View Full Version : Women and Combat
Women have acquited themselves as true American in all of the Services. I appreciate both their voluneerism and patriotism.
Below is some 'stuff' as it relates to women/men and our differences.
I'm afraid that our recent combat and its nuances will push for further expansion of females into units that require more muscle and may weaken our forces if we find ourselves in a close combat environment with a professional army and not G's or terr's.
I've removed the Generals name and address etc from the email.
Facts From A Closet
Women In Combat
Date
Occasionally I have written that placing women in physically demanding jobs in the military, as for example combat, is stupid and unworkable. Predictably I've gotten responses asserting that I hate women, abuse children, cannibalize orphans, and can't get a date. A few, with truculence sometimes amplified by misspelling, have demanded supporting data.
OK. The following are from documents I found in a closet, left over from my days as a syndicated military columnist ("Soldiering," Universal Press Syndicate). Note the dates: All of this has been known for a long time.
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993): "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."
Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:
"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."
From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.
"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."
The following, quoted by Brian Mitchell in his book Women in the Military: Flirting With Disaster (Regnery, 1998) and widely known to students of the military, are results of a test the Navy did to see how well women could perform in damage control -- i.e., tasks necessary to save a ship that had been hit.
Test % Women Failing % Men Failing
Before Training After Training Before Training After Training
Stretcher carry, level 63 38 0 0
Stretcher carry/up, down ladder 94 88 0 0
Fire hose 19 6 0 0
P250 pump, carry down 99 99 9 4
P250 pump, carry up 73 52 0 0
P250, start pump 90 75 0 0
Remove SSTO pump 99 99 0 0
Torque engine bolt 78 47 0 0
Our ships can be hit. I know what supersonic stealthed cruise missiles are. So do the Iraqis.
Also from the Commission's report: "Non-deployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead's testimony before the Commission, 'the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.'"
Maybe we need armored strollers.
My friend Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and (no, I'm not on drugs) enlisted in the Army in 1995. Her account was published in Reader's Digest, February, 1999, and is online in the Digest's archives.
She told me the following about her experiences: "I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn't. It wasn't even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries.
"They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women weren't allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called them 'Battle Buddies.' It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I couldn't go to the bathroom by myself."
Women are going to take on the North Korean infantry, but need protection in the ladies' room. Military policy is endlessly fascinating.
When I was writing the military column, I looked into the experience of Canada, which tried the experiment of feminization. I got the report from Ottawa, as did the Commission. Said the Commission:
"After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1.
From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon's library:
(p. 690): "One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while participating in field exercises." Because peeing was embarrassing.
Or, (p. 661): " Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women…" Depression, says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera.
The military is perfectly aware of all of this. Their own magazine has told them. They see it every day. But protecting careers, and rears, is more important than protecting the country.
Anyway, for those who wanted supporting evidence, there it is.
CD.
Maj Gen (Ret)
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest America become bankrupt. People must again learn to work,instead of living on public assistance." Author unknown but I like it
Ever read Fred On Everything? ;)
http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml
Or Tom Ricks?
Now that the gay thing is resolved, can we let soldiers be openly female in combat?
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/06/now_that_the_gay_thing_is_resolved_can_we_let_sold iers_be_openly_female_in_combat
Wanted: Strategic leader, females need not apply—even though they’re better at it
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/04/wanted_strategic_leader_females_need_not_apply_eve n_though_they_re_better_at_it
Richard :munchin
If I remember correctly so many women were sent home from the first gulf war from pregnancy that it equaled over a Bn. of troops. That was before a shot was fired.
:D
Saying that I read where one female soldier covered her pregnancy so she could stay in the combat zone.
Yep and all those women concieved via immaculate conception.;)
Yep and all those women concieved via immaculate conception.;)
Yeah, takes 2. Extremely naive to say that healthy young soldiers will abstain because we have a gen order saying so.
Regardless of the situation the soldier is exfilled on 'sick leave' and therefore not replaced as a loss so the unit goes without.
A few maint companies were downgraded to 'combat ineffective' due to pregnancy issues and had to be replaced by other units(1st Gulf war).
It is not an issue of 'blame' it is simply a fact to be dealt with.
As an aside I have no issue with women in combat as long as it makes sense. Women pilots are an example. No problem.
I'm just concerned the PC crowd will just declare everyone physically 'equal' regardless of the facts.
As an aside I have no issue with women in combat as long as it makes sense. Women pilots are an example. No problem.
I'm just concerned the PC crowd will just declare everyone physically 'equal' regardless of the facts.
I agree. I think it is silly to assume all women are capable or want to go into a combat MOS. I do believe women should have to sign up for selective service, just like the guys.
Yeah, takes 2. Extremely naive to say that healthy young soldiers will abstain because we have a gen order saying so.
