U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you think women should be able to join the Infantry?
Yes 26 50.00%
No 22 42.31%
Other (explain) 4 7.69%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2009, 06:35 AM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,624 posts, read 8,123,077 times
Reputation: 6949

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nzrugby View Post
I know just a touch about the NZ army, yes we have that dumb policy for the NZ army but, while there are women attached to our infantry none are infantry.
A woman passing selection for the SAS, just cannot see them getting through the physical part of selection.
Well, our US Army's 1st SFOD aka Delta Force (which is based on the UK/AU/NZ SAS) is rumored to have some female members for reconnaissance purposes.

Oh and one Russian female sniper in WWII had an insane amount of kills, something like 400 kills in 2 years including about 30 German snipers that were sent specifically to kill her. Over 2,000 Russian woman served as snipers in WWII.

Edit: her name was Lyudmila Pavlichenko and she made 309 kills between June 1941 and June 1942 including 36 German snipers. She retired in 1953 a Major and was awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union medal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2009, 03:32 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,757,647 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
no matter how much people want to create "equal opportunity," it will never exist–no matter how much legislation and pc bullcrap is pushed. there is no way that we will make it so that women can compete in male-specialized areas, and no way that we will make it so that men can compete in female-specialized areas. we've evolved that way so that we don't need to compete in those outside arenas, and to try to stick someone back in is like forcing the square peg through the round hole.

as far as physical capability is concerned, strength is not the only issue. strength is definitely necessary, and most women would not pass the qualifications based on that alone. but then you have to consider speed, reflexes, endurance, and many other aspects that are very different than the qualities that make a good soccer player. an even smaller percentage of females would qualify when all physical aspects are tallied. of that small percentage, how many of them could actually handle the combat environment? men can hardly handle it most of the time, and that is what we've been physically, emotionally, and mentally specialized to do.

males and females think and feel differently, and combat plays games with all of both of those traits. i have never seen studies done that would indicate whether females would or would not do well mentally and emotionally in an infantry environment. men do lousy enough, but their minds are set up specifically for that kind of action. i'd be curious to see how women compare.

but ultimately, i do think that it would be wrong to incorporate females into the infantry–because it would drop the effectiveness of the military unit. i see it along the same lines as the stupid legislations continually drawn up in order to make boot camp easier, less combative and emotionally traumatizing, etc (because we wouldn't want our recruits to be evaluated in bot camp for something like... combat, would we? for crying out loud...).

if women were allowed in the infantry, then standards would drop in many areas. field ops would have to be shorter. pt standards would slide even lower than they are at this point (and nowadays, it is a joke no matter what branch you are talking about). units would need to be changed around entirely (this one is less important than the others, since it is an aspect of current military tradition, rather than anything else, but it is still a serious issue that might take decades to integrate properly).

there are just too many aspects about the idea that i see as irresponsible, minimally analyzed, and ignorant. like i said, if there is ever conclusive evidence that the above would not be a problem, i'd be very curious to see how it would work, but the bottom line is that the military unit would become less effective, and that is not tolerable, no matter the feel-good politics involved in extreme equal opportunity legislation.

