all soldiers are the same, not all soldiers do the same job, not all jobs have the same requirements, not all men are Alpha wolves.
Glad to see you are well trained :p
I do not believe women should be in combat units, however the OSS used women in behind the line operations very successfully in WW II and that shows what women are capable of. Granted that was an unusual and specific circumstance but to count women out of all operations is counting out a large pool of people as well as a group of people that have capabilties beyond what men can do. After all I know of no man that can sweet talk a macho general out of some info. Can you say honey trap :munchin
BO,
Am just a civillian, but this thread has provided me an opportunity to study women in Military history. Facinating to say the least. But, what I have not found articulated in my readings was your premise of, "honey trap," as the purpose of these womens presence.
Maybe I am uninformed, but the majority of what I have read so far about these WWII pilots, Vietnam era medics, and today's female soldiers in general, had no data regarding this idea.
Instead, it has been more along the lines of them just sucking it up, using "their" own tools, and trying to win the fight!:munchin
Holly
Dozer523
08-19-2009, 11:43
(REPLY TO AFCHIC) Glad to see you are well trained :p
I do not believe women should be in combat units, however the OSS used women in behind the line operations very successfully in WW II and that shows what women are capable of. Granted that was an unusual and specific circumstance but to count women out of all operations is counting out a large pool of people as well as a group of people that have capabilties beyond what men can do. After all I know of no man that can sweet talk a macho general out of some info. Can you say honey trap :munchin You have never actually met AFCHIC, have you? :p
If I were you (and I'm really glad I'm not, right now) I'd make sure to delete all references to HOR, POB, NOK etc etc etc.
Can you say left hook followed by right cross followed by round house kick? :munchin
BO,
Am just a civillian, but this thread has provided me an opportunity to study women in Military history. Facinating to say the least. But, what I have not found articulated in my readings was your premise of, "honey trap," as the purpose of these womens presence.
Maybe I am uninformed, but the majority of what I have read so far about these WWII pilots, Vietnam era medics, and today's female soldiers in general, had no data regarding this idea.
Instead, it has been more along the lines of them just sucking it up, using "their" own tools, and trying to win the fight!:munchin
Holly
Holly,
There were many American women who spied for the "cause". The American Revolution, Civil War, WWI and WWII had many, often times they were not recognized and their roles in this field wasn't exactly lauded since women were suppose to be at home taking care of their families. A "honey trap" was exactly as BO talked about....a woman spying and using her feminine wiles to gain information for their cause, ours and the enemy's. Here is one page I found that has a nice list:
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/spies/Women_Spies_in_History.htm
I can imagine how scarey it might have been at times for them. I laud them for their courage. Those that spied for enemies...I laud nothing to them and am glad they got their punishment.
Holly,
There were many American women who spied for the "cause". The American Revolution, Civil War, WWI and WWII had many, often times they were not recognized and their roles in this field wasn't exactly lauded since women were suppose to be at home taking care of their families. A "honey trap" was exactly as BO talked about....a woman spying and using her feminine wiles to gain information for their cause, ours and the enemy's. Here is one page I found that has a nice list:
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/spies/Women_Spies_in_History.htm
I can imagine how scarey it might have been at times for them. I laud them for their courage. Those that spied for enemies...I laud nothing to them and am glad they got their punishment.
Good History to know Saoirse, thanks!:) :lifter
Holly
I don't think that women in combat is a bad thing, but the people proposing it in the media and the fems need a big reality check.
Women are, in fact, different from men for the most part. Different, but not necessarily weaker, especially in the way that matters most; mentally.
MOO, women could be used very effectively in combat, especially against cultures that generally view women as property or subhuman, such as one that views FGM(female genital mutilation) or rape as acceptable, even desirable practices. A highly skilled, trained and motivated women-only unit could break morale even more effectively. It sounds childish, but let them learn to fear even (no slight intended here, ladies) our women.
I'm sure the women with the skill set or aptitude could be found: Quality, not quantity. The "reality check" would be that the numbers would be far, far fewer and those few would likely have to make outrageous sacrifice (It wouldn't be cost effective for the Army to train troops who will become pregnant and lose combat effectiveness postpartum). Some methodology would probably need to be changed (I don't know from personal experience, but a H2H style such as Wing Chun might be preferable to Krav Maga for a woman and be no less effective, as an example). But if they TRULY have the will and desire, why not provide opportunity?
The drawback would be partnering; there might be insurmountable problems with local support if we begin using female troops. Again, I have no personal experience, but this seems like it might end up as a "reality check" and a sticking point to me.
As long as it's done with eyes wide open, always keeping reality in the forefront and looking for efficiency; why not?
MOO, women could be used very effectively in combat, especially against cultures that generally view women as property or subhuman, such as one that views FGM(female genital mutilation) or rape as acceptable, even desirable practices.
A highly skilled, trained and motivated women-only unit could break morale even more effectively. It sounds childish, but let them learn to fear even (no slight intended here, ladies) our women.
Sir,
As I am constantly learning, from my reading on the FGM, I would support any and all efforts of our military women combating, (in any fashion), this abhorrent practice!
Great ideas come sometimes from the simplest solutions, IMHO.
Holly:munchin
I agree entirely with Soak60. I realize the ratio would still be largely male, however for the few females who truly do want a combat role..... why not? I would offer no special treatment though. They would have to work just as hard as the men.
EDIT: What many people do not know is Julia Childs worked for the OSS during WWII and that is where she met her husband.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/13/documents-julia-child-pol_n_118820.html
Indeed the Author of my 1961 copy of, "Mastering The Art Of French Cooking," given to me by my father, was a true patriot!
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24056
Julia Child - OSS veteran and celebrity chef.
