View Full Version : Female Soldiers Sue U.S. in Challenge to Combat Limits
Female Soldiers Sue U.S. in Challenge to Combat Limits
By Tom Schoenberg, David Lerman and Sara Forden - May 23, 2012 3:35 PM MT
Two female soldiers asked a federal judge to throw out the U.S. military’s restrictions on women in combat, claiming the policy violates their constitutional rights.
U.S. Army reservists Jane Baldwin and Ellen Haring, in a lawsuit filed today in Washington, said policies excluding them from assignments “solely because they are women” violate their right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment. The complaint names Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Secretary John McHugh as defendants.
“This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits,” the women said in the complaint filed by Christopher Sipes of Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.
The Pentagon in February announced a change in policy that opened more than 14,000 additional positions to women across the armed services, most of them in the Army. Still, it stopped short of allowing women to serve in so-called ground combat assignments, including special forces and long range reconnaissance operations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-23/two-female-soldiers-sue-u-s-defense-secretary-on-combat-policy.html
All well and good until females start getting dead in large numbers.
Well...I pooped today.
If it works, don't fix it.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Well...I pooped today.
If it works, don't fix it.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Am I misunderstanding, or do you actually believe the education system is working as it should?
Am I misunderstanding, or do you actually believe the education system is working as it should?
Huh? I thought this thread was about the roles of women in combat and the push to change them. :confused:
Richard :munchin
Huh? I thought this thread was about the roles of women in combat and the push to change them. :confused:
Richard :munchin
I...I...I :D
Cross thread points? ;)
Streck-Fu
05-23-2012, 17:48
This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits,” the women said in the complaint filed by Christopher Sipes of Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.
Umm, what?
Don't we have female generals? Don't women earn hostile fire, combat zone pay, and tax free pay while in theater?
Not sure how the above can be a valid claim.
As for physical performance...
If I saw fewer fatasses and beanpoles that can't do a pullup in combat arms, I might be upset about this.
Get rid of the Male/Female standards.
Implement two sets of standards for weight and physical capabilities, Support and Combat.
Allow units to supplement standards (at Division/Regiment level) - they can "add to but can't take away" - ie higher standards (or additional events) for USASFC combat soldiers. The unit standards would be evaluated and approved so not to be biased against one gender, race, etc, but a no-shit standard that needs to be met in order to do a job. Frankly, I could give a damn about a soldier who can get a 350 on the current PT test if he can't run 200m with his 230lb buddy over his shoulder. 100 pushups never saved anyone's life.
These standards need to be enforced - regardless of gender, and commands need to have the legal ability to swiftly remove a soldier and place on worldwide assignment (or QMP) for not meeting the standard.
greenberetTFS
05-23-2012, 17:55
I...I...I :D
Cross thread points? ;)
That's it Dusty,No more sipping Jamason when writing posts on this forum...........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
When the big reduction in force starts how many women are going to be filing suit because they were wrongfully put out of the military? Where does it end? Their, their, their, its all about them. Losing ones job definitely restricts current and future earnings. What do they want? Rumor has it that RS is opening up to some of them.
That's it Dusty,No more Jamason when writing posts on this forum...........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
lol It would make absolutey zero difference if I tried to explain. :D
As for physical performance...
Frankly, I could give a damn about a soldier who can get a 350 on the current PT test if he can't run 200m with his 230lb buddy over his shoulder. 100 pushups never saved anyone's life.
A vigorous Amen.
It was irritating to see women whine their way into West Point. However, when the officials there dropped the requirement for female cadets to become able to carry an equipped soldier of equal weight to safety, as an absolute requirement for graduation, it pushed me over the edge.
Been a 2LT, and granted, being of actual value to their unit takes some growing time and "adoption" by their NCOs. But, fer Chrissakes, not to be able to help your own when they're hurt? Beyond absurd.
mark46th
05-23-2012, 21:20
I have found the best way to get along with women is to give them what they want. Send them.
twistedsquid
05-23-2012, 21:39
history's deadliest soldier was a russian woman...train them and send
them...just my 2 ct...
history's deadliest soldier was a russian woman...train them and send
them...just my 2 ct...
Most deadly in what respect and scale?
Tell me if I'm wrong. But is the "thrust" of this thread to discuss ramifications of females, playing an up close and personal role with our "hardest" of our our "hard core" front line fieldsoldiers, namely - SF and Ranger?
If so, either things have dramitically changed, or our current batch of young SF have gone "soft".
Back in the day, the ugliest of the ugly, could completly derailed the best of our "hard Core" best with nothing more than a half-ass smile and being co located in the same grid square.
So how the he'll is it going to work by mixing in some hard core gals with our young troops?
“This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits,” the women said in the complaint filed by Christopher Sipes of Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.
There is no difference in retirement benefits. how does your current job limit your earnings. There is no special pay for combat troops as opposed to support troops.
Have they been smoking some of the Hashish that my Afghans are?
There is no difference in retirement benefits. how does your current job limit your earnings. ...............
There is by Rank.
But it seems - at least for the female enlisted - you don't have to deploy to a war zone to become a CSM and in charge of the Army DIs.
I think they're referring to the military's "glass ceiling" for promotion potential based upon a preference for combat arms over service/support personnel and their exclusion from certain career fields, limiting that potential and, therefore, their potential retirement $$ as well.
Maybe we let them try for it as long as we:
maintain the higher standards demanded of combat arms personnel
do away with the gender norming shell game
I wonder whether they've considered their suit might bring about that sort of change to their "We're equal but..." programs. :confused:
Personally, I never thought much about retirement until I'd reached the point where I could retire whenever I decided it was time. I just sought challenging and interesting assignments, and to prepare myself for them as best I could; the promotions followed based upon recognized success and potential.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Here's my .02 worth. If women want to be employed in combat arms then they need to join the Air Force or the Navy. Each of these services allow women to fly in combat.
Your life is all about choices. If you are a woman, and join the Army/Marines you go in with the full knowledge you will not be on the front lines.
I know flying is not the front line, but it is combat.
Additionally, last time I checked women were GOs. Hell the AF just promoted its first female 4 star. I believe the Army has one as well (Gen Dunwoody I think). So the glass ceiling argument doesn't fly. Additionally there are a shitload of female Chiefs out there in the AF. I can imagine it is the same for the other services.
I think these women chose the wrong service if their goal is to "make it to the top"
It is time for this shit to stop. It is a distraction from all the things we have going on in the military right now.
I say if they want to do it, let them, but do not change the standards. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the standards created because these standards were known to provide the best results while in combat or "stressful" situations? If they want to "Ranger up" or attend SFAS, by all means, let them attend. But keep the standards. Any male who fails to meet standards is a No-Go and the standards remain the same. Same for females. Just my .02.