aaron out.
Good concerns. However, there is plenty of historical data that women have been able to fight alongside men in the frontlines whether they used swords and shields, to spears, to hand to hand combat. They can actually be even more ruthless than men. What I am mentioning are not some isolated examples of some exceptional woman here and there. I had an eye opening when I had to write a paper on women on combat. I did not just used one book of some bias woman trying to show how women can handle it. I used quite a few historical books from different writer covering history way back to even the times of the Roman empire and from every continent. They are not mentaly capable? How about a woman that pregnant in the battlefield with sword on hand has a baby, ties the baby on her back and keeps fighting it?
They do not have the strength? How about the many accounts I read of women dragging wounded man across battle field under hail of fire so they could get medical help?
How about battalion of women that demonstrated they were able to attack male Soldiers?
In any field you want to cover they have done it. They have been snipers, special forces soldiers, aviators, tankers, you name it and they have done it. In the British isles they were experts at siege warfare. They new how to defend their castle with the servants while the husband were away somewhere else at war.
One singel reading book of the many I have read does cover a lot of examples. Read "Women Warriors" by Mr. David E. Jones.
I will say this in your favor. I do agree that women generally do not have the upper body strenght than men. But, does that mean they cannot do many things men do? Not necessarily. Humans find ways to make up for their deficiencies and women have demonstrated they are not different.
To me the problem is that our American women are soft due to the way our culture has developed them since the creation of our nation. From that angle I do agree it is more difficult for them to be able to handle it. That does not take away the fact that as time has passed they have progressed in many field many men said they would not be able to make it because giving excuses of not being emotionally capable, mentally capable, physically capable, etc. Little by little those perceptions have been chipped away.
Now, I do not know if you are gong to discuss this issue by bringing up other reasons when they do not have a reply to counter a point. I will am going to respond to the guy that first brought up the physical problem with women, when I covered on it, then the excuse was how they had not respect for life. That was a low blow in my opinion. Those brave people do not deserve their courageous acts downplayed with that. I respect any warrior that put his/her life on the line for their country. That has nothing to do with the issue where women can be capable of handling combat at any area. Now, what is next? Sex? If I cover that, what is next? Not mentally capable?

Now you said it was minimaly analized and irresponsible. What analysis do you have. What you just brought up? OK, I told you just a few examples of how they are capable of handling it if allowed and if being able to get the training to do so. Read that book and tell me if there was not analizis on the issue.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 03:55 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,757,647 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006 View Post
Well, our US Army's 1st SFOD aka Delta Force (which is based on the UK/AU/NZ SAS) is rumored to have some female members for reconnaissance purposes.

Oh and one Russian female sniper in WWII had an insane amount of kills, something like 400 kills in 2 years including about 30 German snipers that were sent specifically to kill her. Over 2,000 Russian woman served as snipers in WWII.

Edit: her name was Lyudmila Pavlichenko and she made 309 kills between June 1941 and June 1942 including 36 German snipers. She retired in 1953 a Major and was awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union medal.
Looks like you have done your research. I will add just names for those guys that really would like to look and see for themselves.
How about Marie Baktscharow, nicknamed "Yashka". She was a captain on one the battalions of death in Russia. One of her Soldiers very simply explained how "I found myself next to a German and ran him through with my bayonet, shot him, and took his helmet for a memento." Mariya Golubyova in the same battalion said, "I had not sensation except to rid my country of an enemy. There was not sentimentality. We were trying to to kill them and they were trying to kill us- that is all. Any Russsian girl or any American girl in the same position woud have the same feeling". Women Warriors by David E. Jones. These battalions of death were composed of women.
Aviators? Not long ago some people were opposed for them to be fighter pilots for many reasons as discussed here. Maybe some here should read on their Ace Lydia Litvak. She was know as the "White Rose of Stalingrad". The Germans feared her but they also saluted her for her amazing flying skills. Eight German pilots had to embush her to finally bring her down after she had already 12 kills.
How about the school teacher that enlisted in the medical corps. From dressing wounds in the middle of a battle field and dragged Soldiers back for medical attention. She later became a commander when the commander was killed and no one took the leadership role. She fought hard, was capture, escaped and helped Soldiers to escape, and later became a ski trooper and, well, you have to read her story. Her name was Vera Krylova. She was one of the most honored Russian woman for her heroics.

So the guy (nzrugby) that wrote about bayonet against bayonet, here are some examples, not just some conjetures on physical differences as it women cannot make it.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 04:32 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,757,647 times
Reputation: 2524
By OC Investor2:
"survivability of the individual soldier & his or her squad never was a high priority for the Red Army, was it?"

