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 07-09-2009, 09:24 AM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,834,119 times
Reputation: 1300

Advertisements

incidentally, i figured that i had been making this clear, but reading back through my posts, it isn't as clear in retrospect as i'd thought: i am all for booting the hell out of anyone that can't hack it, not just females. i am tired of seeing whiny, overweight troops that can't run more than half a mile without passing out, can't keep their undershirts tucked into their uniforms because their bellies are hanging out, can't be bothered to work, to study, to exercise, or do anything else that they are supposed to, and then receive the benefits of all of these nice-intention groups out there that try to make training as easy as possible so as not to "stress the recruits overmuch."

so yeah, i'd kick them all out if i could. but in my experience, as far as physical capability goes, the females would be getting kicked out with more frequency, and the pc idea of "equal representation" can crawl into a corner and die for all i care. unit effectiveness and survivability are priority over feel-good politics.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2009, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,588,323 times
Reputation: 24548
stycotl - do you have any idea what is likely to happen to the superman you describe when he is the first guy in an ambush? It ain't pretty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Aberdeen
168 posts, read 257,648 times
Reputation: 372
There are many great points made from both sides of the issue. More than I can read through. While I agree with elamigo that there are many examples of women who have excelled in combat service and that there are many women who can serve in the infantry...

Well, my issue is not whether or not they can, but whether or not the SHOULD...

My feelings on this are summed up by a quote (can't remember where it came from but I pray my wife would have the same response if, God forbid, I should fall in battle) from a wife being bagdered by the press... she said "Better to be the widow of a hero than the wife of a coward." What does it say about a country that leaves behind able bodied men and recruits women to die in their place? Women hold the future of the nation in their hands in the future generation they can produce?

Have you ever read the account of the Spartans stand agains the Persians? The movie "The 300" was made about that account. The men to go to that defense were chosen not by their ability in combat, but by the abilities of the women they would leave behind. They knew that it would take strong women to rebuild their legacy and without those strong women, their culture, family lines, everything would die with them in that pass. That is the image I want for my family and nation. A body of stong, dignified women fully capable in every way, even able in combat, but would never think to taking up arms because they know that the men are more than capable of defending them from harm.

Surely women can serve in the infantry, but why should they?

You can't argue that they should be able to because they WANT to, because there are many things we can't do and shouldn't do even though we may want to. For example, a pedophile wants to abuse my children (extreme, I know), I want to eat nothing but Baked Alaska (a wonderful dessert), drinking alcohol every day... There are many things that we may want to do, and some of them we are even allowed to do, that doesn't mean that we should...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 01:37 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,834,119 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
stycotl - do you have any idea what is likely to happen to the superman you describe when he is the first guy in an ambush? It ain't pretty.
*shudder*

i have some idea; we had a couple of those remarkable specimens in our units. we tried to leave them behind every chance we had; they'd be permanent tower guards and trash removal specialists.

of course, that still means that everyone is pulling their load for them, which still makes us less effective and likely to survive, but better than getting everyone massacred because of the actions of the intellectual giants when they offend the local sheik, blow an ambush, open fire on innocents, or drop a hand grenade or something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 02:02 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,758,039 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHOP View Post
There are many great points made from both sides of the issue. More than I can read through. While I agree with elamigo that there are many examples of women who have excelled in combat service and that there are many women who can serve in the infantry...

Well, my issue is not whether or not they can, but whether or not the SHOULD...

My feelings on this are summed up by a quote (can't remember where it came from but I pray my wife would have the same response if, God forbid, I should fall in battle) from a wife being bagdered by the press... she said "Better to be the widow of a hero than the wife of a coward." What does it say about a country that leaves behind able bodied men and recruits women to die in their place? Women hold the future of the nation in their hands in the future generation they can produce?