Life - it's a test and it isn't fair - it just is what it is.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
If a woman wants to get close to combat as a pilot, wouldn't she be more suited to joining the Army or Marines? Both the Army and Marine Corps have pilots (lots of helicopters for the Army and helicopters, fighter planes, C-130s, etc...for the Marines). And Army and Marine pilots get shot at. There was a female Blackhawk pilot who lost her legs and had her arm shattered when an RPG that was fired at her helicopter went into the cockpit and blew. She is currently a Democrat running for Congress: Tammy Duckworth (http://www.tammyduckworth.com/about/)
And here is a video of a female Apache pilot: LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pfDzyvGwb0)
And another female Blackhawk pilot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN4PFVColSA&feature=related
I forgot about helo pilots, sorry:o
Your post proves, more than mine, why this is so stupid. This is a publicity stunt, nothing more, nothing less.
The article states that they are reservists, not putting down reservists here but unless you are a full time reservist, what kind of a career do you have as a reservist? I tought that reservists took time off from their careers to be reservists.
The Reaper
05-24-2012, 17:53
history's deadliest soldier was a russian woman...train them and send
them...just my 2 ct...
Source?
TR
twistedsquid
05-24-2012, 18:07
Source?
TR
lyudmila pavelchenko was a soviet sniper officially credited with 309 kills...however anectodal battlefield evidence suggests over 800...research continuing...
If you're talking about Lyudmila Pavlichenko, she did not have the most confirmed kills. Simo Häyhä had more than double her numbers. They sent teams of counter snipers to hunt him down, and they all failed. I think the estimated 800 number is his not Pavlichenko. And he made all his kills in less than 100 days.... If he hadn't gotten wounded in 1940, his numbers could have been incredible.
I'd rather have Vasily Zaytsev - even though he didn't have Pavlichenko's confirmed numbers (245) - he ran the sniper school and his student's numbers topped well over 3000 kills.
twistedsquid
05-24-2012, 18:18
If you're talking about Lyudmila Pavlichenko, she did not have the most confirmed kills. Simo Häyhä had more than double her numbers.
thanks...i left out "female" in my earlier post...thank you for the correction...
If you're talking about Lyudmila Pavlichenko, she did not have the most confirmed kills.
The point is not that women cannot kill...they can, they kill all of the time, ex husbands, their own children etc.....
The point is how the killing takes place.
Any sniper can kill, that is a 'skill' set not a strength set.
Now, lets put women in the trenches of WW1, hand to hand, butt stroking, stabing or simply smashing heads. Or assaulting the beaches of Normandy, Iwo Jima....where simple brute strength is required.
I know, deep in my heart, that I can kill 99% of all women with my bare hands. That 1% are the unusual athletes that exist, and that would still be a fight.
If you are a grunt, 11B, Infantryman then you must train for and expect the worse case scenario.
Our politicians are looking at very low levels of physical exertion killing/combat for females...where they 'rode' to combat and were not humping the boonies. Or were in defensive built up positions and aquitted themselves with honor because they fought well, were brave, 'manned up' and they have.
However, these same brave female soldiers are not the physical equivalent of the average male...not aerobically or anerobically.
I do not pull a plow with a race horse nor do I run a plough horse in a 1/4 mile race.
Genetic ability is tantamount in an E-tool fight after you've humped your ruck/combat load all day with 3 hours of sleep.
This gender norming crap is inane.
There is no difference in retirement benefits. how does your current job limit your earnings. There is no special pay for combat troops as opposed to support troops.
From another article on this topic: "Command Sergeant Major Jane Baldwin and Colonel Ellen Haring, both Army reservists"
I suppose the Colonel may feel slighted if she doesn't pin on a star but it's hard to discern how being a woman affected the CSM's career. She has reached the highest enlisted rank.
The female warriors will need to be issued a stool or something to stand on and eek from for when they run across big bugs, mice, spiders and whatnot.
I, too, harbor serious concerns about how this one's gonna turn out...especially if they continue on with their gender norming "equal but..." shell game. However, they do have a bit of precedent to argue their case...although it was accomplished surreptitiously.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-1.html
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-2.html
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-3.html
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I, too, harbor serious concerns about how this one's gonna turn out...especially if they continue on with their gender norming "equal but..." shell game. However, they do have a bit of precedent to argue their case...although it was accomplished surreptitiously.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-1.html
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-2.html
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-3.html
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Precedent doesn't make mistakes right.
I'm telling you; when a similar number of stacks of female bodies as there are males start getting shipped home, this "equality" bullshit will not only get thrown out the window, but NOW and every other Helen Reddy-inspired organization will demand for the rule to be reversed.
Utah Bob
05-25-2012, 07:48
Most deadly in what respect and scale?
Sneakiest?;)
Precedent doesn't make mistakes right.
I'm telling you; when a similar number of stacks of female bodies as there are males start getting shipped home, this "equality" bullshit will not only get thrown out the window, but NOW and every other Helen Reddy-inspired organization will demand for the rule to be reversed.
I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps if we had a large-scale conventional conflict, however if we continued with the current "steady state" I'm not totally convinced that would be the case. Sure just like now, there will be media flare-ups, but then the wounded and the dead will stream home largely unnoticed to the vast majority of America not directly affected.
greenberetTFS
05-25-2012, 09:11
All well and good until females start getting dead in large numbers.
Exactly..........:( :rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
Team Sergeant
05-25-2012, 10:31
I dunno, I dig women with guns.......:D
greenberetTFS
05-25-2012, 11:22
I dunno, I dig women with guns.......:D
You mean like these?............:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
The phrase "be careful what you ask for" comes to mind.
"All well and good until females start getting dead in large numbers."
I once thoght this would be the case but I don't think so anymore.
We've had females captured, killed, seriously maimed (and in Wounded Warrior commercials legless etc) and the public has accepted this almost without issue.
No public outcry about any female aspect to KIA's.
"All well and good until females start getting dead in large numbers."
I once thoght this would be the case but I don't think so anymore.
We've had females captured, killed, seriously maimed (and in Wounded Warrior commercials legless etc) and the public has accepted this almost without issue.
No public outcry about any female aspect to KIA's.
Not yet, and I hope you're right.
We'll see if, God forbid, female casualties approach the rate of males.
The Reaper
05-25-2012, 16:11
What do you do when your squad deploys short three riflemen, and two of the remaining ones get pregnant?
One thing you can guarantee is that will never happen in a all-male infantry unit, and there will be a lot fewer harassment and discrimination complaints as well.
Too bad no one will tell the survivors of SPC Snuffy that he died when his 110 lb. battle buddy who couldn't pass the same APFT couldn't drag his ass to cover.
TR
What do you do when your squad deploys short three riflemen, and two of the remaining ones get pregnant?