Our Lady of the Kitchen
Laura Jacobs, Vanity Fair, Aug 2009
The mirror was always in the drawer, the little handheld signal mirror, to use if one is lost. It was standard issue for Americans working in the Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.), the dashing precursor to the C.I.A., active during World War II. In 2001, when Julia Child’s entire kitchen was relocated from her house in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to the first floor of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, in Washington, D.C., the rescue mirror went, too. It is displayed on a wall in the exhibit, forever near the kitchen drawer where she kept it—a leap of light, an SOS, symbolic of the point in her life when she was found.
It is at this point—the two years she spent in the O.S.S.—that Noël Riley Fitch begins her 1997 biography of Julia Child, Appetite for Life. “I asked myself,” Fitch remembers, “What’s the critical moment that changed her life and initiated her into the woman we know—the adult Julia?” The answer was Paul. In early 1945, the O.S.S. had transferred Julia McWilliams from Kandy, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), to Kunming, China, where she continued her work as head of the Registry, processing all top-secret communications.
She was glad of the transfer because fellow O.S.S.-er Paul Child had been sent to China some months before. A worldly intellectual with a poetic sensibility, an artist and photographer who relished wine, women, and song, he designed war rooms for General (Lord) Mountbatten in Kandy and for General Wedemeyer in Kunming. Paul thought Julia unworldly, unfocused, and doubtless a virgin—“a hungry hayseed” is how she would describe herself—but also steady, game, a “classy dame,” and “brave,” he wrote his twin brother, Charlie, “about being an old maid!” He was 42 to her 32, five feet ten to her six feet two.
He was looking for a soulmate, but had counted Julia out. And yet their sure-footed friendship, forged over Indo-Asian food and shared danger, was climbing, slipping, into love. Which led to bed. And then, in 1946, when the war was over, marriage.
(cont'd) http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/fe...ia-child200908
Glad to see you are well trained :p
I do not believe women should be in combat units, however the OSS used women in behind the line operations very successfully in WW II and that shows what women are capable of. Granted that was an unusual and specific circumstance but to count women out of all operations is counting out a large pool of people as well as a group of people that have capabilties beyond what men can do. After all I know of no man that can sweet talk a macho general out of some info. Can you say honey trap :munchin
I am usually very much of the school where I don't want anyone to see me as a female officer, only an officer. Yes I know it is dificult not to diferentiate, but I do the best I can. I wear my BDUs big, I only wear my blues when I have to because they very much show my figure. But when I do wear them I wear them proudly. I am 6 foot 2 and wear 2-3 inch heals when in my blues.
Alot of people say I am trying to hide that I am female. I do no such thing. I wear makeup to work every day, because I think it is part of a professional appearance. I have long blonde hair, but wear it in a very tight french braid every day. I wear earrings in my ears, and rings on my fingers. I just prefer to be referred to as an officer, non gender specific.
I was extremly pissed off a few years ago when my commander put me in for female officer of the year. Why the heck do we need a female officer of the year award? We already have an Officer of the Year Award, why is that not good enough?
With that being said, there are times and places where being a female officer has its advantages. Prior to my husband and my marriage, we were stationed together in Honduras, where we were both involved with Hub and Spoke operations. We were having a problem getting some of our strategic airlift into the country because of maintenance issues at Charleston causing the missions to miss their Dip Clearance window.
So I was charged with speaking with the Honduran Chief of Staff of the Air Force to come to a resolution to the problem. So the hubby and I went downtown to lunch with the General. We were not authorized to wear our uniforms dowtown, so I was in a skirt and heels. The hubby was sitting at the table with them when I walked in, and he said I could have asked for the moon and recieved it, all without opening my mouth.
I prefer to think that we got what we needed because I had a very good briefing, which I gave in Spanish and not English.:) In the end, I guess it doesn't matter why I got what we asked for, but we did, and the good of the mission was served.
I recently had dealing with a high level contingent from a Middle Eastern nation. I think upon first meeting my team, and having a woman as the lead was a little different for them, but as time progressed, I became the person they trusted the most because when I told them something would be done, it was done. Professionalism was the name of the game in this instance.
In some circumstances womanly wiles may be the way to go, but I would caution against it. I have seen too many "cute" women get by because they are "cute" but when push comes to shove they can't hack it without "charming" someone. I can't stand women like that. They make the rest of us look bad, and have to work 3 times as hard as we normally would have otherwise.
In some circumstances womanly wiles may be the way to go, but I would caution against it. I have seen too many "cute" women get by because they are "cute" but when push comes to shove they can't hack it without "charming" someone. I can't stand women like that. They make the rest of us look bad, and have to work 3 times as hard as we normally would have otherwise.
Amen AFChic! And eventually, people do get tired of the "CHARM". I have gotten things (in the Army and as a cop) just purely for the fact I am woman and not because I turned on the charm (though was accused of it by the men I worked with and there was no point in arguing or denial so I would just shrug it off with a "well, what works..works". Sometimes it depends on the man, some are very susceptable to it, other are not. And I have seen some women use it to death!
SkiBumCFO
08-19-2009, 16:25
"female officer of the year" AFchic that is unbelievable! Please tell me they dont still have that! You ladies are dead on - the charm thing gets tiresome. I literally have a beauty queen that works for me and she is very very competent but she struggles with losing the charm crap and it bugs the hell out of me.
Amen AFChic! And eventually, people do get tired of the "CHARM". I have gotten things (in the Army and as a cop) just purely for the fact I am woman and not because I turned on the charm (though was accused of it by the men I worked with and there was no point in arguing or denial so I would just shrug it off with a "well, what works..works". Sometimes it depends on the man, some are very susceptable to it, other are not. And I have seen some women use it to death!