After I left the computer because I had to leave I kept thinking on this comment.
I do not know what you think of the Iraq war. For the sake of argument let us say President Bush flat out lied to us and took us to war. The war is immoral and unjust. Does that mean that a young Soldier that fought hard and died while saving his bodies does not count because it is a wrong war? Not in my book! He fought hard and did what he could to do his duty regardless of the consequences. How about Paul Smith that killed numerous Iraqis to protect his squad until finally one bullet hit his head and later received the Medal of Honor? Because you may say Bush did not have survivability his high priority, does that mean SFC Paul Smith heroics do not count?
The same with the Russian women. Stalin may not had cared for their lives OK? But they cared for theirs and for their country. Whatever Stalin had in mind has nothing to do with the achievements of his Russian women in the battlefield. I respect and honor that. They do not deserve their sacrifice be downplayed as you did. You may not care but I as a Soldier for the last 31 years do and I felt I needed to respond in their name as a fellow warrior.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 05:15 PM
 
1,482 posts, read 1,801,184 times
Reputation: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006 View Post
Well, our US Army's 1st SFOD aka Delta Force (which is based on the UK/AU/NZ SAS) is rumored to have some female members for reconnaissance purposes.

Oh and one Russian female sniper in WWII had an insane amount of kills, something like 400 kills in 2 years including about 30 German snipers that were sent specifically to kill her. Over 2,000 Russian woman served as snipers in WWII.

Edit: her name was Lyudmila Pavlichenko and she made 309 kills between June 1941 and June 1942 including 36 German snipers. She retired in 1953 a Major and was awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union medal.
Cannot be based on the SAS they do not gender norm the physical standards needed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 06:39 PM
 
2,653 posts, read 4,598,306 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
By OC Investor2:
"survivability of the individual soldier & his or her squad never was a high priority for the Red Army, was it?"

After I left the computer because I had to leave I kept thinking on this comment.
I do not know what you think of the Iraq war. For the sake of argument let us say President Bush flat out lied to us and took us to war. The war is immoral and unjust. Does that mean that a young Soldier that fought hard and died while saving his bodies does not count because it is a wrong war? Not in my book! He fought hard and did what he could to do his duty regardless of the consequences. How about Paul Smith that killed numerous Iraqis to protect his squad until finally one bullet hit his head and later received the Medal of Honor? Because you may say Bush did not have survivability his high priority, does that mean SFC Paul Smith heroics do not count?
The same with the Russian women. Stalin may not had cared for their lives OK? But they cared for theirs and for their country. Whatever Stalin had in mind has nothing to do with the achievements of his Russian women in the battlefield. I respect and honor that. They do not deserve their sacrifice be downplayed as you did. You may not care but I as a Soldier for the last 31 years do and I felt I needed to respond in their name as a fellow warrior.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Apologies if my point was not clear. The remark was meant to refute your citation of the female experience in the Red Army during WW2 as precedent for using women in the US Army infantry.

In WW2 The Reds often callously flung groups of soldiers into battle with almost total disregard to their survival. The russians willingness to employ females was simply an extension of their "cannon fodder" mindset were large numbers of poorly trained, equipped and prepared fighters - be they male or female - were hurled against the germans to overwhelm the Wermacht by sheer numbers. Utilizing unprepared or incapable soldiers with such disregard for human life and the survival of the individual soldier is antithetical to the american way of war.

I would also advance that your citation of the exploits of the individual females who survived the war or preformed their duties with exceptional merit without context of the performance of the larger population of females is not a valid datapoint for us to use in making a policy decision on the the fitness of woman in the US Army/ Marine infantry. Just because a few individual or a few dozen female soldiers can be pointed to, does not tell us how the total population of female fighters performed. i.e. - just because Michelle Wie or Annika Sorrenson can make the cut at a PGA event doesn't mean all women should compete head to head against men in golf.

Lastly, Soviet era agit-prop made frequent use of pro-feminist narratives and I can see stirring tales of brave female soldiers serving with distinction in "the great patriotic war" very conveniently fitting this and other lines of communist propaganda. I think the odds of those stories being the whole truth given the Soviets tendency to lie thru their teeth are very small. I would place much greater weight on the Israeli experience rather then the soviet one.

Last edited by OC Investor2; 07-07-2009 at 06:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 08:47 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,757,647 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Investor2 View Post
Apologies if my point was not clear. The remark was meant to refute your citation of the female experience in the Red Army during WW2 as precedent for using women in the US Army infantry.