One thing you can guarantee is that will never happen in a all-male infantry unit, and there will be a lot fewer harassment and discrimination complaints as well.
Too bad no one will tell the survivors of SPC Snuffy that he died when his 110 lb. battle buddy who couldn't pass the same APFT couldn't drag his ass to cover.
TR
I guess send in a perstat and start paying child support.....
I'm telling you; when a similar number of stacks of female bodies as there are males start getting shipped home, this "equality" bullshit will not only get thrown out the window, but NOW and every other Helen Reddy-inspired organization will demand for the rule to be reversed.
Does it need to be "stack of females"?
What if no female dies because stacks of males got hurt, died, got stressed, got PTSD, or left the service trying to ensure "she" lived? Who will keep and report those stats? :mad:
Too bad no one will tell the survivors of SPC Snuffy that he died when his 110 lb. battle buddy who couldn't pass the same APFT couldn't drag his ass to cover. TR
I'm sure someone will tell the family the real deal about what happened. then look for lawsuits from the parents against DoD for putting their sons in a hazardous situation without valid safety measures.
PedOncoDoc
05-26-2012, 04:37
I'm sure someone will tell the family the real deal about what happened. then look for lawsuits from the parents against DoD for putting their sons in a hazardous situation without valid safety measures.
And the family will be demonized in the media as having an agenda against women. :mad:
Destrier
05-26-2012, 05:28
I have been instructing basic pistol for the last year or so for folks to get their concealed weapons permits. About 75% of my students have been women. They outperform the men on the shooting examination every class. They listen, with less ego.
I had one of the ROTC tours for 3.5 years. Other than the typical males that you just knew were going to go Infantry Officer. The best two cadets I had were female. Both were nurses, attractive, ran marathons, consistently scored in the mid 60's on push ups repetitions. Their heads were set straight.
My daughter is in maintenance, a welder in the NG. She is 5'9 and was a high school wrestler and won her Base female combative's tournament.
I am not looking forward for the line Infantry to have intermixed females. It just wont work. There may be females out there that can hack it. But the sheer increase in bull shit to get to a point that we end up with a few per platoon that can hack it will in my opinion takes decades and reduce combat effectiveness overall.
I would probably look to the military police platoons with integrated females that have been operating outside the wire the most. How many pregnancies, how much drama that is not reported by the command, etc.
I do see some places women are a force multiplier downrange. They aid dramatically in house clearing when dealing with muslim females. But running down the streets daily with the normal combat load worn by grunts... Hell, there are grunts that get their ass kicked by the load over time.
Mental aspect. I would be curious how the mental health of the women that have served in the ugliest of areas are. The mental health of a good portion of the male side of this coin is a known issue for the military.
There is a reason we did not see too many full plate armored women in the days of old. Maybe if they wear that exoskeleton contraption.
I just reread this post, I think I just rambled for 15 minutes. Anyways, I will post it. We all have an opinion, in the end someone will make a decision based on political points or careerism and a future gig as a NOW spokesman er or is it spokeswoman.
I will just keep training my daughters and wife to shoot fast, accurate and at as far a distance as they can identify the threat.
PedOncoDoc
05-26-2012, 05:53
She is 5'9 and was a high school wrestler and won her Base female combative's tournament.
Therein lies the rub. How do you think she would have performed in a men's (or gender open) combative tournament?
No one is devaluing the contibutions of women in the military - the major arugment I am seeing is that there are scientifically established, physiologic differences between men and women that make males easier to train as combat troops to a minimum standard with regards to issues of strength and endurance for their safety and the safety of those with whom they serve.
Destrier
05-26-2012, 06:19
She has beaten men in high school wrestling, but she losses 95% against them. And that is why I teach the women in my family to shoot.
greenberetTFS
05-26-2012, 10:48
Can they handle this?.........:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
Does it need to be "stack of females"?
What if no female dies because stacks of males got hurt, died, got stressed, got PTSD, or left the service trying to ensure "she" lived? Who will keep and report those stats? :mad:
Would you mind clarifying that premise? I can't figure that one out.
Would you mind clarifying that premise? I can't figure that one out.
Let's say the female is a great performer in some aspects, and gets assigned to an elite unit....Rangers, SF, whatever. Let's say, best case, she is low maintenance/low drama and keeps her head down and does her job.
Her team/unit is off on deployment, doing work that is difficult and draining physically....maybe because they are in a remote location, or because they are humping heavy loads, or they are getting little sleep because they are constantly under attack, or because they are mentally/emotionally drained dealing with incompetent local forces.
She is doing her best, and she's not complaining, but is falling behind on her duties. The men are filling in around her, which is further draining them and they resent it. The violence of the attack against them escalates, some are hurt, and she is needed to help in the exfil. The men, attempting to protect her or take some of her load, are injured or killed. Who keeps stats on "Unnecessary Deaths Due to Weak Female"?
And that is a best case scenario....instead, there will more than likely be drama. The guys will be fighting over her, or she will be playing them against one another, or they be distracted trying to deal with her and not focused enough on the mission at hand, which can cause injury, death to some, and severe resentment to others, to the point they leave the unit or retire out of the service altogether. I'm not even touching what happens if she gets pregnant. Who keeps stats on "Unnecessary Death or Dismemberment Due to Female Drama" or "Unnecessary Retirement of Great Soldiers Due to Female Drama"?
Or let's say she's aging. She managed to qualify for an elite unit under the toughest standards at the age of 25. She is an unusual physical specimen in outstanding shape. How long can she maintain it? You guys can do more than us even if you age, gain fat and lose cardio shape. How much time will she actually have at her peak? 2-3 years? Then as she starts to decline, how many men will get caught up in pulling her weight? Even if she doesn't get herself killed, how many others suffer the consequences? Who keeps stats on "Unnecessary Death Due to Female Strength Decline"?
Or let's say she's a mom with a young baby at home. Will guys put their lives at unnecessary risk trying to make sure that a mom lives? How many will be physically or mentally scarred trying to ensure it? Who keeps stats on "Unnecessary Death Due to Chivalry"?
Take that and multiple it out across the elite Special Operations forces.
Dusty, those were my thoughts as a civilian. It sounds like many of you have strong wives, daughters, mothers or sisters. Strong women are inspirational to me. That is not the point. Putting otherwise strong women into a ground-based, elite fighting force when our numbers of volunteer men don't require it, and our mission doesn't require it, is astounding to me. Even if the females don't die in stacks, how many men are sacrificed to ensure we can implement someone's political agenda. No one will track that.
Let's say the female is a great performer in some aspects, and gets assigned to an elite unit....Rangers, SF, whatever. Let's say, best case, she is low maintenance/low drama and keeps her head down and does her job.