Have you ever read the account of the Spartans stand agains the Persians? The movie "The 300" was made about that account. The men to go to that defense were chosen not by their ability in combat, but by the abilities of the women they would leave behind. They knew that it would take strong women to rebuild their legacy and without those strong women, their culture, family lines, everything would die with them in that pass. That is the image I want for my family and nation. A body of stong, dignified women fully capable in every way, even able in combat, but would never think to taking up arms because they know that the men are more than capable of defending them from harm.

Surely women can serve in the infantry, but why should they?

You can't argue that they should be able to because they WANT to, because there are many things we can't do and shouldn't do even though we may want to. For example, a pedophile wants to abuse my children (extreme, I know), I want to eat nothing but Baked Alaska (a wonderful dessert), drinking alcohol every day... There are many things that we may want to do, and some of them we are even allowed to do, that doesn't mean that we should...
To me the point is not whether they should. It is whether they are entitled to the same opportunity to serve their country as men. If they qualify and am sure however few they may be, why not?
What is the damage in society if they do? What is your reason to oppose it?
It is a matter of the same opportunity, no more no less.

The examples about Baked Alaska and alcohol are not good examples. If you have the money and want to drink all you want as long as it does no harm anyone of eat all the desserts you want, go for it. You want to tell adults what to eat or what not to eat?

As far adult women, do you want to tell them they cannot be infantry Soldiers even if they qualify? It is similar like telling a woman she does not qualify for a job even if she meets a standard. Do you agree with that.

Do not take me wrong. On a personal basis I do not like women in the military but I am not going to allow my feelings to interfere on that.

As far as what does it say about a country that recruits women? It says that that country gives a fair chance to ALL its citizens to defend their country as they best can and meet the standards without bias. Is that not the equality principle in our way of life?

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 02:13 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,758,039 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
you are assuming waaaaaay too much here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
The bottom line in this issue as I see it is this.

Are there women that may qualify to handle the rigors of infantry duties? With me is yes.

Now, as far as you thinking I make assumptions without knowing you. I only make conclusions based on you what you stated. You asked me to back it up. I did by quoting a book and there are many other sources. Your reply tells me it is not that of a high priority. I understand that totally but to tell me women cannot handle it and then ask me to back it up and when I give onformation sources and then you say you do not have time, well, what do you expect?

Ruthlessness is not meant in the way you took it. Sure, I can totally understand how you answer I must say. I meant it in the way women do have the mental an emotional capacity as men to kill. Some in this forum have addressed that point. Hope this clear it for you. I think I did but you brough it up again. Maybe I was not clear enough.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2009, 06:34 AM
 
Location: Eastern Kentucky
1,237 posts, read 2,643,115 times
Reputation: 1267
Only when people are judged on their personal strengths and weaknesses will this truly be a free nation. As long as anyone is excluded because of their gender, race, etc.. rather than their abilities we are the poorer for it. When the chips are down, our women have always stepped up and taken up the slack, and we will continue to do so. You all just keep setting in your easy chairs banging on your keyboards and we women will keep on putting on our uniforms, picking up our weapons, going where we have to go, and doing what we have to do to ensure you keep that right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2009, 09:20 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,758,039 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonsdaughter View Post
Only when people are judged on their personal strengths and weaknesses will this truly be a free nation. As long as anyone is excluded because of their gender, race, etc.. rather than their abilities we are the poorer for it. When the chips are down, our women have always stepped up and taken up the slack, and we will continue to do so. You all just keep setting in your easy chairs banging on your keyboards and we women will keep on putting on our uniforms, picking up our weapons, going where we have to go, and doing what we have to do to ensure you keep that right.
Agreed. To me some of the reasons to oppose women in combat are not as applicable as in past wars. Today in Afganistan and Iraq there are no clear front and rear lines as before. We are now seeing women die more than before. This situation does demand more of them to be trained and able to carry a load anywhere.