I have spent a 15 year career trying to deal with "first impressions". First impressions being tall+blonde+pretty+big boobs=high maintenance, empty headed bimbo. Never mind the fact that I played rugby at a collegiate level for a couple of years and that will beat any aspect of high maintenance out of anyone. Or the fact that I hold a Bachelors Degree as well as two Masters Degrees, one of which from one of the most prestigious universities in the country.
It usually only takes me opening my mouth and talking about a work related subject or football to disavow them of their "first impressions". Hell even my husband had that first impression of me.
"female officer of the year" AFchic that is unbelievable! Please tell me they dont still have that! You ladies are dead on - the charm thing gets tiresome. I literally have a beauty queen that works for me and she is very very competent but she struggles with losing the charm crap and it bugs the hell out of me.
Of course they do, and it is given out during "Women's History Month".
Of course they do, and it is given out during "Women's History Month".
Wow, how absolutely PC of them! <sighing and batting my eyes> :rolleyes::D
I understand the "first impressions" completely....use the description of YOU only with long, auburn curls. ;)
I was told I was intimidating because I was intelligent and pretty. Those type of comments always broke me off because it meant I wasn't going to get a chance either way "if you are pretty you are an idiot and if you are smart you are bitch". As I got older, I just shrugged it all off and decided if a man is going to be intimidated by all that, do I want to work with him, for him or have him working for me or even date him? The answer is...NO!
My BF embraces all of that in me! A man who is not intimidated easily by male or female. His first impression of me?? "What a tough cookie...on the outside". LOL
Monsoon65
08-19-2009, 16:49
Of course they do, and it is given out during "Women's History Month".
Really? I THINK I might remember "female officer of the quarter" when I first came in the AF in 1983. I know our unit doesn't have it.
I'm lucky that I have good women to fly with. Smart, physically fit, professional and pretty tough. At water survival refresher one year, one of them got fiesty and wanted to wrestle. I pitched her off the dock and into the water, but I'm here to tell you it was a hard fight and I was limping a few days after that.
In some circumstances womanly wiles may be the way to go, but I would caution against it. I have seen too many "cute" women get by because they are "cute" but when push comes to shove they can't hack it without "charming" someone. I can't stand women like that. They make the rest of us look bad, and have to work 3 times as hard as we normally would have otherwise.
And there you have it. Charisma is one thing, for both females and males as long as there's something solid behind it to back it up on a professional level. Cute...cute just don't cut it. Women who pull that crap make my teeth itch.
The Reaper
08-19-2009, 17:30
I don't think that women in combat is a bad thing, but the people proposing it in the media and the fems need a big reality check.
Women are, in fact, different from men for the most part. Different, but not necessarily weaker, especially in the way that matters most; mentally.
MOO, women could be used very effectively in combat, especially against cultures that generally view women as property or subhuman, such as one that views FGM(female genital mutilation) or rape as acceptable, even desirable practices. A highly skilled, trained and motivated women-only unit could break morale even more effectively. It sounds childish, but let them learn to fear even (no slight intended here, ladies) our women.
I'm sure the women with the skill set or aptitude could be found: Quality, not quantity. The "reality check" would be that the numbers would be far, far fewer and those few would likely have to make outrageous sacrifice (It wouldn't be cost effective for the Army to train troops who will become pregnant and lose combat effectiveness postpartum). Some methodology would probably need to be changed (I don't know from personal experience, but a H2H style such as Wing Chun might be preferable to Krav Maga for a woman and be no less effective, as an example). But if they TRULY have the will and desire, why not provide opportunity?
The drawback would be partnering; there might be insurmountable problems with local support if we begin using female troops. Again, I have no personal experience, but this seems like it might end up as a "reality check" and a sticking point to me.
As long as it's done with eyes wide open, always keeping reality in the forefront and looking for efficiency; why not?
I agree entirely with Soak60. I realize the ratio would still be largely male, however for the few females who truly do want a combat role..... why not? I would offer no special treatment though. They would have to work just as hard as the men.
Why don't you two hold the uninformed commentary till you have been through the SFQC and served in an SF unit in combat?
TR
Really? I THINK I might remember "female officer of the quarter" when I first came in the AF in 1983. I know our unit doesn't have it. ................
Officer of the Guard: "Private, who is your Commander in Chief?"
Private at Guard Mount: "Sir, my Commander in Chief is President Nixon."
Officer of the Guard: "Private, who is the Commander in Chief of the WACs?"
Private at Guard Mount: "Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah."
Me, the rest of the night trudging around the motor pool with a pick ax handle on my shoulder "Stupid - Stupid - Stupid - Stupid"
I have no doubt you are good at your job not because of your gender, but because of your professionalism. My comment about a female getting someting out of a general was not in the situation you were in, but in referace to the dirty game of UW. Many men underestimate women and think they can outsmart women. Many a "dumb" secratary has been a good source for information in an office. As for "cute" women rising through the ranks that is a no go in my book and women like that make it harder on women like you that earn their way to the top. Like you I don't believe in women soldier of the year, it should be soldier of the year but it does not take away from your winning the award IMHO.
As for the comment about being trained, that was a sarcastic remark, I aploogize if you took it otherwise.
Read the book I referanced in an earlier post "A Man Called Intrepid" it talks about how women worked behing the lines in WW II.
No offense was taken at any of your comments. No worries.
Not to take anything away from the courage and class of Julia Child, but the majority of her OSS work was as a records clerk in foreign offices. Far less famous, but truly awe inspiring, were heroes like Ginny Hall who fought alongside the Resistance despite having only one leg.