Her team/unit is off on deployment, doing work that is difficult and draining physically....maybe because they are in a remote location, or because they are humping heavy loads, or they are getting little sleep because they are constantly under attack, or because they are mentally/emotionally drained dealing with incompetent local forces.
She is doing her best, and she's not complaining, but is falling behind on her duties. The men are filling in around her, which is further draining them and they resent it. The violence of the attack against them escalates, some are hurt, and she is needed to help in the exfil. The men, attempting to protect her or take some of her load, are injured or killed. Who keeps stats on "Unnecessary Deaths Due to Weak Female"?
And that is a best case scenario....instead, there will more than likely be drama. The guys will be fighting over her, or she will be playing them against one another, or they be distracted trying to deal with her and not focused enough on the mission at hand, which can cause injury, death to some, and severe resentment to others, to the point they leave the unit or retire out of the service altogether. I'm not even touching what happens if she gets pregnant. Who keeps stats on "Unnecessary Death or Dismemberment Due to Female Drama" or "Unnecessary Retirement of Great Soldiers Due to Female Drama"?
Or let's say she's aging. She managed to qualify for an elite unit under the toughest standards at the age of 25. She is an unusual physical specimen in outstanding shape. How long can she maintain it? You guys can do more than us even if you age, gain fat and lose cardio shape. How much time will she actually have at her peak? 2-3 years? Then as she starts to decline, how many men will get caught up in pulling her weight? Even if she doesn't get herself killed, how many others suffer the consequences? Who keeps stats on "Unnecessary Death Due to Female Strength Decline"?
Or let's say she's a mom with a young baby at home. Will guys put their lives at unnecessary risk trying to make sure that a mom lives? How many will be physically or mentally scarred trying to ensure it? Who keeps stats on "Unnecessary Death Due to Chivalry"?
Take that and multiple it out across the elite Special Operations forces.
Dusty, those were my thoughts as a civilian. It sounds like many of you have strong wives, daughters, mothers or sisters. Strong women are inspirational to me. That is not the point. Putting otherwise strong women into a ground-based, elite fighting force when our numbers of volunteer men don't require it, and our mission doesn't require it, is astounding to me. Even if the females don't die in stacks, how many men are sacrificed to ensure we can implement someone's political agenda. No one will track that.
I see what you're saying.
Good point.
greenberetTFS
05-27-2012, 10:27
Believe this.........:cool:
Big Teddy :munchin
Perhaps men should sue the DoD. Women are allowed to perform far fewer pushups and run vastly slower than men, and receive the same scores. If all gender restrictions are lifted due to equal performance, then how on earth can the DoD justify two separate standards for the genders? Especially in co-ed career fields with tight competition for promotion.
If women can serve in every aspect of the military, how long until some man or group of men sue for discrimination with regard to the Selective Service? After all, how can the US Government take a pool of equally qualified citizens and only require that certain genders / races / religions be conscripted to defend the nation? Is this not discrimination? Why should my 18 year old son be forced into service to fight along side women who are there only if they want to be?
She has beaten men in high school wrestling, but she losses 95% against them. And that is why I teach the women in my family to shoot.
So, she can shoot, weld, and wrestle? Forgive me for saying so, but that's awesome!:cool:
greenberetTFS
05-27-2012, 14:09
http://thesoldiersload.com/2012/05/24/women-do-not-belong-in-the-infantry/
Interesting article on why women DON'T belong in the infantry........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
twistedsquid
05-27-2012, 14:22
http://thesoldiersload.com/2012/05/24/women-do-not-belong-in-the-infantry/
Interesting article on why women DON'T belong in the infantry........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
great article...i also researched the israeli experiment with female combat troops...a complete failure...but the sniper question still exists in my mind...statistically better shots than males...can it work? probaly not in the us military ive concluded despite successes in foreign armies...
twistedsquid
05-27-2012, 14:38
There is more to being a sniper than being a good shot.
a female sits at number 5 of the top ten in history...they have the capability...just sayin...
Team Sergeant
05-27-2012, 14:39
Does it need to be "stack of females"?
What if no female dies because stacks of males got hurt, died, got stressed, got PTSD, or left the service trying to ensure "she" lived? Who will keep and report those stats? :mad:
We do the same things for our brothers in arms. If a team mate is injured we take up the extra luggage. Actually happens all the time. I have carried two rucks for a few days while another SF soldier was injured.
And it would not matter if she was a supply clerk or a shooter, if she (or he) is wearing my uniform I would fight to the death for either of them. Not to ensure they "stayed alive" but because they are American soldiers.
twistedsquid
05-27-2012, 15:27
We do the same things for our brothers in arms. If a team mate is injured we take up the extra luggage. Actually happens all the time. I have carried two rucks for a few days while another SF soldier was injured.
And it would not matter if she was a supply clerk or a shooter, if she (or he) is wearing my uniform I would fight to the death for either of them. Not to ensure they "stayed alive" but because they are American soldiers.
patriotic sentiment TS...the israeli experiment proved that males ceased to press the battle and spent an inordinate amount of time caring for injured female combatant troops....these were line units and not SF but is it not intuitive for a strong male to care for a "weaker" female..."weaker" used generically here to denote a lower physical standard only...drop them in as highly trained all female sniper teams and extract them when mission accomplished...
fasteddie565
05-27-2012, 15:31
We do the same things for our brothers in arms. If a team mate is injured we take up the extra luggage. Actually happens all the time. I have carried two rucks for a few days while another SF soldier was injured.
And it would not matter if she was a supply clerk or a shooter, if she (or he) is wearing my uniform I would fight to the death for either of them. Not to ensure they "stayed alive" but because they are American soldiers.
I had some thoughts along the same line, every team has a weak link, someone that the rest of the team has to fill in around. Sometimes that guy is not the same person on every mission, sometimes he is.
As far as getting old, shit, how many paunchy E8's / CW4's have fallen into the same trap? And as far as the officer corps in SF, well it seems like tape tests are out the window for field grades and GO's. If they stayed on a team forever, they would fall prey to it as well.
I think its wrong to let them into RS, Infantry etc, but the dynamics orion5 described already exist.
greenberetTFS
05-27-2012, 15:32
great article...i also researched the israeli experiment with female combat troops...a complete failure...but the sniper question still exists in my mind...statistically better shots than males...can it work? probaly not in the us military ive concluded despite successes in foreign armies...
You better pray that you don't want Longrange 1947 to see this.........:rolleyes::(:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
twistedsquid
05-27-2012, 15:34
You better pray that you don't want LG 1947 to see this.........:rolleyes::(:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
o shit...
greenberetTFS
05-27-2012, 17:02
Can they handle this?..........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
Surgicalcric
05-27-2012, 17:04
a female...
You are basing your entire argument on an anomaly in history - one woman. Pretty weak if ya ask me.
twistedsquid
05-27-2012, 17:23
You are basing your entire argument on an anomaly in history - one woman. Pretty weak if ya ask me.
point noted with great respect....50 women in theater?