In WW2 The Reds often callously flung groups of soldiers into battle with almost total disregard to their survival. The russians willingness to employ females was simply an extension of their "cannon fodder" mindset were large numbers of poorly trained, equipped and prepared fighters - be they male or female - were hurled against the germans to overwhelm the Wermacht by sheer numbers. Utilizing unprepared or incapable soldiers with such disregard for human life and the survival of the individual soldier is antithetical to the american way of war.

I would also advance that your citation of the exploits of the individual females who survived the war or preformed their duties with exceptional merit without context of the performance of the larger population of females is not a valid datapoint for us to use in making a policy decision on the the fitness of woman in the US Army/ Marine infantry. Just because a few individual or a few dozen female soldiers can be pointed to, does not tell us how the total population of female fighters performed. i.e. - just because Michelle Wie or Annika Sorrenson can make the cut at a PGA event doesn't mean all women should compete head to head against men in golf.

Lastly, Soviet era agit-prop made frequent use of pro-feminist narratives and I can see stirring tales of brave female soldiers serving with distinction in "the great patriotic war" very conveniently fitting this and other lines of communist propaganda. I think the odds of those stories being the whole truth given the Soviets tendency to lie thru their teeth are very small. I would place much greater weight on the Israeli experience rather then the soviet one.
If got your intent on the comment now. I am glad you did not mean to demean their achievements.

Now, those examples are not just a few. They are a few of the many examples in history not only on Russian women. If you do your research you will find out they have been capable of handling the rigors of frontline demands. It is up to you to look further into it.

Also, I am not only talking about Russian women. You seem to not be able to get rid a block there. Now you tell me interpretations of how those stories may have been exaggerated of lied about it for propaganda. From my standpoint my side has more validity. They are recorded accounts, you only give interpretations of the accounts. Your assesment has validity. That has happened but which ones are that and which ones are not? Can you tell?

Now, when you put together the numerous accounts not only of Russian women but since Roman times and around the world, you mean to tell all that is lies for propaganda?

I am aware that there were Russian officers forcing soldiers to advance and if they resisted they would be shot by their own officers. I know that. However, can you tell how much of that was real bravery from women?

Now "I would also advance that your citation of the exploits of the individual females who survived the war or preformed their duties with exceptional merit without context of the performance of the larger population of females is not a valid datapoint" So what datapoint do you have they cannot, with appropriate training, perform as such in our Army? If you bring up the context of the larger population, what is it then since you bring that up to conter my point? I cited examples, you only bring conjetures.

Also, "Just because a few individual or a few dozen female soldiers can be pointed to" A dozen?! Did I not tell you that they are so numerous in history and around the world that I do not have the time and space to write a whole book on it? If you really are willing to have an open mind and want be fair, do your research on the issue, I did and it changed my view on the issue.

The point is this. Are women capable, with the proper training to perform the duties of the infantry? I believe they can. Not to you, OK. That is as far as we can go on that I guess. You have your minds made on the issue. If you really want to honestly have an open mind, go and the the extensive research needed. Also, I have talked to infantry Soldiers. Some do have your view and there are many others that have told me how many of their peers have such close minds and that often the real reason is not wanting women amongst them. The same I was told by some old retired Airbone guys members of the Roy Benavidez Airborne Association.

Well, I must go.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:17 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,833,758 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
Good concerns. However, there is plenty of historical data that women have been able to fight alongside men in the frontlines whether they used swords and shields, to spears, to hand to hand combat.
i am not debating whether or not there is historical precedent to put women into battle. i am aware that they have fought off and on throughout every major conflict in history.

Quote:
They can actually be even more ruthless than men.
that would be conjecture, unless you have something to back it up with. beside that fact, ruthlessness is not exactly the mental trait that i think needs to be bred into our soldiers, so it is kind of a moot point.