Regardless of the situation the soldier is exfilled on 'sick leave' and therefore not replaced as a loss so the unit goes without.
A few maint companies were downgraded to 'combat ineffective' due to pregnancy issues and had to be replaced by other units(1st Gulf war).
It is not an issue of 'blame' it is simply a fact to be dealt with.
I don't think you are wrong but I think it is pathetic that only one of the two concenting are held culpable for violating a lawful order.
I am a little sensitive to the issue. I became pregnant when I was a Lt. The guy wanted nothing to do with me after he found out. We were both in the same squadron but I am the one who walked around with the stigma of being a slut. He got off scott free because no one knew it was him.
Although not in combat, the similarities are still there.
longrange1947
01-05-2012, 19:52
afchic - I was on a C130 with one of the first female loadmasters. We were to jump into Flintlock in the mid 70s and she could not open the jump door while in flight. Does this mean that all females are useless, no, does it mean that all females are qual'ed NO.
The problem I have is that there are fools out there that will push for a "waiver" so that someone not qualified will be sent into harms way for a political statement. This will get others killed or injured to make a point for women's lib.
I would not want to see a woman on a team for several reasons. One is not enough strength and stamina UNLESS they can do the SAME PT test as the man. That leaves the "it takes two to tango" and from my years I can tell you that someone will fall in love and win and someone will lose and that will be friction.
And yes that goes with the dam don't ask shot as well!!!! :munchin
As far as pilots, on certain ships etc. fine, NOT in a mountain area with 100 pound rucks and long humps.
afchic - I was on a C130 with one of the first female loadmasters. We were to jump into Flintlock in the mid 70s and she could not open the jump door while in flight. Does this mean that all females are useless, no, does it mean that all females are qual'ed NO.
The problem I have is that there are fools out there that will push for a "waiver" so that someone not qualified will be sent into harms way for a political statement. This will get others killed or injured to make a point for women's lib.
I would not want to see a woman on a team for several reasons. One is not enough strength and stamina UNLESS they can do the SAME PT test as the man. That leaves the "it takes two to tango" and from my years I can tell you that someone will fall in love and win and someone will lose and that will be friction.
And yes that goes with the dam don't ask shot as well!!!! :munchin
As far as pilots, on certain ships etc. fine, NOT in a mountain area with 100 pound rucks and long humps.
agree wholeheartedly.
An interesting 1993 GAO study on the matter:
WOMEN IN THE MILITARY: Deployment in the Persian Gulf War
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat5/149552.pdf
Chapter 5 (Unavailability for Deployment) - perception vs reality - is interesting.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I agree. I think it is silly to assume all women are capable or want to go into a combat MOS. I do believe women should have to sign up for selective service, just like the guys.
If they (women) sign up for selective service "just like the guys" then they should have the same rights, yes? If men and women sign up - same/same then options are same/same. Combat Units, Special Ops Units etc etc.
I don't think women should be in SF or in combat units. I'm getting old and have an old person's POV but if we ask the same of women via selective service then we should offer the same options, yes?
I'm not pointing fingers as to blame or am I calling anyone a slut or implying it. What I AM saying is that you mix boys and girls together and things will happen. Sometimes she gets pregnant and therefore is out of the fight ie needs to be replaced. Less people in the fight means combat effectiveness is decreased. Last I heard it is not illegal for adults to have consensual sex and any idiot that puts out an order that they cant is not facing reality. It is another dynamic we need to look at in modern warfare.
Everytime I have been deloyed it was under GO #1 which includes no drinking and no sex amongst other things.
I spent 3 of the first 7 months of my marriage deployed to a seperate location from my husband. The other 4 were living in a tent next to his. We were told by our leadership that sex was a no go and if they found out we were having it, LORs at the minimum were in our future. It sucked but we got through.
Is it realistic for kids to abstain while deployed? Probsbly not, but an order is an order last time I checked.
My main point is there is repurcussions for only one of the consenting adults, and that is wrong.
If they (women) sign up for selective service "just like the guys" then they should have the same rights, yes? If men and women sign up - same/same then options are same/same. Combat Units, Special Ops Units etc etc.
I don't think women should be in SF or in combat units. I'm getting old and have an old person's POV but if we ask the same of women via selective service then we should offer the same options, yes?
If they can meet the same criteria, maybe. But I, like some of the QPs, believe there are other issues involved with women in combat units.
The sex issue is a totally sep issue and I think it is working better now than in the past.
My point is the differences in physiques and strength issues. We have to be careful in a free society not to sell political correctness, or an attempt to equate civilian workplace fairness with our military, when readiness and effectivness are at stake.