Paragrouper
05-27-2012, 19:11
...statistically better shots than males...
I have heard this statement numerous times, but never saw a study that would confirm it. I did a search and there isn't much out there. Perhaps you have some material you can share?
a female sits at number 5 of the top ten in history...they have the capability...just sayin...
Who cares?
The fact that women can serve as soldiers as a last resort, when a society or country is threatened with destruction is not in question. In antiquity, units of women were a psychological weapon and largely served to slaughter the enemy wounded or to be used against a broken enemy, like cavalry...because thrown into the meat-grinder of hand to hand combat against an enemy with his formation intact they themselves would have been slaughtered.
Great, the US Military has women serving. Militarily are we better off? We don't need women to fill out the ranks, so, now that we have women serving are we a better fighting force? More focused?
Surgicalcric
05-27-2012, 19:49
point noted with great respect....50 women in theater?
OK so now 50 women, 50 out of the some 12 million men that purportedly served in the Red Army in WWII.
Your case isnt getting any stronger.
[QUOTE=Surgicalcric;450695]OK so now 50 women, 50 out of the some 12 million men that purportedly served in the Red Army in WWII.
The Soviet example is hard to apply to our circumstance. Total war on your own soil...yeah, everyone able to the front. here is your rifle and 5 rounds.
They were not concerned about their own casualties, at all, or if they even had a fighting chance....I'd offer the penal Bn's that fired on their own retreating soldiers as an example.....
Females are better shots? Not in my experience. They can be as good, if endowed with good eyesight and muscle control.
They can do better initially because they bring no ego/prior bad teaching to the table and will do exactly as you say...guys have to 'do it my way' etc until you prove them wrong.
Women can kill but not on an equal basis if the playing field is level/honest.
longrange1947
05-28-2012, 10:54
Thoughts on the passing scene.
1. Yes, women are better shots than men. Basic fact and why for years the men and women competed at different comps. If you don't believe me then you need to check out who has been wining a lot of the long range comps, a mom and her two daughters.
2. What does this have to do with sniping? Not a damned thing, sorry again. Sniping is a mental and physical act that requires it all to be tuned. Most females are tuned mentally for being maternal. That is the reason why the top female Soviet sniper referred to her targets as sticks. It depersonalized the act, "I broke two sticks today".
3. Soviets used females as snipers and bomber pilots (The Night Witches). Not altogether successful with it. Females were not used in the front line infantry as they cannot handle the strength requirements of moving fast with weapon and basic load over and extended period. The US setting up separate physical requirements for men and women negate reality of the situation and these same women will bitch, (actually won't go only want to stir up shit) if they have to do the same push ups, sit ups etc.
4. The Israelis' experiment was due to the need of bodies and they were used mainly as front line commo and not front line grunts. Again a failure due to the male gene of species survival in which the female is protected to reproduce. Not sexist, just facts and proven over and over. The present Israeli sniper course is taught mainly by women for their ability to shoot and teach. Most are rated teachers. The Field Craft and tactics portion is all male though.
5. Comparing the US with Soviet Union under all out war and needing bodies or the the same with Israel is asking for screwed up results. Apples and Oranges. This is a decision making process based on political BS and not on sound stats.
6. Sorry, keep the women out of the front line infantry units. It is not a good match and Ranger is really asking for trouble. This is PC gone berserk and damned dangerous. Yes, as TS pointed out, we take care of our own, but we do not try to protect our own, we protect the mission and putting females into the mix is a mission problem.
7. I have worked with females under a number of situations, I know how this works out and WILL play out.
8. MOO.
9. Not what you expected was it Teddy? :munchin :D
twistedsquid
05-28-2012, 19:22
thanks for the response longrange1947...my position is based largely on the observations and writings of a former marine corps and army sniper named "dolan"...his article and study posted on the blog "ten oclock scholar/female marksmen" suggests the same as youve noted , however he argues for more female sniper training...interesting that the air force classifies snipers as security forces and not infantry so the position is open to women...nancy tompkins-gallagher and her 2 teenage daughters are the women youve mentioned and have consistently beaten the top military and law enforcement snipers in the country....my position also accepts that regardless of the "total war environment" of WW2 females can be a significant asset in defense...the soviets employed nearly 2000 female snipers of which 500 survived the war....no they cant hump the ruck or do the PT...but they can kill the enemy with extreme prejudice when needed...
Sorry, keep the women out of the front line infantry units. It is not a good match and Ranger is really asking for trouble. This is PC gone berserk and damned dangerous. Yes, as TS pointed out, we take care of our own, but we do not try to protect our own, we protect the mission and putting females into the mix is a mission problem.
Agreed. Too bad they gotta learn the hard way, as usual.
longrange1947
05-28-2012, 19:56
In the late 80s I help train the first female Air Force snipers that were assigned to the Security Force at Pope AFB. They could out shoot their brothers but were not mentally prepared for the task at hand. Don't get me wrong, a bunch of males are not mentally prepared for the task at hand, and that includes combat vets. It is just that the vast majority of females are not, as opposed to a small minority of males.
Flying a jet fighter/bomber and releasing a load of TNT is not the same as seeing your target on a personal level while gazing through the crystal ball on top of your rifle. that very problem is the reason why up to 25% of trained snipers, who did not volunteer for the job, will be a no shot or one shot sniper. And again that includes combat vets.
Just because someone can shoot does not mean they can be a sniper. Simple fact. Just because someone has been I combat does not mean they can function as a sniper, simple fact. I warned the females and their leadership of the potential problems they will face. It was not politically expedient to pay attention to the dangers. They are still used and I still see the potential for disaster if and when one fails to shoot. Look at what happened in Germany with the Munich debacle over all of those men that failed to shoot with the Israeli athletes in danger and now dead.
Again, my opinion only. But I do have a small amount of experience in this and I believe I am correct. Could be wrong, have been in the past. :munchin :D
TrapperFrank
05-28-2012, 21:47
One of the women that filed the lawsuit, Jane Harman, is a CSM. For Christ sake, how much more rank can you obtain? Just how has army policy hurt her career?
longrange1947
05-28-2012, 22:01
One of the women that filed the lawsuit, Jane Harman, is a CSM. For Christ sake, how much more rank can you obtain? Just how has army policy hurt her career?
The other is a LTC, average retirement rank for an officer. Same thing, but as I said, these two will never apply, they are doing it to make a statement.
They would rather screw up the military making their little statement than back the reality of military that has paid their bills for the past 20 plus years. Screw them. :mad:
Guess they are gonna have to let the F-R's get plenty of sleep.........