Not to take anything away from the courage and class of Julia Child, but the majority of her OSS work was as a records clerk in foreign offices. Far less famous, but truly awe inspiring, were heroes like Ginny Hall who fought alongside the Resistance despite having only one leg.
Thank you Razor, Sir! Just read this article to those in my camp, as she indeed was inspiring!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-421956/Finally-honoured-female-spy-Gestapo-dubbed-dangerous-all.html
Finally honoured, the female spy the Gestapo dubbed 'the most dangerous of all
'By BARRY WIGMORE
Last updated at 21:08 11 December 2006
She had many codenames - Diane, Camille, Marie, Philomene - but to the Gestapo she was simply the Limping Lady because of her wooden leg.
Gestapo chief Hermann Göring put out Wanted posters offering a reward for the capture of the woman he viewed as the most dangerous spy in war-torn France.
But Virginia Hall ignored the Nazi secret police, and, working for Winston Churchill's SOE, the Special Operations Executive, forerunner of MI6, she slipped back and forth between London and France, wreaking havoc behind enemy lines.
When he set up the SOE, Churchill said he wanted it "to set Europe ablaze." Virginia Hall obliged. And 60 years after her name slipped into spy world legend, and 24 years after she died, the quiet American will be honoured by the British and French for the vital part she played in Hitler's downfall.
In a ceremony at the French Ambassador's home in Washington, British Ambassador Sir David Manning will finally present the Royal Warrant signed by King George VI to Miss Hall's niece, Lorna Catling.
Miss Hall should have received the Warrant in 1943, when she was awarded the OBE. But she was unimpressed by 'gongs' - and too busy fighting the war.
Born in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1906, to a wealthy cinema owner, Miss Hall was fluent in French, Italian and German when she went to work for the US foreign service before World War II.
To her anger and frustration, she was invalided out of the service after a hunting accident in Turkey.
Her shotgun slipped from her grasp and as she grabbed it, it fired, blasting away her foot. By the time she got to a hospital, gangrene had set in. To save her life, the surgeon had to amputate her left leg below the knee.
Always able to see the funny side of things, Miss Hall immediately named her wooden leg Cuthbert.
She was in Paris when war broke out in 1939 and joined the ambulance service. When the Nazis invaded France in 1940, she fled to London, and with her language skills, was soon recruited by the SOE.
After training in the clandestine arts of killing, communications and security, she went to Vichy France to set up resistance networks under the cover of being a reporter for the New York Post.
In 1942, she moved to Lyons, organising the underground network that helped downed aircrews and escaped PoWs back to England.
When America entered the war, she faced interment as an enemy alien, and went undercover, running her escape routes from restaurants and bars under the noses of the Nazis.
After the November, 1942, North Africa invasion, German troops flooded into her area and things became too hot even for her. She hiked on her artificial leg across the Pyrenees in the dead of winter to Spain.
During the journey she radioed London saying she was okay but Cuthbert was giving her trouble.
Forgetting this was her artificial leg, and knowing her value to the Allied cause, her commanders radioed back: "If Cuthbert troublesome eliminate him."
Back in London a few months later, the Americans finally woke up to the superb agent they were missing.
They claimed her for the OSS, the Office of Strategic Services, forerunner of the CIA, and after more training, sent her back to France.
There, in the central Haute-Loire region, she set up sabotage and guerrilla groups, supplying them with money, arms and rations.
She was always on the move as the Nazis hunted her, operating mostly from the attics of French homes.
In Chambon-sur-Lignon, central France, weeks before D-Day, Miss Hall disguised herself as a an elderly peasant goat-herd.
She wore padding and heavy woollen clothes to hide her bad leg and make her look fat, then wandered around the country roads sending back vital reports to London of German troop movements.
As 1944 drew to a close and the Germans began to retreat from France, Miss Hall set up 'search and destroy' guerilla teams among her resistance fighters, attacking bridges, freight trains and Nazi communications.
They destroyed four bridges, derailed half a dozen freight trains, and disrupted communications by cutting telephone wires. They also killed more than 150 enemy soldiers and took more than 500 prisoners.
She moved on to Innsbruck in Austria to carry on harassing the retreating Nazis just as the Third Reich collapsed.
After the war, Miss Hall married one of the men she'd fought with in France, French-born OSS agent, Paul Goilott, and continued to work for the CIA.
She turned down an an attempt by President Truman to award her the US Army's second-highest award, Distinguished Service Cross because she said the publicity would blow her cover.
Instead she quietly accepted the award from her boss, legendary OSS chief Bill Donovan, in his office.
Attempts by the British government to track her down failed for the same reason.
A British Embassy spokesman in Washington said yesterday: "We tried to find Miss Hall for years. We even placed advertisements in American newspapers asking her to come forward.
"But she was very good at what she did and didn't want to be found. We think she probably blocked her CIA chiefs from telling MI6 where she was.
"Finally we tracked down her niece, her only living relative, and that's why the ceremony is being held now." Mrs Catling said: "My aunt always seemed kind of glamorous and mysterious, but she made light of her war-time experiences.
"One time she told me she and Paul found a deserted chateau with a full wine cellar. She said they had a wonderful evening enjoying that."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-421956/Finally-honoured-female-spy-Gestapo-dubbed-dangerous-all.html#ixzz0OkXOBmJn
PHOTO CAPTION:Virginia Hall accepted the Distinguished Service Cross from Maj. Gen. William J. Donovan in 1945, but declined British and French decorations
Monsoon65
08-20-2009, 16:07
Officer of the Guard: "Private, who is your Commander in Chief?"
Private at Guard Mount: "Sir, my Commander in Chief is President Nixon."
Officer of the Guard: "Private, who is the Commander in Chief of the WACs?"
Private at Guard Mount: "Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah."