This will bear watching as elements of our society don't care about readiness or the mission, they have a political agenda to make us 'androgynous' one size fits all.
longrange1947
01-05-2012, 21:55
If they (women) sign up for selective service "just like the guys" then they should have the same rights, yes? If men and women sign up - same/same then options are same/same. Combat Units, Special Ops Units etc etc.
I don't think women should be in SF or in combat units. I'm getting old and have an old person's POV but if we ask the same of women via selective service then we should offer the same options, yes?
If all things were equal and if there was no such thing as physical attraction.
All things being equal states that if a man must do 100 one armed push-ups to qualify, then the female must do the same, not 10 two armed and call it equal. That is not equal that is PC BS.
Let there be EQUAL, not well she can qualify at this level even though we say a man must do this to qualify. Also the answer is not to lower all qualifications to make quota, that is done too much.
Sorry ma'am, but equal is equal, in all aspects or it is not equal and only PC "leveling".
wmaousley
01-06-2012, 03:02
I had the honor of serving with Leigh-Ann Hester in the KYARNG and also in Iraq in 2005. First female to be awarded the silver star for valor in combat and the first to receive the award since WWII.
Granted not all women have a place in a combat MOS, however there are a few who can make the cut.
bailaviborita
01-06-2012, 03:20
My main point is there is repurcussions for only one of the consenting adults, and that is wrong.
Maybe- if your priority is equal rights/treatment. If, however, your priority is mission over rights, then you might feel differently. If you are pregnant you effect mission. If you get someone pregnant, you don't effect mission. Is it fair? No- but, military service isn't fair to lots of people. If mission is the priority, then fairness takes a back seat. If BOTH people should get punished in your mind, then that just compounds the effect on mission... What's your priority?
1stindoor
01-06-2012, 07:51
My main point is there is repurcussions for only one of the consenting adults, and that is wrong.
I think that's an over generalization. The repurcussions are felt by the entire unit. Nobody's "secret" romance stays that way...and someone always ends up covering for someone else, both male and female. While I can appreciate your point of view based on your past experience...why did he get off "scott-free?" Who's decision was it to keep it a secret...and why?
I had the honor of serving with Leigh-Ann Hester in the KYARNG and also in Iraq in 2005. First female to be awarded the silver star for valor in combat and the first to receive the award since WWII.
Granted not all women have a place in a combat MOS, however there are a few who can make the cut.
Women can be brave. Certainly. She rose to the occasion in a firefight that she 'drove' too.
I'm talking about humping those mountains day in, day out and then fighting. Like ya'll do in Astan. I doubt she'd have been an asset in that situation.
wmaousley
01-06-2012, 16:08
Women can be brave. Certainly. She rose to the occasion in a firefight that she 'drove' too.
I'm talking about humping those mountains day in, day out and then fighting. Like ya'll do in Astan. I doubt she'd have been an asset in that situation.
I can agree with that 110%
Is it prudent to center opposition to women serving in combat around issues of physical performance and physiological differences?
What happens if the American political leadership decides to pay engineers across a range of disciplines to redesign almost everything (e.g. reduce the weight of a soldier's kit by 40%) so that the current measurements of strength and stamina become ever less relevant?
What happens if America decides to do more to automate the battlefield altogether by using more and more drones and robots that service persons pilot remotely?
If such solutions come into play and they do not impact adversely the American armed forces' military effectiveness, what might be the political consequences for those who opposed women in combat?
Is it prudent to center opposition to women serving in combat around issues of physical performance and physiological differences?
What happens if the American political leadership decides to pay engineers across a range of disciplines to redesign almost everything (e.g. reduce the weight of a soldier's kit by 40%) so that the current measurements of strength and stamina become ever less relevant?
What happens if America decides to do more to automate the battlefield altogether by using more and more drones and robots that service persons pilot remotely?
If such solutions come into play and they do not impact adversely the American armed forces' military effectiveness, what might be the political consequences for those who opposed women in combat?
You bring up good points but...........
The question then becomes "What is Combat?"
As had been noted women appear to have no problems in Combat roles such as fighter pilots, MPs, etc, etc, etc.
But Grunt work requires heavy lifting. Body Armor, weapons, ammunition, water and the other sundry kit a soldier wears weighs a lot. Dragging a wounded buddy across the street and behind cover takes strength.
The military has been working to reduce the combat load but it seems the more they work the heavier the load becomes.
So do you reduce standards to include women in the Grunt areas - or do you make a strength based PT test - kinda' like the new PT Test - for the Grunt MOSs.
But then what do you do with guys who don't want to be Grunts and fail the PT Test?
Thorny questions - lets just hope the Military does not go for the PC solution.
alright4u
01-06-2012, 17:42
Women can be brave. Certainly. She rose to the occasion in a firefight that she 'drove' too.