Night Shift Work, Light at Night, and Risk of Breast Cancer
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/20/1557.full
twistedsquid
05-31-2012, 19:03
Sneakiest?;)
just rereading this thread with great interest...seems to me this is the core competency...
Sneakiest?;)
just rereading this thread with great interest...seems to me this is the core competency...
Don't know much about sniping, but I would think patience is the core...patience would be needed to be sneaky at the right time. Maybe a lot of hurry up and wait? Not sure, like I said I don't know much about sniping, but I was just wondering.
Talking of physical standards and opportunities the German Spec-ops unit KSK has been allowing women to volunteer since 2001.No matter what the standards no women has passed the physical requirements of KSK Selection till now.
If women think they can shoulder the responsibility as well as men in combat then they should prove to be capable by passing all standards equal to men.
In the end the men who have been BTDT's and are still in the line of duty are the best people to respond to this and some very good posts have been posted by them in this discussion.
frostfire
06-04-2012, 01:38
Additionally, last time I checked women were GOs. Hell the AF just promoted its first female 4 star. I believe the Army has one as well (Gen Dunwoody I think). So the glass ceiling argument doesn't fly. Additionally there are a shitload of female Chiefs out there in the AF. I can imagine it is the same for the other services.
I think these women chose the wrong service if their goal is to "make it to the top"
It is time for this shit to stop. It is a distraction from all the things we have going on in the military right now.
afchic is correct. The army has female GO already. One of them is LTG Horoho.
I sometime ponder why female has to go to "male standards" to prove toughness, tenacity, intestinal fortitude etc. The good LTG was in charge of Womack ER during the Green Ramp accident. She was also on ground zero Pentagon initiating the first medical response. One of the personnel who worked directly with her then likened her cool-headed, clear sense of direction and leadership to seasoned delta operators. One hell of a lady. She needs no tab to prove that either.
Other female generals in the army: http://www.army.mil/women/profiles.html
Rick and others are spot on. In one of the annual M9 qual, I ran a remedial session for those who did not qualify. The two female officers who went through the session qualified on the second go around. One of them even reached sharpshooter score. The two guys who got the same instruction still did not qualify on the 2nd and 3rd attempt. Blast that I-want-to-do-it-like-Jack-Bauer male ego. The top pistol shooter back in shooting team was a girl too. I think she made the olympic team as well. Makes me wonder if the top bullseye and president's 100 scorer are female as well. I do know in USPSA, IDPA, and Steel Challenge, the rank holder are men still. Dynamic marksmanship where brute strength starts to play a part, perhaps?
I think it'd be great to see ranger-tabbed, president's 100 tabbed, long tabbed female running around with 110lbs+ load kicking bad guys derrière.....wait....hmmm, what's this sudden burst of feminism and women empowerment .... must be the after-effect of Kristen Stewart in Snow White and the Huntsman, followed by Ingrid Bergman's Joanna d'Arc. Ok ok I do have soft spot for lady in armor. Something cool and profoundly poignant 'bout that... :o:D
females can be a significant asset in defense...the soviets employed nearly 2000 female snipers of which 500 survived the war....no they cant hump the ruck or do the PT...but they can kill the enemy with extreme prejudice when needed...
So they're good ultra light-fighters, in place. Yet the demand is open the combat arms area to women, Infantry, Combat Engineer, Rangers and so on.
My small experience of Infantry I did not ride a vehicle much, even in the Motorized 9th I packed and carried a heavy ruck at distance, good distance.
A woman is going to carry a basic load of water, a ration, ammo, weapon, for me that was 35+ lbs without the rifle. The load we weighed one summer was over a hundred forty pounds with ruck. That didn't include the body armor and I have no idea how much that would be now, looks heavy. It didn't include special equipment like grenades, smoke, incendiaries, explosives, and it was summer gear, not winter (warm gear, skis, boots, snowshoes). It was also not for a twenty day mission (extra food/water and ammo).
Add a belt/box, one or two hundred linked rounds for the squad MG at about 7 lbs. per hundred rounds. Maybe some rounds for the company mortar section. 60mm HE I believe was over 3-3 1/2 lbs each at 4-5 rounds per man.
How about batteries for NVDs optics and radios, that adds some real weight just for a few days out.
Women in the mortar section... 60mm, gonna carry the base plate, about 14 lbs. maybe the bipod 15 lbs. or the tube 18 lbs. plus of course the basic load and the ruck.
There's lighter gear now, seems only to encourage highers to make the troops carry more. As to what outdated experience I have, the soldier packs 100 to 140 lbs for a few days mission. Females up for that ya think. Walking to contact, moving at night for hours and going the next day, repeatedly. Living in a hole exposed to the weather for a week or so. I know there were some night moves and weather I was WTF.
But I guess if they're just going to pull a trigger in place and have extreme prejudice well...
Surgicalcric
06-08-2012, 19:33
...I sometime ponder why female has to go to "male standards" to prove toughness, tenacity, intestinal fortitude etc.
It isnt about the "male" standard; its about meeting the "same" standard as the men wanting to perform the job.
It isnt about the "male" standard; its about meeting the "same" standard as the men wanting to perform the job.
Because the Female standard in physical training is always Less than and not equal too the supposed minimum standard as it applies to men.
That standard was based upon studies of what upper/lower body strength and stamina was required for an 11B Infantryman......
Because in a pinch, every male is a rifleman.
If women want a place at the table then they should meet the male standard as it is the minimum standard set for combat.
As a 50 year old CSM my running time for a max was the same time a 22 year old female had to get for a max.
Why is that, does the Army hate us old CSM's...no. Doctors tell us that my aerobic ability at 50 is as strong as the avg females aerobic ability at 22.
If a female is even close to combat there should be one PT test/one standard.
Anything else is bullshit and we all know it.
ECUPirate09
11-27-2012, 12:58
Sorry to bring up an old thread, but it seemed like the most relevant one to post in without starting a new one.
The ACLU has now filed a lawsuit against the DoD challenging the "combat exclusion policy."
http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/hegar-et-al-v-panetta-0
I would hope this case would have a snowball's chance in hell, but given the way things seem to be going (Ranger School, etc), I'm not too sure anymore.
Greyshade2
11-29-2012, 12:51
Okay, allow them to fast rope in, from female piloted aircraft, with same weight in the rucks first, let them secure the area and intel and establish the encampments, wait for the word that it is safe for our men next.
As a female, I feel this is only fair in light of all the combat they have been denied. Do NOT change a thing to qualify to be selected, it would be wrong and equal, totally equal - is what they seem to be asking for, do not let them be in any way involved in watching my sons' back or any other team member with him. I will be looking to sue them in the event of any WIA or KIA that can be traced to the chicks that are responsible , as a mom of a quiet professional male relying on any females first troops. Case closed.
Okay, allow them to fast rope in, from female piloted aircraft, with same weight in the rucks first, let them secure the area and intel and establish the encampments, wait for the word that it is safe for our men next.