Quote:
What I am mentioning are not some isolated examples of some exceptional woman here and there. I had an eye opening when I had to write a paper on women on combat. I did not just used one book of some bias woman trying to show how women can handle it. I used quite a few historical books from different writer covering history way back to even the times of the Roman empire and from every continent. They are not mentaly capable? How about a woman that pregnant in the battlefield with sword on hand has a baby, ties the baby on her back and keeps fighting it?
again, i'm not arguing that women haven't sacrificed and fought as hard as men.

but your example of tying a baby to your back in order to fight does not make the case against women in the military. she should have won a medal for something like that if this is a true story, and under the circumstances that this was the best place for the baby to be at the time and in those conditions. either way, that is irrelevant as far as the physical and emotional capability of women in general.

Quote:
They do not have the strength? How about the many accounts I read of women dragging wounded man across battle field under hail of fire so they could get medical help?
How about battalion of women that demonstrated they were able to attack male Soldiers?
In any field you want to cover they have done it. They have been snipers, special forces soldiers, aviators, tankers, you name it and they have done it. In the British isles they were experts at siege warfare. They new how to defend their castle with the servants while the husband were away somewhere else at war.
One singel reading book of the many I have read does cover a lot of examples. Read "Women Warriors" by Mr. David E. Jones.
for the majority of this quote, i'll say again that i am not arguing historical accounts of women in combat. but yes, i am arguing whether or not they have the physical capability. if they have the strength (which some of them clearly do) then they are physically qualified. if not, they do not qualify. that simple.

Quote:
I will say this in your favor. I do agree that women generally do not have the upper body strenght than men. But, does that mean they cannot do many things men do? Not necessarily. Humans find ways to make up for their deficiencies and women have demonstrated they are not different.
yes, it does mean that they cannot do many things that men could. yes, humans find a way to compensate in many situations, but there is only so much that you can do to compensate for being 5'2" and 105 lbs. people that size (including males) are going to have a hard time in any country's infantry, because they will not be physically able to perform their duties in quite a few aspects.

Quote:
To me the problem is that our American women are soft due to the way our culture has developed them since the creation of our nation.
i will 100% agree with this, and add that it applies to men as well. our country is producing a large number of spineless, entitled snobs that do not know how to work, how to think critically, etc. but now we are diverging from the main point...

Quote:
From that angle I do agree it is more difficult for them to be able to handle it. That does not take away the fact that as time has passed they have progressed in many field many men said they would not be able to make it because giving excuses of not being emotionally capable, mentally capable, physically capable, etc. Little by little those perceptions have been chipped away.
i agree with most of this, and am glad that women are being allowed into most fields nowadays. there is a lot that still has to be accomplished for them to finally feel that they are as much of a human being as a man though, because out society still places male identity over female identity.

that said, i do not think that this is the only factor that goes into a serious discussion of why females are not allowed in the infantry.

Quote:
Now, I do not know if you are gong to discuss this issue by bringing up other reasons when they do not have a reply to counter a point.
i don't know what you are saying, or who you are talking to here.

Quote:
I will am going to respond to the guy that first brought up the physical problem with women, when I covered on it, then the excuse was how they had not respect for life. That was a low blow in my opinion. Those brave people do not deserve their courageous acts downplayed with that. I respect any warrior that put his/her life on the line for their country. That has nothing to do with the issue where women can be capable of handling combat at any area. Now, what is next? Sex? If I cover that, what is next? Not mentally capable?
i know you are talking to someone else now, but i will respond as well. disrespecting women or their achievements, downplaying their sacrifices and victories, and ignoring their courage is not my intention here.

i do not think that having the opinion that the infantry is better off without women is necessarily demeaning to them any more than i feel that having babies being left to women demeans men. i am trying to come at this from a purely capability-based standpoint.

Quote:
Now you said it was minimaly analized and irresponsible. What analysis do you have. What you just brought up? OK, I told you just a few examples of how they are capable of handling it if allowed and if being able to get the training to do so. Read that book and tell me if there was not analizis on the issue.
i'm probably not going to get around to reading the book. but i am sure that you can understand that i don't need to in order to offer an intelligent opinion about this topic.

i served in the usmc infantry for 4 years. i know what standard training is like. i know what standard ops are like. i know that the physical capability of a marine infantryman will make or break his effectiveness and survivability in combat, and therefore the effectiveness and survivability of his entire fireteam in combat.