I'm talking about humping those mountains day in, day out and then fighting. Like ya'll do in Astan. I doubt she'd have been an asset in that situation.
This military seems to have been doing mounted patrols since Kosovo. Why are there no chopper insertions to include night when we once owned the night, and why are folks riding down the road where some kid can connect a hot wire and blow you up? Am I wrong?
Why do you have female O-5's hanging out in the FT. Campbell commissary during duty hours?
Hell, I saw the same types shopping at Redstone Arsenal in 1991 waering MSM's. What is this?
This PC, MC, DADT crap that is now wide open gays is going to be far worse then any problem a pregnant woman could be. Once this HIV crap starts it will be the costliest disability this military and this VA ever had. How do you take a gay man and then explain that his HIV is not SC? I think we are in for far worse problems then any pregnant woman. We have men now claiming erectile dysfunction due to AO.
The Reaper
01-06-2012, 20:13
Is it prudent to center opposition to women serving in combat around issues of physical performance and physiological differences?
What happens if the American political leadership decides to pay engineers across a range of disciplines to redesign almost everything (e.g. reduce the weight of a soldier's kit by 40%) so that the current measurements of strength and stamina become ever less relevant?
What happens if America decides to do more to automate the battlefield altogether by using more and more drones and robots that service persons pilot remotely?
If such solutions come into play and they do not impact adversely the American armed forces' military effectiveness, what might be the political consequences for those who opposed women in combat?
Have you read "The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation", by S. L. A. Marshall?
If you reduce the weight of the basic load by 40%, then inevitably, you will be required to carry 40% more weight. More ammo, if nothing else.
Hence the timeless question, "How much does 100 pounds of lightweight gear really weigh?"
I have stood on the ramp of an airplane with 135 pounds in my ruck, a 55 pound freefall parachute system, and another 30 pounds or so in my weapon, vest, helmet, etc. It hurt just to walk around in it, BEFORE we got on the ground in the hilly jungle. I don't know any woman who could do that, and I was just an average SF guy.
I know some good soldiers who happen to be female. I don't know any who could hack it on an SFODA, in a rifle squad, on a 155mm gun crew, or breaking track on a tank.
You may want to review this thread: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32397
1/3 of the CST volunteers reporting for evaluation could not pass the Army Physical Fitness Test with the female standards. 30% of them failed to report IAW the Army weight standards. How could they be soldiers and leaders in their units and be that badly out of shape? Someone was letting them slide, and they lacked the personal motivation to fix it themselves.
When you get a robot that can hump the Hindu Kush as well as an infantryman, with all of the gear, without someone having to carry the batteries for it, we can have that discussion. Till then, it is all theoretical BS.
TR
Count the number of women vs men.....:confused:
Stay safe.
Count the number of women vs men.....:confused:
Stay safe.
Guy...breakin' it down...Barney style. :D
greenberetTFS
01-07-2012, 06:40
This military seems to have been doing mounted patrols since Kosovo. Why are there no chopper insertions to include night when we once owned the night, and why are folks riding down the road where some kid can connect a hot wire and blow you up? Am I wrong?
Why do you have female O-5's hanging out in the FT. Campbell commissary during duty hours?
Hell, I saw the same types shopping at Redstone Arsenal in 1991 waering MSM's. What is this?
This PC, MC, DADT crap that is now wide open gays is going to be far worse then any problem a pregnant woman could be. Once this HIV crap starts it will be the costliest disability this military and this VA ever had. How do you take a gay man and then explain that his HIV is not SC? I think we are in for far worse problems then any pregnant woman. We have men now claiming erectile dysfunction due to AO.
Excellent point and very well made,I'm totally in your corner on his post,Jon.........;) :D
Big Teddy :munchin
Since most non-QPs here have seen the SFAS program on Discovery and the related programs on the other services.
"If" I say again "If" SFAS was opened up to women and 15 or so ended up at an SFAS class would it be more "fair" to split them up two-ish per team or make an all female team? Should sex even be a consideration for team assignment? Just let the chips fall where they may so to speak?
As a male what would be your ideal team makeup be? All male? Mostly male with a couple of females? All female with you as the only guy? You females? All guy with you as the only female? Balanced mix or all female?
If none passed how long would it be before the powers that be said the training was predisposed to fail women and it needed to be changed so that the required % of women could pass? If 10% of females were required to pass what would be the pass rate for men - or are we talking about making different standards based on sex?
Are there male/female standards for Combat?
Ghost_Team
01-07-2012, 08:25
I had this discussion with my fiance. She's a former state champ gymnast and triathlete who still competes and is probably in better cardio shape than me. We were deployed at the time, so I dressed her up in my body armor complete with weapons, radio pack, ammo, and all the other goodies. Then I told her to go for a run and plan on wearing it for a minimum of six hours. After she told me that I had lost my mind, I considered this dispute resolved in my eyes.