In all fairness though. Your comment on people in their easy chairs is not fair to some of the people here. Some were in the military and some still are. They are not just expressing theoretical stuff. Many of them have walked the walk and even though I may not agree with some of their logic, they do have some valid points to consider because of their experience. I respect that.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2009, 11:15 AM
 
2,653 posts, read 4,598,743 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonsdaughter View Post
Only when people are judged on their personal strengths and weaknesses will this truly be a free nation. As long as anyone is excluded because of their gender, race, etc.. rather than their abilities we are the poorer for it. When the chips are down, our women have always stepped up and taken up the slack, and we will continue to do so. You all just keep setting in your easy chairs banging on your keyboards and we women will keep on putting on our uniforms, picking up our weapons, going where we have to go, and doing what we have to do to ensure you keep that right.
Great!

Where can all the male golfers go to sign up for the next LPGA tournament?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2009, 03:05 PM
 
3,842 posts, read 9,246,289 times
Reputation: 3177
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
incidentally, i figured that i had been making this clear, but reading back through my posts, it isn't as clear in retrospect as i'd thought: i am all for booting the hell out of anyone that can't hack it, not just females. i am tired of seeing whiny, overweight troops that can't run more than half a mile without passing out, can't keep their undershirts tucked into their uniforms because their bellies are hanging out, can't be bothered to work, to study, to exercise, or do anything else that they are supposed to, and then receive the benefits of all of these nice-intention groups out there that try to make training as easy as possible so as not to "stress the recruits overmuch."

so yeah, i'd kick them all out if i could. but in my experience, as far as physical capability goes, the females would be getting kicked out with more frequency, and the pc idea of "equal representation" can crawl into a corner and die for all i care. unit effectiveness and survivability are priority over feel-good politics.

aaron out.
For starters..woman here who did serve in the Army as an officer and did OCS, Airborne, Air Assault,blah blah blah. Proud of what I did and did it well. Didn't play the female card, either.

What I did see was a lot, and I mean a lot, of crap...overweight, lazy, defiant, in the Army b/c it was the only job they could get with a GED or criminal record, rude, selfish, gang members..the list goes on...Soldiers. I was CSS, so that has a lot to do with it.

That was mixed with Soldiers who gave everything of themselves, no questions asked, nothing expected in return. Those Soldiers are few and far between. My husband, who was CA, did not deal with 99% of the crap I did on a daily basis. His reason: 100% male. I tend to agree. Then again, his 1SGT was relieved in Iraq due to sleeping with a E-3 female (the supply clerk)..both married...classy....and this was in '06 when some bad, bad things were going on in NW Baghdad....

I got sick of the baby mama drama and using the Army for its free healthcare and commissary benefits MALE AND FEMALE Soldiers consistently managed to have overtake the mission at hand.

Personally, never gave a darn what race, gender or creed the Soldier was...I was just looking for the Soldiers who had the intestinal fortitude to do what they willingly signed up to do without bitching and moaning and writing their congressman that they had to work 13 hours on a Friday.

What annoyed me more was when this behavior came from a male. Wrong on my part? Yes. But for pete's sake...it's the ARMY! Not McDonalds.

And dare you look crosseyed at a Soldier before you are before the BN XO explaining how you "hurt their feelings"...

Do women belong in the Infantry?

They are already in the Infantry Brigades as combat medics, supply clerks, transpo drivers, commo specialists, aviators and so on.

Do they belong in the squad? Absolutely not.

But there are women who are flying the UH60s and pulling air patrol as the infantry squad is pulling security over a water tank....

It's not so cut and dry.

I don't think it's "women in the infantry" that is an issue. It's all the other stuff that has been allowed due to the paranoia political correctness that runs rampade in the US military.

The standards are a joke. And that is what scares me. You have honest to goodness true men and women who join for the reasons we all wish...and their lives are not at risk due to deployments but the Joe/Suzy who was allowed to join b/c they had a pulse and could spell their name but does not have the mental capacity nor ability to control themselves in a manner that will keep their fellow Soldiers alive in life v death situations.
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