i have also worked with female marines, which are arguably pretty damn tough. my anecdotal experience says that most of them would not be able to handle the physical rigors of infantry combat, because most of them (even female marines) cannot handle the physical rigors of combat training to the same standard that most of the males can.

notice that i am using the word "most" quite a bit in that last paragraph. generally speaking, women are not tough enough to handle combat--that is my argument. i know that there are exceptions, but exceptions are never the rule. your examples throughout history are many, certainly, but they are still the exception.

those that prove themselves to be tough enough, as i said earlier, i am very curious to see how they would do in the infantry. but if they cannot meet physical requirements, or if physical requirements need to be less intense for them in order to to the same job, or if physical requirements are dropped across the board to accomodate them, then i do not think that they have any business being in the infantry.

this again goes to the idea that if someone is not capable of performing to the same standards as everyone else, then they are making the unit less effective. when we are talking about the infantry, we are not talking about a few extra thousand dollars that corporate will handle in order to appease the pc crowd--we are talking about the deaths of fellow soldiers and marines because someone couldn't hack it. if they were a male and couldn't hack it, i would want them out just as fast.

everything else is purely hypothetical gravy to me.

Quote:
You have a great day.
El Amigo
you too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 03:59 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,757,647 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
i am not debating whether or not there is historical precedent to put women into battle. i am aware that they have fought off and on throughout every major conflict in history.

that would be conjecture, unless you have something to back it up with. beside that fact, ruthlessness is not exactly the mental trait that i think needs to be bred into our soldiers, so it is kind of a moot point.

again, i'm not arguing that women haven't sacrificed and fought as hard as men.

but your example of tying a baby to your back in order to fight does not make the case against women in the military. she should have won a medal for something like that if this is a true story, and under the circumstances that this was the best place for the baby to be at the time and in those conditions. either way, that is irrelevant as far as the physical and emotional capability of women in general.

for the majority of this quote, i'll say again that i am not arguing historical accounts of women in combat. but yes, i am arguing whether or not they have the physical capability. if they have the strength (which some of them clearly do) then they are physically qualified. if not, they do not qualify. that simple.

yes, it does mean that they cannot do many things that men could. yes, humans find a way to compensate in many situations, but there is only so much that you can do to compensate for being 5'2" and 105 lbs. people that size (including males) are going to have a hard time in any country's infantry, because they will not be physically able to perform their duties in quite a few aspects.

i will 100% agree with this, and add that it applies to men as well. our country is producing a large number of spineless, entitled snobs that do not know how to work, how to think critically, etc. but now we are diverging from the main point...

i agree with most of this, and am glad that women are being allowed into most fields nowadays. there is a lot that still has to be accomplished for them to finally feel that they are as much of a human being as a man though, because out society still places male identity over female identity.

that said, i do not think that this is the only factor that goes into a serious discussion of why females are not allowed in the infantry.

i don't know what you are saying, or who you are talking to here.

i know you are talking to someone else now, but i will respond as well. disrespecting women or their achievements, downplaying their sacrifices and victories, and ignoring their courage is not my intention here.

i do not think that having the opinion that the infantry is better off without women is necessarily demeaning to them any more than i feel that having babies being left to women demeans men. i am trying to come at this from a purely capability-based standpoint.

i'm probably not going to get around to reading the book. but i am sure that you can understand that i don't need to in order to offer an intelligent opinion about this topic.

i served in the usmc infantry for 4 years. i know what standard training is like. i know what standard ops are like. i know that the physical capability of a marine infantryman will make or break his effectiveness and survivability in combat, and therefore the effectiveness and survivability of his entire fireteam in combat.

i have also worked with female marines, which are arguably pretty damn tough. my anecdotal experience says that most of them would not be able to handle the physical rigors of infantry combat, because most of them (even female marines) cannot handle the physical rigors of combat training to the same standard that most of the males can.

notice that i am using the word "most" quite a bit in that last paragraph. generally speaking, women are not tough enough to handle combat--that is my argument. i know that there are exceptions, but exceptions are never the rule. your examples throughout history are many, certainly, but they are still the exception.