As soon as we go to one single APFT standard for all sexes, shapes and ages, I'll entertain an opinion. 'Gender norming' DOES NOT have a place in combat.
example: selection programs use a PT score based on a single age group (unless something has changed) it doesnt matter if you are 21 or 41 you have to meet the same time standard.
I wonder why? Maybe it is because selection based units understand that combat NEVER discriminates.
Example under current standards
Male 17-21 age group "max" PT score:
71 Push ups
78 sit ups (male/female standard)
13:00 two mile run
Female 17-21 age group "max" PT score:
42 push ups (a male soldier would only score a 60, and would have failed the SFQC PT test)
78 sit ups
15:36 two mile run (a male soldier would only score a 64, and would have failed the SFQC PT test)
Eliminate gender norming, then we can talk. Until then, a woman can max her PT test while a man of the EXACT same age fails to even score 70 points in each event on his with the EXACT same raw score. Such a woman 'maxing' her PT test does not stand out in my mind as a 'studette'. In fact... we are cheating her if we send her into combat under the false assumption that she is a studette. She is going drag everyone down when the 14:30 two-mile 'weak runners' have to slow down so she can keep up.
Until then, it is about politics; its not about women OR combat. Its about scummy politicians and special interest groups pandering to a subsection of society with an entitlement complex.
again, just my two cents... maybe I'm wrong
The Reaper
01-07-2012, 09:50
Please tell me why there are women's sports?
Is that not discriminatory?
Since a woman can do anything a man can do, why is there an LPGA and a WNBA?
Shouldn't women be able to compete and earn positions on any teams a man can?
That would allow us to eliminate duplicate teams at every university with an athletics program. Great cost saving measure, especially since the only real revenue producing college sports are football and basketball.
Same applies for women's PT standards and Selective Service registration.
Everyone competes on the same scale. Just like the shorter or weaker guys at SFAS. No slack. Same standards.
TR
bailaviborita
01-07-2012, 09:59
Is it prudent to center opposition to women serving in combat around issues of physical performance and physiological differences?
What happens if the American political leadership decides to pay engineers across a range of disciplines to redesign almost everything (e.g. reduce the weight of a soldier's kit by 40%) so that the current measurements of strength and stamina become ever less relevant?
What happens if America decides to do more to automate the battlefield altogether by using more and more drones and robots that service persons pilot remotely?
If such solutions come into play and they do not impact adversely the American armed forces' military effectiveness, what might be the political consequences for those who opposed women in combat?
Although I agree with Reaper's comments to these questions (just like Jesus, answers questions with more questions! ;) ), I would add that we should also take into consideration the possible negative effects of having women in combat branched small units. This is why comparison between this issue and race bothers me so much- there are tremendous differences between men and women, physically, physiologically, and emotionally/mental. Between men of differenct races- zero in my experience. As someone else said, until you can take out the physical attraction issue- and all of the reasons for it (the aforementioned differences), I submit that the negatives would far outweigh the positives.
That's why all of these issues boil down to me to be a choice between prioritizing mission effectiveness or "equal" rights (the term "equal"- today seeming subjective). I, for one, vote for mission effectiveness.
Guy...breakin' it down...Barney style. :DAnd that goes for gays also!
There's more folks working construction than in the military and you don't see females and/or gays protesting in/and or around construction sites.:confused:
Stay safe.
Guy...breakin' it down...Barney style. :D
And that goes for gays also!
...had no clue you were going to go there.
20839
Is it prudent to center opposition to women serving in combat around issues of physical performance and physiological differences?
Yes, it is absolutely prudent.
To do otherwise is to reduce effectiveness which equates to more blood loss and possible defeat.
I have no problem with women in combat in aircraft, stand off vehicles etc where strength and stamina are not an issue.
What those who have not been in combat do not realize is that the simple mental stress/anticipation of combat reduces everyones effectiveness and strength. i.e. a soldier that can carry and 80 lb pack in training should have that pack reduced to 40-50 lbs for combat for the same level of skill/awareness/ability.
When you factor in the female delta in strength/muscle mass/aerobic stamina you severly limit her ability to be an effective team member and she may just become only a liability.
mojaveman
01-07-2012, 15:34
I went through basic training at McClellan back in the summer of '81 in a Company that included one platoon or females and three of males. During calesthenics and formation runs the women could not keep up with the men. The DIs finally ended up placing the women at the front of the formation and slowing down the pace to insure that they wouldn't fall out.
Agree with some of the others that women can perform well in certian areas of battle. During WWII the Soviets used many female fighter and bomber pilots. They also used a number of women snipers who racked up some pretty impressive scores.
...had no clue you were going to go there.