As a female, I feel this is only fair in light of all the combat they have been denied. Do NOT change a thing to qualify to be selected, it would be wrong and equal, totally equal - is what they seem to be asking for, do not let them be in any way involved in watching my sons' back or any other team member with him. I will be looking to sue them in the event of any WIA or KIA that can be traced to the chicks that are responsible , as a mom of a quiet professional male relying on any females first troops. Case closed.
First of all, we already have female pilots, that barrier has been broken, thank God. There are an awful lot of good sticks out there that happen to be female.
As far as the suing part, a little melodramatic don't you think? I am active duty, but I also have a son who was a Marine who did two tours in Iraq. He and I have had this discussion many times. There are some females he would have rather seen on his team than some of the men he was with. In the end when women are allowed in (I am not advocating that standards are lowered for them to do so) and believe me, it is going to happen. Your son has a choice to make, stay in, or get out. The choice is his. I wonder if you would feel the same if it was a male that was the cause of something happening to your son, or does your vitrole only extend to those of us who have breasts?
afchic, I understand your attitude but most of us old guys have seen females allowed into MOS slots only after they (big Army) redesigned the course or lowered the standards.
Take basic Airborne school...it was, in the day, actually a very physical course, as everyone was going to be a paratrooper somewhere.
When they opened it to non combat MOS's and females the first thing they did was.
Change the PT min standard...no more 10 pull ups...and accepted the female pt standard...and reduced the timed runs to fall in line with the female standard.
This allowed females, and weaker men, to succeed.
As we enter this period of 'norming' we are afraid the exact same thing will happen, lowering the standards for females will also allow weaker men to get into combat slots where they will all lower the capability of the killers.
In the Army as a CSM I always told my Commanders that you must 'take care of the killers first'...it is why we exist.
If you water down that force you put the Nation in peril.
BTW...I don't care if the Killers have breasts or not...as long as there is one standard and they are dedicated killers.
BTW...I don't care if the Killers have breasts or not...as long as there is one standard and they are dedicated killers.
I agree 100%. If women want in they need to meet the standards put forth, not lower ones. I think you are going to find that there are very few women that will actually volunteer. Most of us know our limitations and those that don't find out very quickly what they are.
I read an article the other day on how few women had volunteered for the Marine MOS that have now been opened to us. The author was surprised because he thought more would do so to prove they could do it. My feeling is that a vast majority of us understand the physical limitations we have. And I can't think of any professional that would knowingly put her team in danger because she couldn't pull her weight.
I was suppose to deploy 3 years ago to embed with the 101st on an MTT. I had been nursing a bad back for about 3 years and trying to hide it as much as possible because I didn't want to go through an MEB, and I didn't want to.stick someone with my deployment rotation. Luckily I had a girlfriend over there who I was suppose to replace. She finally convinced me to go see the doc. She said I was in no shape to be hauling around the load she was. 80 pound ruck, body armor, weapon etc. She made me realizd I would never be able to forgive myzelf is something happened to one of the guys because I wasn't able to perform accordingly.
I felt like shit for a while and was scared my career was over due to the MEB. 7 years ago I know I could have done it and been an asset. But at 40 with 2 bulging disks, my ego wasn't worth someone elses life. I think if asked, if they are true professionals, most women would agree
Remington Raidr
11-29-2012, 21:01
Get EVERY female regardless of service, rank, or two-way range time and have them relieve the unit at FOB FML. No males, just steely-eyed freedom fighters and a 60 minutes camera crew (all female) to record it all. That's the ticket.
afchic, I don't think many here would disagree....it is not so much a male/female issue but the changing of standards and political correctness that draws ire.
OTOH the sex deal can be a prob too...ask Gen Petreaus about that...I'm not sure that mixing sex's on a small team is a good idea either.
I was on the same team for 7 years...if there was a sexual nature/denominator for that length of time it might of been a distraction....I've never had to deal with that on a peer level so don't know.
I mean the goats were looking good after one 9 month deployment to a secluded area...that can cause competition/ego issues that are just not needed....
Not sure if I'm off base on that last one but it is my observation.
OTOH the sex deal can be a prob too...ask Gen Petreaus about that...I'm not sure that mixing sex's on a small team is a good idea either.
I was on the same team for seven years...if there was a sexual nature/denominator for that length of time it might have been a distraction....I've never had to deal with that on a peer level so don't know.
I mean the goats were looking good after one nine month deployment to a secluded area...that can cause competition/ego issues that are just not needed....
Not sure if I'm off base on that last one, but it is my observation..As a civilian, I've been here in A-Stan just over a year (+three in Iraq) and your observation(s) are correct!
Stay safe.
Greyshade2
11-30-2012, 13:57
Afchich:
Responding to your reply from yesterday, thank you for your service. I am relieved you chose not to "embed" with our troops and to be sure, your reasoning there was honest. I am impressed by your command of the English language, I accept melodramatic, if I can paint my ideas at all, sensational is what I am aiming for. As for the vitriol bit about breasts, okay...since the challenge is female based, I am scolding the breasted ones whining about how much better suited they are at sniping, etc. Yes, again as far as all that goes, we can shoot. I have a few nephews and grandsons that were better shots, under the age of 10, than their dads. They didn't belong toting SAW guns and ammo along with all the other kit any more than females do on the battlefield. As the mom of an AF man volunteering to go to Iraq on the 1st year long deployment I am aware of other issues involving male/female promiscuity and yes, it takes one of each to make babies, it went on. As someone posted before me, deployments are long and temptation can be short.
If the females behind the suits really won't want to be deployed, combat deployed, then I can only see this as another waste of money. What you asked about if my son were killed and a man had his back
would I be as angry? F-ing A and if you still don't get it, re-read this post, that is - if you really want to understand.
Error Fucatius Nuda Veritate In Multis Est Probabilior: Et S/Epenumero Rationibus Vincit Veritatem Error.
BTW...I don't care if the Killers have breasts or not...as long as there is one standard and they are dedicated killers.
As a female and a serious soldier/NCO in my day ;) I agree with PRB.
Personally, my experience was positive with SF and any professional soldier who took their respective MOS seriously. They loved that I could hold my own and my skills fit a need. Although only the SF guys seemed to find my love of and expertise with knives compelling... ASA guys did not quite get it.
My frustrations were:
1. The lazy overweight/underweight, terrible shot, male soldier who complained the loudest that women didn't belong in combat.
2. The lazy overweight/underweight, terrible shot, female soldier that complained about everything being unfair.
3. Civilians with an opinion regarding women in combat.Technically, civilians expressing their oinions... I was ok that they had them.