those that prove themselves to be tough enough, as i said earlier, i am very curious to see how they would do in the infantry. but if they cannot meet physical requirements, or if physical requirements need to be less intense for them in order to to the same job, or if physical requirements are dropped across the board to accomodate them, then i do not think that they have any business being in the infantry.

this again goes to the idea that if someone is not capable of performing to the same standards as everyone else, then they are making the unit less effective. when we are talking about the infantry, we are not talking about a few extra thousand dollars that corporate will handle in order to appease the pc crowd--we are talking about the deaths of fellow soldiers and marines because someone couldn't hack it. if they were a male and couldn't hack it, i would want them out just as fast.

everything else is purely hypothetical gravy to me.

you too.
Thanks for the reply. In history there are many examples of women handling the physical requirements. In ancient times the gear they had to wear in some cases weight more than the gear modern warriors may have to carry.
The accounts I presented are not anecdotes. You are not willing to read anything. It seems to me you simply made up your mind based on YOUR experience without willing to look further (outside the box?).

Ruthlessnes? The comment is to address the issue how some people think women do not have the mental capacity for war. That has been addresed. If you were willing to take the time and read on it, then you could find out it is not conjeture. You asked me to back it up, READ. I have listed at least one source of information.

The baby example? Again, you show no willingness to try to open your mind and see into it. That does not show women being capable of as an example of mental and physical capabilities? If that happened? You only question the veracity of the account. In other words you dismiss it because it does not fit your view. You already dismiss willingness to read anything since you think your experience is all there is to it. Sure, you do have good points. No doubt about it. However, why keep a close mind because in the world you trained in is the only way to go? Is it possible that history shows women have been capable of handling the physical demand of infantry tactics? In your mind no way Jose and that is it.

We will disagree I can and that is OK. The bottom line, out of the large population of women that may be capable to handle it and for the sake of argument let us say there are enough of them to make up a battalion or a brigade, you do not agree in allowing them to serve their country because they are women?

My main point on this thread is bring up the issue that women can be capable of handling the rigors of the infantry demands. Are the the majority? I do not think so. Are there enough of them that can? Of those, why deny that to them?

This is not a PC issue to me. It is an issue of opportunity to all our Americans to serve the country as they see fit and want to, no more no less.

Sure the 105 woman may not be able to handle it, fine. I have to argument against it. But maybe the 130 or 150 pound woman may be able. If she does, why are you against her wanting to do her part for her country in that way? Those that can meet the standard, go for it.

As far as the 100% agreement. I am also a 100% agreement on you including men but as you said is getting away from the main topic.

those that prove themselves to be tough enough, as i said earlier, i am very curious to see how they would do in the infantry
That is a very good question and an open minded one. Let them try and then you and I can really see how they would do in the infantry field. Of those I will even agree with you that many may fail once in the field but how many would qualify? That is the only way to find out.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 05:41 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,833,758 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
Thanks for the reply. In history there are many examples of women handling the physical requirements. In ancient times the gear they had to wear in some cases weight more than the gear modern warriors may have to carry.
The accounts I presented are not anecdotes. You are not willing to read anything. It seems to me you simply made up your mind based on YOUR experience without willing to look further (outside the box?).
you are assuming waaaaaay too much here.

Quote:
Ruthlessnes? The comment is to address the issue how some people think women do not have the mental capacity for war. That has been addresed. If you were willing to take the time and read on it, then you could find out it is not conjeture. You asked me to back it up, READ. I have listed at least one source of information.
ruthlessness has nothing to with whether they have the mental capacity for war. ruthlessness has to do with getting incarcerated for war crimes after slaughtering civilians. doesn't matter whether it is a man or a woman perpetrating the crime, it ends up meaning that they couldn't handle combat. again, moot point.