20839I worked construction in CA also and they damn sure was not beating the door down seeking employment...:confused::munchin
Stay safe.
"Equal" is not a subjective term
2=1+1
2=2+0
4=2+2
4=3+1
4=5-1
There is nothing subjective about equality.
Lets talk about drones or some other "combat" where physical or emotional 'strength' isn't important...
A woman can pilot a helicopter, or jet, or drone, or spaceship or magic carpet....
...but once she gets shot down: its personal
...and physical
...and we are back to the argument of "subjective equality"
equality is not subjective when someone wants to saw your fucking head off with a rusty old meat cleaver
Women in combat is not about women. Its about pandering to special interest groups.
...just like gays in the military was NEVER about gays in the military. It was ALSO about pandering to special interest groups.
equal=equal
greenberetTFS
01-07-2012, 17:14
Since most non-QPs here have seen the SFAS program on Discovery and the related programs on the other services.
"If" I say again "If" SFAS was opened up to women and 15 or so ended up at an SFAS class would it be more "fair" to split them up two-ish per team or make an all female team? Should sex even be a consideration for team assignment? Just let the chips fall where they may so to speak?
As a male what would be your ideal team makeup be? All male? Mostly male with a couple of females? All female with you as the only guy? You females? All guy with you as the only female? Balanced mix or all female?
If none passed how long would it be before the powers that be said the training was predisposed to fail women and it needed to be changed so that the required % of women could pass? If 10% of females were required to pass what would be the pass rate for men - or are we talking about making different standards based on sex?
Are there male/female standards for Combat?
It's a tough job,but somebody's got to do it........ ;):D
Big Teddy :munchin
Thorny questions - lets just hope the Military does not go for the PC solution.FWIW, my hope is that those stake holders in the armed forces who are opposed to the full integration of women into combat roles will develop arguments that cannot later be reinterpreted as part of a broader political critique of the American professions of arms. Otherwise, I fear that a presidential administration (maybe even the current one) will point to the current tone of opposition to purge the armed forces of invaluable officers and NCOs because of their positions on DADT and women in combat. IMO, this objective is as important to the current president as any other when it comes to civil military relations. (We, the Democrats, ended racial segregation under Truman and have finished that job under [the current president!])
GratefulCitizen
01-07-2012, 19:23
Count the number of women vs men.....:confused:
Stay safe.
We had a couple of career female drivers in our work center who were among the most productive drivers, male or female.
They're both physcially quite capable, one of them used to routinely beat men in arm wrestling (won many free rounds at the bar).
Occasionally, there would be an odd circumstance where one of them couldn't load/unload/handle a given package, so one of the men would help them.
An analagous circumstance has never happened to one of the male drivers, even the 140 pounders.
When injured, the men were almost always able to finish the workday, the women weren't able to do the same.
The men also healed from injury much faster.
With the exception of extended downtime from injury (not insignificant), these women were able to be as economically effective as men over their careers.
However, if a life or death situation hinged on the odd feat of strength or finishing the task while injured, they would have been down the list for my choice as a coworker.
If all things were equal and if there was no such thing as physical attraction.
Sorry ma'am, but equal is equal, in all aspects or it is not equal and only PC "leveling".
My issue is your first statement. I don't care how physically capable a woman is. If you put men and women together in life or death situations there will be contact unhealthy to marriages.
Equal is not equal when it comes to A-Teams, Combat Units blah, blah etc
" ....if women weren't women then no problem. Truth is all things are not equal....." that is a direct quote btw
I'll blame the guy who invented the bell shape curve. There are women who can out man a man. There are guys who can out women a women. Not meany. Also what does one mean when they say combat has a lot to do with. Sometimes any warm body will do.
IMHO, mission should dictate who goes. One does not see many women as line backers, for a reason. If there are any capable they are not interested and it is something the average women is not interested in. BTW, I would not make a line backer too. Following a need to be correct is just plain wrong. It is not right for all concerned. If proven criteria needs to be alter, that is also wrong too. If they lower the bar enough, I could make it to become a Green Beret. I would probably accomplish in the field is getting myself and my fellow team mates killed or completely blow the mission.
Again, proven standards should dictate who and who does what.
What happens if the American political leadership decides to pay engineers across a range of disciplines to redesign almost everything (e.g. reduce the weight of a soldier's kit by 40%) ......................
so that the current measurements of strength and stamina become ever less relevant?
Part 1. Then you have provided US Military units the ability to move faster and strike deeper, unless you handicap them with someone of lesser physical ability at the same time. Then the unit loses that combat capability enhancement.
Part 2. Doesn't follow because of part 1, above.
l0n9john
01-08-2012, 17:51
Count the number of women vs men.....:confused:
Stay safe.