Guess how much fun I was?! :D
(1VB)compforce
11-30-2012, 15:20
It's already happening... (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/07/marine-no-women-officers-volunteer-infantry-course-070212/)
Don't let the title of the article fool you though, they go on to say that they already have several volunteers for the next class.
More research coming
Other aspects of the Corps’ research also are underway. One effort calls for the establishment of common physical performance standards in the service’s ground combat element, meaning Marine officials want to establish a baseline for what the average Marine — male and female — can do in combat.
Late in June, 1st Battalion, 9th Marines, out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., will participate in three physical testing events:
• A replica 40mm Mark-19 machine-gun lift, in which a Marine lifts a 72-pound weapon over his or her head while wearing a 71-pound combat load.
• A casualty evacuation, in which a Marine drags a 165-pound mannequin wearing a 43-pound combat load while wearing a 43-pound load of his own.
• A “march under load,” in which Marines carry a 71-pound combat load 20 kilometers in less than five hours.
I know males in CSS that would have trouble with those standards. Not saying I support them, but they exist.
Ultimately, this article, an oldie but goodie, pretty much spells out most of the challenges that would have to be overcome. Forget about the shower part, we all know that just means a bucket of water behind a different tree. It's the physical part where they were marching that makes the case in my eyes.
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?7633-A-woman-goes-to-war-in-a-man-s-world&
At about mile 2 1/2, I was about to give out. I was contemplating saying something needlessly melodramatic like, "Go ahead, save yourselves," when a soldier asked, "Ma'am, can I carry that battery for you?"
All my resolve failed. I handed the battery to the young man--who already was lugging a much heavier load than I was, including a fully loaded M-4 assault weapon that he would be expected to use in case of an attack.
The decision nagged at me for days. Not only had I not been able to pull my own weight, I also had potentially put that young soldier at risk. What if he had not been able to aim his weapon effectively had we been ambushed in that wooded expanse of territory approaching Najaf? What if he had fallen on the rough terrain and misfired his weapon, injuring someone?
As tough as I think I was out there, as proud as I am to have lived for more than two months in conditions I never dreamed possible, those questions bother me still.
Back in Chicago recently, the Tribune had a welcome-home party for a bunch of us who had covered the war. A female editor asked me whether my experience had given me an opinion about putting female soldiers into the infantry and on the front lines.
I told her about the car battery and also about the many times I watched big, tough, burly male soldiers nearly collapse during 10-kilometer hikes with rucksacks, ammunition, TOW missiles, radios and machine guns.
I'm not qualified to say that no woman could do that job, but I suspect that it would be a rare one who could. I had run a marathon not long before the war and worked out almost every day. I grew up on an Iowa farm where manual labor was part of the bargain. But I had been bested by a car battery, and when I handed my load to that soldier, I admitted that I never could have cut it in the Infantry.
I agree with PRB, as long as they pull their weight, I could care less what gender a SOLDIER is. I've just found it exceedingly rare to find one that could. There are a few floating around in the various Group Support units and this one time at Air Assault School in '87 there was a female medic that made me question my worth as an Infantryman as she trucked on by me on mile 8 of 12 in the road march to steal (EARN!) Distinguished Honor Grad and shove me out of the running. Aside from those rare cases, I've seen very very few females that could pull the average Infantryman's weight. In Desert Shield just before the ground war started, they came around and weighed our gear. My squad's average was 120 lbs and mine (as a squad leader, I carried a 203) with the 40mm vest was 139 lbs. I'd wager that our rucks weighed about the same as the average, fit, female soldier. How long can you carry 100% of your body weight before you start to break? I made it 2 months (80% of BW) before I broke a bone (stress fracture) in my left hand lifting my ruck, an injury that those of you who know me in person can tell you still plagues me today.
Team Sergeant
11-30-2012, 16:07
As a civilian, I've been here in A-Stan just over a year (+three in Iraq) and your observation(s) are correct!
Stay safe.
As a "civilian" ? LOL you slay me.
Sorry young sergeant, you will never be a "civilian" again. You sir are a veteran, and will be forever.
Team Sergeant
Greyshade2
11-30-2012, 17:31
I made a mistake on the post where when asked if I would be as anxious to sue a male is I would a female in the event of the insufficient cover resulting in death or injury of any of my sons in combat.
What I meant to say was no because all of the men serving as SF deployed team troops are equally trained. Women already have many MOS available to serve in just as men and I don't see where as females, we are being willingly deprived by Rangers or Green Berets. To me, political correctness go awry -
Kraut783
11-30-2012, 19:33
Thought this said it all......
General Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps testimony before the SASC on Women in Combat. June 1991.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk
As a "civilian" ? LOL you slay me.
Sorry young sergeant, you will never be a "civilian" again. You sir are a veteran, and will be forever.
Team SergeantThey know nothing about me until, they step on their necks...
MAJ: You don't know what you're talking about; this is a military operation!
COL: MAJOR! I would highly suggest that you get too know the man!:mad:
ME: COL, we'll be doing the ADVON and will have the place secured when everyone arrives.:cool:
For interjecting this but this is just so awesome
I can hear the plaintive cry of the social reformers: But that’s not fair! That is correct. Combat is not fair. During one assault in Iraq, we shot at a lone enemy gunman with a tank. With. A. Tank. :D
From the article in http://thesoldiersload.com/2012/05/24/women-do-not-belong-in-the-infantry/
Blue
For interjecting this but this is just so awesome
As was this. :D
I imagine he thought that was pretty unequal, too. Then we dropped a bomb on him. That’s why we win.
Utah Bob
12-02-2012, 07:21
afchic, I don't think many here would disagree....it is not so much a male/female issue but the changing of standards and political correctness that draws ire.
OTOH the sex deal can be a prob too...ask Gen Petreaus about that...I'm not sure that mixing sex's on a small team is a good idea either.
I was on the same team for 7 years...if there was a sexual nature/denominator for that length of time it might of been a distraction....I've never had to deal with that on a peer level so don't know.
I mean the goats were looking good after one 9 month deployment to a secluded area...that can cause competition/ego issues that are just not needed....
Not sure if I'm off base on that last one but it is my observation.
Ahhh....the elephant in the room.;)
PedOncoDoc
12-02-2012, 07:40
Ahhh....the elephant in the room.;)
No - it was a goat. He said it himself. I suppose an elephant may give some bragging rights however, but that is an area outside of my field of expertise.
:D
So much for all the hoopla!
No rush by women in military to join infantry
http://news.msn.com/staging/no-rush-by-women-in-military-to-join-infantry
If or when the Pentagon lets women become infantry troops — the country's front-line warfighters — how many women will want to?
The answer is probably not many.
Interviews with a dozen female soldiers and Marines showed little interest in the toughest fighting jobs. They believe they'd be unable to do them, even as the Defense Department inches toward changing its rules to allow women in direct ground combat jobs.