Quote:
The baby example? Again, you show no willingness to try to open your mind and see into it. That does not show women being capable of as an example of mental and physical capabilities? If that happened? You only question the veracity of the account. In other words you dismiss it because it does not fit your view.
you are again assuming too much. quit trying to tell me why i haven't read your book. quit trying to tell me what the mentality behind my posts is. that is for me to tell you, not the other way around.

i am not questioning the veracity of any of these accounts of female heroism in wartime any more than i question the accounts of male heroism. i don't dismiss it because it doesn't fit my argument (in fact, i've said before that i feel it to be of little import either way, because it is not representational of females in general). i don't go into this debate with the idea that women are weak-willed, physically fragile, and incapable of rational action in the midst of adversity. you seem to be pinning that accusation to me when i think i have done a pretty good job of saying specifically that i *don't* think that.

Quote:
You already dismiss willingness to read anything since you think your experience is all there is to it. Sure, you do have good points. No doubt about it. However, why keep a close mind because in the world you trained in is the only way to go? Is it possible that history shows women have been capable of handling the physical demand of infantry tactics? In your mind no way Jose and that is it.
nope. i am not willing to read it because i am already juggling work, family, and school (which includes reading plenty of books already), and this would be one of the lowest books on the list of priority, no offense to the author or the courageous women he/she has written about. again, quit making assumptions about a faceless person on the internet that you know nothing about.

Quote:
We will disagree I can and that is OK. The bottom line, out of the large population of women that may be capable to handle it and for the sake of argument let us say there are enough of them to make up a battalion or a brigade, you do not agree in allowing them to serve their country because they are women?

My main point on this thread is bring up the issue that women can be capable of handling the rigors of the infantry demands. Are the the majority? I do not think so. Are there enough of them that can? Of those, why deny that to them?
and my point is that women (you keep using the term in general, so as to include them all generally) cannot handle the rigors (specifically physical; i have no knowledge of how they would do in other aspects) of combat, or even combat training.

being an mp is waaaaaay different than being a grunt. going to the range once or twice a month (which is more than they get anyway) is waaaaay different than going to cax and charging up afghanistan-like hills with a full combat load, a loaded stretcher, and your resupply.

i have not trained alongside a single female that i feel could handle it (i say that because women weren't at cax with us, though i have a great amount of experience in trying to train them in infantry sop in other situations). i know that there are some out there, but as you say, they might fill a company or battalion (that's pushing it, in my opinion) or so.

would i want to give that battalion a try? sure. i've been saying that i'm curious since my first post here. but i don't want them integrated with a unit that is on its way to iraq until they've proven themselves capable in *every* regard beforehand.

the actual integration itself, i'll let higher worry about that nightmare, because i certainly don't want to have to be the one in charge of those logistics.

Quote:
This is not a PC issue to me. It is an issue of opportunity to all our Americans to serve the country as they see fit and want to, no more no less.
great. it might not be a pc issue to you, and i don't see it as such for me either, but you know as well as i do that it already is one, and that it would become oven more so.

Quote:
Sure the 105 woman may not be able to handle it, fine. I have to argument against it. But maybe the 130 or 150 pound woman may be able. If she does, why are you against her wanting to do her part for her country in that way? Those that can meet the standard, go for it.
honestly, my 105-lb example isn't that good, since i don't think too many adult women weigh that much. most of the women that i have worked with in the military were about average weight (except some of the navy master at arms; many of them were overweight, as were the males in their units), but a normal, 130-160-lb woman is still not even capable of doing a pullup, much less hauling herself up a broken wall with armor, water, ammo, and a rifle slung over her shoulder.

Quote:
As far as the 100% agreement. I am also a 100% agreement on you including men but as you said is getting away from the main topic.

those that prove themselves to be tough enough, as i said earlier, i am very curious to see how they would do in the infantry
That is a very good question and an open minded one. Let them try and then you and I can really see how they would do in the infantry field. Of those I will even agree with you that many may fail once in the field but how many would qualify? That is the only way to find out.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
again, i'd like to see what they are capable of. but when 97 out of 100 of them do not pass the physical, don't be too offended when i kick them back to the supply train. the remaining 3, what are we gonna do with them? form a single fireteam? incorporate millions of dollars of new legislations, new military protocol, new bunking, etc for them? that, i feel, would be all in the name of pc, which might or might not be worth it. that area is outside of my experience, so i'll leave it to others to supply opinions there.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top