Then count how many of them are directing traffic vs. doing the heavy lifting at any construction site. It's a fun game on the way to work.
-John
Please tell me why there are women's sports?
Is that not discriminatory?
Since a woman can do anything a man can do, why is there an LPGA and a WNBA?
Shouldn't women be able to compete and earn positions on any teams a man can?
That would allow us to eliminate duplicate teams at every university with an athletics program. Great cost saving measure, especially since the only real revenue producing college sports are football and basketball.
Same applies for women's PT standards and Selective Service registration.
Everyone competes on the same scale. Just like the shorter or weaker guys at SFAS. No slack. Same standards.
TR
TR Sir,
Since the inception of PS.com, my little self has held one belief about this issue...and I am not even military...just been reading your posts which have stayed the exact same, and never faltered for the past seven years on this subject.....
There are jobs for women in the military, and wearing the GB is not one of them. Too many life and death issues.
Just my informed opinion...and not that it means a good gosh damn...
Holly:munchin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gMt-CyJ2qM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gMt-CyJ2qM&feature=related
That was from the Onion. Satire.
The facts and the arguments are just another of History's many recurring themes...
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-1.html
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
bump6872
01-30-2012, 19:05
Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Surgicalcric
01-30-2012, 19:59
Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Apparently your weak link, or at least one of them, is in reading comprehension.
Revisit the welcome email you received when you registered here and follow the instructions contained therein. Dont post again until you have completed it.
Crip
Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I am interested if your viewpoint is from that of an outsider looking in or do you have firsthand knowledge to back up your opinion?
twistedsquid
02-08-2012, 19:55
endurance adventure racing encompasses many military disciplines...4 person teams are all required to have at least one female...my experience is that that alone is the x factor...
The Reaper
02-08-2012, 20:02
endurance adventure racing encompasses many military disciplines...4 person teams are all required to have at least one female...my experience is that that alone is the x factor...
Do you think that they would have female members if it was not a requirement?
Would an all-male team be competitive?
Why or why not?
TR
twistedsquid
02-08-2012, 20:46
Do you think that they would have female members if it was not a requirement?
Would an all-male team be competitive?
Why or why not?
TR
all male teams dominated for years...a mixed team would likely not be competitive against an all male team...all female teams at best finish in the lower third...the rules were changed to "level" the field and expand the sport...to be clear, i do not believe females should be forward deployed in combat units...except in israel
John_Chrichton
02-08-2012, 22:35
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I am interested if your viewpoint is from that of an outsider looking in or do you have firsthand knowledge to back up your opinion?
What is so wrong about his (her?) statement? One doesn't even have to be in the military to discern an overwhelming historical pattern regarding women in combat roles. Seems like we are once again bowing to an unrestrained impulse to engage in a grand social experiment regardless of the cost.
How many women could successfully make it through SFAS? One or two out of a class of 300-400, if any? What would be the advantage to changing the entire program to accommodate them? Doesn't seem like there'd be any, unless of course you consider abstract notions of "fairness" and "equality". I think this concept probably applies to other combat jobs as well.
charlietwo
02-09-2012, 00:33
How many women could successfully make it through SFAS? One or two out of a class of 300-400, if any? What would be the advantage to changing the entire program to accommodate them? Doesn't seem like there'd be any, unless of course you consider abstract notions of "fairness" and "equality". I think this concept probably applies to other combat jobs as well.
If any could pass physically, I would venture to guess they would be in an Olympic gym somewhere with endorsements from Nike or Under Armor, not Camp Mackall. I don't think *any* could make it through the physical stresses combined with the emotional and spiritual stresses. But then again, this answer is as theoretical as Sigaba's question of drones, robots and scientists making our combat loads lighter.
I love Billy's comments... math is a powerful tool for those with the capacity to appreciate it. MAN =/= WOMAN, just as 1 =/= 2.
:munchin
Pentagon to Lift Some Restrictions on Women in Combat
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/pentagon-to-lift-some-restrictions-on-women-in-combat/
"The Pentagon on Thursday will propose rule changes that will allow more women to formally serve in jobs closer to the front lines.
Defense officials say as many as 14,000 positions could be opened up, though the restrictions on women serving in infantry combat units will remain in place........"
For some reason when I did the highlight to cut and paste it turned pink instead of blue. Odd.
Anyway - support roles down to Bn level.
What is so wrong about his (her?) statement? One doesn't even have to be in the military to discern an overwhelming historical pattern regarding women in combat roles. Seems like we are once again bowing to an unrestrained impulse to engage in a grand social experiment regardless of the cost.
How many women could successfully make it through SFAS? One or two out of a class of 300-400, if any? What would be the advantage to changing the entire program to accommodate them? Doesn't seem like there'd be any, unless of course you consider abstract notions of "fairness" and "equality". I think this concept probably applies to other combat jobs as well.