Me, the rest of the night trudging around the motor pool with a pick ax handle on my shoulder "Stupid - Stupid - Stupid - Stupid"
Ah, yes, that Homer Simpson "D'oh" moment. I think we have all had a few of those. :D
Ah, yes, that Homer Simpson "D'oh" moment. I think we have all had a few of those. :D
Um, due respect, but what are you talking about?
Consider me uninformed, btw....:o
Holly
I think the original point of the articles was that many of the philosophical arguments related to the issue are gradually being overcome by the reality of the events themselves - it's called OBE. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Why don't you two hold the uninformed commentary till you have been through the SFQC and served in an SF unit in combat?
TR
Roger, out.
NousDefionsDoc
08-20-2009, 20:30
I have spent a 15 year career trying to deal with "first impressions". First impressions being tall+blonde+pretty+big boobs=high maintenance, empty headed bimbo. Never mind the fact that I played rugby at a collegiate level for a couple of years and that will beat any aspect of high maintenance out of anyone. Or the fact that I hold a Bachelors Degree as well as two Masters Degrees, one of which from one of the most prestigious universities in the country.
It usually only takes me opening my mouth and talking about a work related subject or football to disavow them of their "first impressions". Hell even my husband had that first impression of me.
Stop bragging.
Ma'am...:p
Utah Bob
08-20-2009, 20:39
Stop bragging.
Ma'am...:p
Ya beat me to it!:D
While in MOST circumstances, men have been scientifically proven to be physically "superior" to women. On the other hand, being able to survive/complete a combat mission, so-to-say, isn't the same thing as doing 1000 push-ups.
I don't believe men and women should serve together in a Special Operations team. As said earlier, men are more likely to be "de-moralled" and overprotective of women, therefore compromising mission security. Take not that these are all general statements that can be backed with factual science.
I'm one of the guys who is completely sick of the whole... "I'm a woman so I can do everything you can, and better!" I thought these kinds of women were fighting for equality :confused:
That being said, contrary to a lot of people on this forum, I do believe women should be able to serve in a combat arms position. Some of these women fighting for the right are so utterly patriotic and grateful that they would put their own life on the line. For this, I congratulate them and say that their mindset is completely admirable.
Now, before I say anymore, I have to say that IF women were to serve in a combat position, I believe they should have their own units. Sort of a "Women Only" type thing. This would significantly lower the pregnancies, rape, and sexual harassment. (Though I'm a firm believer that if a woman soldier wanted their job badly enough they wouldn't be having sex in the first place in order to evade pregnancy.) This would also prevent men doing foolish things to impress or save the women. With equality being the issue I feel the need that the women trying out, should have to meet the expectations in the Q course of the men.
I've seen a handful of strong women in my life that act to be capable of eventually be able to hold such an intensive job as Special Forces. I've also seen my fair share of women who say that they could do it, but couldn't make a 200 on the pt if they tried.
There will always be exceptions and those women that would be capable, but aren't allowed to serve in combat. After all, it is a man's world, and once you get past the intelligent reasons why women should be able to serve, you come to the ignorance of the average male, such as Dirtyshirt, who can't be taught the difference between their part and their gun, and when they should take a big dose of Situational Awareness.
Voronov
Pushups are imminent for you Voronov
The Reaper
07-08-2010, 13:57
While in MOST circumstances, men have been scientifically proven to be physically "superior" to women. On the other hand, being able to survive/complete a combat mission, so-to-say, isn't the same thing as doing 1000 push-ups.
I don't believe men and women should serve together in a Special Operations team. As said earlier, men are more likely to be "de-moralled" and overprotective of women, therefore compromising mission security. Take not that these are all general statements that can be backed with factual science.
I'm one of the guys who is completely sick of the whole... "I'm a woman so I can do everything you can, and better!" I thought these kinds of women were fighting for equality :confused:
That being said, contrary to a lot of people on this forum, I do believe women should be able to serve in a combat arms position. Some of these women fighting for the right are so utterly patriotic and grateful that they would put their own life on the line. For this, I congratulate them and say that their mindset is completely admirable.
Now, before I say anymore, I have to say that IF women were to serve in a combat position, I believe they should have their own units. Sort of a "Women Only" type thing. This would significantly lower the pregnancies, rape, and sexual harassment. (Though I'm a firm believer that if a woman soldier wanted their job badly enough they wouldn't be having sex in the first place in order to evade pregnancy.) This would also prevent men doing foolish things to impress or save the women. With equality being the issue I feel the need that the women trying out, should have to meet the expectations in the Q course of the men.
I've seen a handful of strong women in my life that act to be capable of eventually be able to hold such an intensive job as Special Forces. I've also seen my fair share of women who say that they could do it, but couldn't make a 200 on the pt if they tried.
There will always be exceptions and those women that would be capable, but aren't allowed to serve in combat. After all, it is a man's world, and once you get past the intelligent reasons why women should be able to serve, you come to the ignorance of the average male, such as Dirtyshirt, who can't be taught the difference between their part and their gun, and when they should take a big dose of Situational Awareness.
Voronov
This is based on what military and SF experience?
Are you really qualified to be making these proclamations?
Do you think you should be deciding who gets into SF already?
TR
This is based on what military and SF experience?
Are you really qualified to be making these proclamations?
Do you think you should be deciding who gets into SF already?
TR
None. This would all be based on logistics and principles.
Commencing Push-ups.
Roger, and out.
Voronov,
I think you lack the exerience (in the military and in the world) to know what we women are fully capable of and what we are not, let alone to voice an opinion on it in your very short time on this earth thus far. What gets my Irish blood boiling more is when any male expresses to KNOW what we are capable of.
You already stepped in it with TR and I don't have the slightest sympathy for you.
Voronov,
I think you lack the exerience (in the military and in the world) to know what we women are fully capable of and what we are not, let alone to voice an opinion on it in your very short time on this earth thus far. What gets my Irish blood boiling more is when any male expresses to KNOW what we are capable of.
You already stepped in it with TR and I don't have the slightest sympathy for you.
Understood completely. I did not wish to offend anyone and you have my deepest apologies. It won't happen again.
greenberetTFS
07-08-2010, 15:51
Why don't you two hold the uninformed commentary till you have been through the SFQC and served in an SF unit in combat?
TR
Right on target TR..............;)
Big Teddy :munchin
greenberetTFS
07-08-2010, 16:01
Voronov,
I think you lack the exerience (in the military and in the world) to know what we women are fully capable of and what we are not, let alone to voice an opinion on it in your very short time on this earth thus far. What gets my Irish blood boiling more is when any male expresses to KNOW what we are capable of.
You already stepped in it with TR and I don't have the slightest sympathy for you.
Give it to him,he like several others got to TR's wrath and maybe,just maybe they got the message.............:(
Big Teddy :munchin
Give it to him,he like several others got to TR's wrath and maybe,just maybe they got the message.............:(
Big Teddy :munchin
Teddy..ya old salt you! You crack me up so much that I find it difficult to type. The youngin apologized. I accept and forgive. To forgive is divine, to piss off TR....is suicide! :lifter
:munchin
The Reaper
07-08-2010, 17:36
Give it to him,he like several others got to TR's wrath and maybe,just maybe they got the message.............:(
Big Teddy :munchin
Look, I don't mind a spirited discussion, and I don't shy away from a good argument, but I do not like people making uninformed commentary, particularly when it is inflamatory.
Anyone who has done their homework here can find numerous examples of me expressing my opinion about women in the military, in combat, in combat arms, and in SF, usually with someone who disagrees with me.
If Voronov gets selected, makes it through the pipeline, gets to a unit, and serves a couple of enlistments with combat tours, I will sit down with him and we can break bread as peers. I will respect his opinion, whether I agree with it or not. I just don't feel like playing that game again right now, and getting people's feathers all ruffled up over uninformed trolling.
Saoirse called him on it, he apologized, hopefully it is a lesson learned, and I consider the matter closed. No need to pile on now or to beat him down. FIDO.
TR
Blitzzz (RIP)
07-09-2010, 05:58
I would hope more people would read your post and reflect on it's meaning.
Not all soldiers are the same, not all soldiers do the same job, not all jobs have the same requirements, not all men are Alpha wolves.
Were we all the same there would be no need of specialized selections or other requirements for the different MOSs.
Without "PC" rules, inequality would be obvious when manifested in displayed performance. Were "we" all the same then all would be QPs. Blitzzz
It sure is a complex world - ever pause to consider how many QPs have been rendered 'operationally ineffective' through the efforts of a member of 'the weaker sex'? :confused: ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
First let me say I am not/never have been in the military.
Having said that let me just say that on more than one occasion I have found myself in sticky situations over a woman. For example, I ended up taking a pretty good beating after I stepped in for a girl who I saw get pushed. The guy and two of his buddies who I hadn't paid attention taught me to be more aware of my surroundings before taking any action. I centered my attention on the woman in distress and ignored things I would have normally noticed. Luckily, I managed to stay on my feet and fight myself to the door. I got the girl out of there, and only got a broken nose, 2 dislocated fingers, a little hurt pride and all of the normal marks you would think of for my trouble.
My point is this, had it just been two guys pushing/shoving going to fight etc, I would have probably not acted the same way. Blame it on how I was raised or what have you, but I think that I would have a hard time focusing on "the mission" if I thought the women on my team were in danger.
IMO this is not a problem caused by women but rather one caused by men. However, until there are changes on the social views of how men are raised to protect women, having women on strictly combat oriented teams seems to me as an outsider like it would be an unecessary distraction. Or it could be just me.
My point is this, had it just been two guys pushing/shoving going to fight etc, I would have probably not acted the same way. Blame it on how I was raised or what have you, but I think that I would have a hard time focusing on "the mission" if I thought the women on my team were in danger.
IMO this is not a problem caused by women but rather one caused by men. However, until there are changes on the social views of how men are raised to protect women, having women on strictly combat oriented teams seems to me as an outsider like it would be an unecessary distraction. Or it could be just me.
What if that guy getting "pushed around" was your best friend or brother?
I think he means if it was two random guys.
Thats correct. I didn't know the girl either.
First let me say I am not/never have been in the military.
Having said that let me just say that on more than one occasion I have found myself in sticky situations over a woman. For example, I ended up taking a pretty good beating after I stepped in for a girl who I saw get pushed. The guy and two of his buddies who I hadn't paid attention taught me to be more aware of my surroundings before taking any action. I centered my attention on the woman in distress and ignored things I would have normally noticed. Luckily, I managed to stay on my feet and fight myself to the door. I got the girl out of there, and only got a broken nose, 2 dislocated fingers, a little hurt pride and all of the normal marks you would think of for my trouble.
My point is this, had it just been two guys pushing/shoving going to fight etc, I would have probably not acted the same way. Blame it on how I was raised or what have you, but I think that I would have a hard time focusing on "the mission" if I thought the women on my team were in danger.
IMO this is not a problem caused by women but rather one caused by men. However, until there are changes on the social views of how men are raised to protect women, having women on strictly combat oriented teams seems to me as an outsider like it would be an unecessary distraction. Or it could be just me.