I take issue with anyone who has made the choice not to serve their country in uniform thinking they get to have an opinion on the TTPs of those of us who do. My thoughts about women in combat are well known on this forum, that is not really the issue in my previous post. The issue is that as a woman, I have given almost 18 years of my life to the security of this nation, and some jackass who has never served doesn't get to have an opinion on what I can and cannot do while wearing the uniform.
Well...it all seems like a a bit of a de facto mumbojumbo paperwork drill to me...
This is an OIF vet singing the national anthem during a recent dedication ceremony at Bragg.
Richard :munchin
bailaviborita
02-10-2012, 22:41
I take issue with anyone who has made the choice not to serve their country in uniform thinking they get to have an opinion on the TTPs of those of us who do. My thoughts about women in combat are well known on this forum, that is not really the issue in my previous post. The issue is that as a woman, I have given almost 18 years of my life to the security of this nation, and some jackass who has never served doesn't get to have an opinion on what I can and cannot do while wearing the uniform.
Not sure I follow your reasoning. In this country they do get to have an opinion- and some even make the policies that govern what we all can do while wearing the uniform.
frostfire
02-11-2012, 12:21
Everytime I have been deloyed it was under GO #1 which includes no drinking and no sex amongst other things.
I spent 3 of the first 7 months of my marriage deployed to a seperate location from my husband. The other 4 were living in a tent next to his. We were told by our leadership that sex was a no go and if they found out we were having it, LORs at the minimum were in our future. It sucked but we got through.
Is it realistic for kids to abstain while deployed? Probsbly not, but an order is an order last time I checked.
My main point is there is repurcussions for only one of the consenting adults, and that is wrong.
Your pulling through is laudable.
Whether it's wrong, vexing, unfair, or inconvenient, that one-sided repercusion is FACT. Females get pregnant. One side has physical manifestation of the deed (both get the gifts that keep on giving though). All this PC effort is trying to circumvent basic gender differences :rolleyes:
Eliminate gender norming, then we can talk. Until then, a woman can max her PT test while a man of the EXACT same age fails to even score 70 points in each event on his with the EXACT same raw score. Such a woman 'maxing' her PT test does not stand out in my mind as a 'studette'. In fact... we are cheating her if we send her into combat under the false assumption that she is a studette. She is going drag everyone down when the 14:30 two-mile 'weak runners' have to slow down so she can keep up.
Until then, it is about politics; its not about women OR combat. Its about scummy politicians and special interest groups pandering to a subsection of society with an entitlement complex.
Yep, we "need" female generals. Lots of them. You know, to have politically correct, gender distribution in the O-9 levels.
I've come across two groups of female who believe that women are asset in combat effectiveness. One group takes much offense to many of the posts in this thread. They argue less lung capacity etc to justify the different PT standard and extra accomodation just need to be made to ensure successful performance in combat. The me-me-me mentality. The other group take all this in stride, move out smartly and prove their points in action. One CST Major in partifular has no qualms about all the objections. Sheacknowledges the solution-looking-for-problem perception, and treats it as part of the mission obstacle. I hope she is successfully working on revamping the physical, cultural, language, and markmanship among others standards with the CST.
I have full respect and admiration to my sisters in service. I've seen them being great, irreplaceable assets, especially in medical. I don't care what's between the legs, but what's betweeen the ears, not what hanging off the chest, but what's beneath it. Heart and mind. Intellect and character.
Not sure I follow your reasoning. In this country they do get to have an opinion- and some even make the policies that govern what we all can do while wearing the uniform.
You are right they do. And I know very well how people that have never served are often the ones that provide us our marching orders. That is how our country was founded, and although at times I disagree with it, I have studied civilian-military affairs enough to know why it is so important. Doesn't mean I have to like fly-bys on message boards on people provding a "one second sound bite" with no explaination and why it pisses me off.
Those of us (ok most of us) who wear the uniform understand there is an inherent difference between men and women and their physical/mental capabilities. My issue with the individual who posted was that he had all of 2 posts in his history when his thoughts on the "weakest link" were stated here. I simply asked if his thoughts were based on actual experience or if he is another one of those folks who has no actual expereience when providing their "opinion" on a subject.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I am interested if your viewpoint is from that of an outsider looking in or do you have firsthand knowledge to back up your opinion?
M'am, I would like to respectfully point out that you failed to mention the fact that opinions, just like sphincters, not only are a gift given to everybody but they also do stink... :D:D:D
Jokes apart, IMO certain fields do require measures of physical and mental performance that are not, besides the obvious one of a kind exceptions, attainable and deliverable by women. No machismo in my statement, just mere observation of real life events. Combat seems to be one of those undertakings.
I miei due centesimi.