Your first comment regarding your coming to the aid of the girl and not having paid attention to the guys and they taught you a lesson in SA...sounds like there is much more to this story and that the girl may have been the instigator in the situation. I am not saying she deserved to be shoved but I have seen women dish physical abuse out on a guy and when he shoved her OFF of him, it was a case of "OH he hit meeee!".
Your second comment: I have to agree with you 100%. We do need to change how boys are raised and how they, as men, are treated. Since the women's movement, we have systematically emasculated our men to the point they don't know whether to wind their butts or scratch their watches. Men weren't sensitive ENOUGH, they weren't intouch with OUR feelings, I don't need a man to open my door for me, etc. The list is too long to bother with.
Because of that crap, you have a lot of confused men out there. Thankfully, the REAL Alpha Males (like sooo many on this board) didn't give into that PC mambypamby (thanks R. Lee) crap! They stayed men and thats how we REAL women like our men!!
We women know what we are capable of. We have shown amazing feats of strength, will and drive. But, conversly, we have used those feminine wiles to con, bamboozle and frustrate you men. We, men and women, were created the way were are for a reason (if you believe in creationism). Men are rational, strong and hunter/gatherers, women are nurturing, emotional, sensitive. There is NOTHING wrong with either gender because we each bring something to the table that balances it all out. In the past year, I have learned something that has become very valuable, men are the simplest of creatures in their needs....food, fun and sex (and maybe not in that order).
Thats correct. I didn't know the girl either.
But my question remains, what if it had been your brother?
But my question remains, what if it had been your brother?
I don't understand what you are getting at. If it had been my brother ofcourse I would have fought to protect him, but then I wouldn't have been fighting alone either.
The story was just an illustration of how I go out of my way when I see a woman being mistreated. I am much more likely to idle by when two guys are fighting then when I see a girl get hit. I think thats pretty simple. Thats just how I grew up. Around here two guys can get into a fist fight and its not that big of deal, nobody is going to get shot or stabbed, nobody has to call the cops. If it would get out of hand people can break it up.
Thats why I needed the lesson in SA because at college it was a whole different world, and I wasn't even that far away from home.
Your first comment regarding your coming to the aid of the girl and not having paid attention to the guys and they taught you a lesson in SA...sounds like there is much more to this story and that the girl may have been the instigator in the situation. I am not saying she deserved to be shoved but I have seen women dish physical abuse out on a guy and when he shoved her OFF of him, it was a case of "OH he hit meeee!".
Your second comment: I have to agree with you 100%. We do need to change how boys are raised and how they, as men, are treated. Since the women's movement, we have systematically emasculated our men to the point they don't know whether to wind their butts or scratch their watches. Men weren't sensitive ENOUGH, they weren't intouch with OUR feelings, I don't need a man to open my door for me, etc. The list is too long to bother with.
Because of that crap, you have a lot of confused men out there. Thankfully, the REAL Alpha Males (like sooo many on this board) didn't give into that PC mambypamby (thanks R. Lee) crap! They stayed men and thats how we REAL women like our men!!
We women know what we are capable of. We have shown amazing feats of strength, will and drive. But, conversly, we have used those feminine wiles to con, bamboozle and frustrate you men. We, men and women, were created the way were are for a reason (if you believe in creationism). Men are rational, strong and hunter/gatherers, women are nurturing, emotional, sensitive. There is NOTHING wrong with either gender because we each bring something to the table that balances it all out. In the past year, I have learned something that has become very valuable, men are the simplest of creatures in their needs....food, fun and sex (and maybe not in that order).
Well she was running her mouth, which I always tell the girls I know not to do do a big dumb drunk kid. But from what I saw she never touched him and he pushed her and then tried to hit her just because she wouldn't shut up.
The rest of your comments confuse me even more to be honost.
So should I or Should I not aid a woman in distress? I don't baby women but I certainly am not going to let some guy beat on one.
Your list of guys needs sum mine up very well, and I pride myself on being a "simple" creature, but I would add sleep to that list, because after all the food, fun, and sex, I'm tired.
I don't understand what you are getting at. If it had been my brother ofcourse I would have fought to protect him, but then I wouldn't have been fighting alone either.
The story was just an illustration of how I go out of my way when I see a woman being mistreated. I am much more likely to idle by when two guys are fighting then when I see a girl get hit. I think thats pretty simple. Thats just how I grew up. Around here two guys can get into a fist fight and its not that big of deal, nobody is going to get shot or stabbed, nobody has to call the cops. If it would get out of hand people can break it up.
Thats why I needed the lesson in SA because at college it was a whole different world, and I wasn't even that far away from home.
My point is, professional soldiers will die defending/saving the lives of the men and or women in their units. The stories stretch back through history of a few people grabbing a rock, knife, M1, M16 or some explosive device and with no regard for their own safety charges a gun, bunker or the entire barbarian horde and saves all of their comrades. I think the "woman in combat will make men go crazy in the fox holes and kill themselves like lemmings to protect them" is a weak argument.
I am not sure the actions of a young man in a bar fight can be used to predict the behavior of well led, highly trained, disciplined, professional soldiers.
My point is, professional soldiers will die defending/saving the lives of the men and or women in their units. The stories stretch back through history of a few people grabbing a rock, knife, M1, M16 or some explosive device and with no regard for their own safety charges a gun, bunker or the entire barbarian horde and saves all of their comrades. I think the "woman in combat will make men go crazy in the fox holes and kill themselves like lemmings to protect them" is a weak argument.
I am not sure the actions of a young man in a bar fight can be used to predict the behavior of well led, highly trained, disciplined, professional soldiers.
Please explain where I said anything like that. Second, When did I say I was at a bar? This was at my apartment complex next door to my apartment (not a party either).
Nor did I say my story would predict anyones actions other than my own. Also, I don't know where you got in my story that I would "kill myself like a lemming" to protect a woman. My point to the story was that women seem IN MY OPINION to be like an unecessary distraction in some instances, as part of a direct combat team, for example, may be one of them. It seems to be reasonable that because many men are "trained" like this from birth that women may be a distraction.
If I may make one small guess as to the behavior of " highly trained, disciplined, professional soldiers" I would imagine that at least one would say that they would feel the need to come a womans aid who was in distress. I hesitate to even say this because I DO NOT try to venture guesses into the behavior of the members of this board.
I hate to hijack this thread with my one man's opinion but because you tried to misrepresent my story as well as what the meaning behind it was I felt the need to post once more. If you wish to refute my opinion I welcome it, but do so without misrepresenting what I said, and if you need more details about the story, ask, instead of just making up your own to fit your argument.
Please explain where I said anything like that.No disrespect, FNG13, but you did say:IMO this is not a problem caused by women but rather one caused by men. However, until there are changes on the social views of how men are raised to protect women, having women on strictly combat oriented teams seems to me as an outsider like it would be an unnecessary distraction. Or it could be just me.Before I read Sten's post, my thoughts were running parallel to his.* Maybe I am misreading you as well, but your comments suggested that gendered identity among civilians could not be rooted out through training and discipline alone. Instead, we as a society would need to reorient our conceptions of gender first.
MOO, you are making a nuanced observation of how deeply entrenched gendered differences are in America and of how they are ultimately constructs. I think your point is worth careful discussion. :lifterHeck if you didn't mean to raise it, I'd be more than glad to pretend I'm a political scientist and to take credit for it. (Wait, did that sound bitter? I'll get back to counting beans now.):D
__________________________________________________ ____
* See how I did that, Sten?:p I arrive late to the dance and manage to act like I was on time all along.:cool:
No disrespect, FNG13, but you did say:Before I read Sten's post, my thoughts were running parallel to his.* Maybe I am misreading you as well, but your comments suggested that gendered identity among civilians could not be rooted out through training and discipline alone. Instead, we as a society would need to reorient our conceptions of gender first.
MOO, you are making a nuanced observation of how deeply entrenched gendered differences are in America and of how they are ultimately constructs. I think your point is worth careful discussion. :lifterHeck if you didn't mean to raise it, I'd be more than glad to pretend I'm a political scientist and to take credit for it. (Wait, did that sound bitter? I'll get back to counting beans now.):D
__________________________________________________ ____
* See how I did that, Sten?:p I arrive late to the dance and manage to act like I was on time all along.:cool:
Sigaba,
I did say that, and that is a close enough, brief summation of my opinion. Although you may go to far to say that training can't counter act this. My observation is that the root of the issue is embeded in the gender institutions which society hold.
However, that is not at all what Sten was suggesting I said.
Furthermore, I in no way stated that my example of how I reacted to women in violence should be an indicator of how all professional soldiers would act in combat. I would never presume to make such a statement because I am not a professional soldier nor have I been in combat, let alone with women.
The Reaper
07-09-2010, 17:28
Hmm.
The title of this thread is "Women Break Combat Barrier as War Evolves".
I think that it would be great to hear from men and women who are combat vets on this thread.
Most of them probably got tired of the discussion and made their points before it last died, and have nothing new to add now.
We currently seem to have a discussion restarted and dominated by people who have never been any closer to war than a bar fight.
I assumed, clearly in error, that my comments to Voronov would have been sufficient for anyone smart enough to last through the probationary period here to figure out what that meant.
Here is the bottom line, in case you are confused. If you are not a QP, or a vet, we don't care what you think about women in combat. Period. End of discussion.
I further recommend that new members not jump in at the end of contentious threads and revive them make potentially inflamatory comments.
I will lock this thread if people who are unqualified to comment continue to toss their uninformed opinions about on it. Ignore this guidance at your own peril.
Not arrogance here, but some annoyance at the trolling.
If you want to read all of the previous posts about females in the military on this and other threads, and then do a tour or two, I would love to hear what you think. Absent that, take your discussion to PM, or a board better suited to this kind of discussion. There are several that come to mind.
TR
greenberetTFS
07-10-2010, 13:56
From TR that means "thats 2"....................
Big Teddy :munchin
Green Light
07-10-2010, 14:25
I am not a professional soldier nor have I been in combat, let alone with women.
Here, most guys would be reluctant to admit that they'd never been with a woman. :D
drivfast
08-21-2010, 23:36
I served in iraq 03-04, as a humble infantryman, and I apologize if this was brought up and i overlooked it, as I read everything up to this point in this discussion. I realize people on this website are at a skill and experience level which far exceeds mine, so i have yet to feel the need to comment on anything. I think of 2 issues.
1. A woman's frame doesn't seem to be designed to carry a 25-30 lb IBA, full kit, M4 and m9 ammo, a heavy Ruck or Molle, batteries, electronics, food, baby wipes, water, pvs 7 or 14, you get the idea, a lot of weight in gear. I have carried twice my weight on several occasions. Its amplified if you are a saw or 240 gunner. Also if a situation were to arise that a 200lb buddy had to be carried or dragged, plus his weapon and kit. I want to be clear that i am not making an argument that a women doesn't exist that is capable, simply that it is rare.
2. a woman's personal hygiene needs in the field vs men. i dont think i need to elaborate. i doubt baby wipes and hand sanitizer will suffice over a week in the field or combat environment.
Now back into the woodline to Listen, Learn, and maybe someday if given the opportunity, Lead.
alright4u
08-22-2010, 05:29
Women can lead some male troops into combat as officers, but they cannot serve with them in battle.
Amazing.