Women in Combat ...

[rodog44]

Originally Posted by pyramider

Are you saying a woman cannot pull the trigger? Or launch artillery?

I said there are many COMMON SENSE reasons to oppose this. If you dont know what they are then you're a little light in that department.

[Old Horn Dog]

No need to be abrupt--haven't we observed enough of that in other threads this past week (how come everyone's so cranky all of a sudden--jeez, it's been awful)? If someone asks a question, explain. I'm very interested in what people have to say on this topic. Don't say it's just "common sense" and leave it at that. Lay it out for us who don't have any common sense. Use small words too--I'll find that helpful.

[LovelyLolita]

Well I can think of several
1) MOST woman are physically not as strong as a man. No you don't need strength to pull a trigger, but fighting is so much more than that. You have to be prepared to face the enemy in hand to hand combat, being tortured ect. (FYI, woman DO get to pull the trigger, they are just not on the front lines)

2) Hygiene: Woman menstruate, which means they need showers. This is not always possible when your in the field for long periods of time

3) Pregnancy: Trust me it happens, even over seas and it is extremely frowned upon (I think you even get disciplinary actions if you get pregnant). So lets say a woman gets pregnant, then the military has to use more resources to send her home and bring in somebody else.

These are just the top 3 reasons I can think of.

[Old Horn Dog]

Those are good reasons. I woudln't have thought of #2 as a real limitation if someone WANTED to be there since the women in my unit did OK for several weeks in the field--none of us could bathe much. I am sure it was unpleasant, however and we weren't away from basic hygiene for longer than 10 days at a time, really.

#3 is really interesting--you're right. Imagine how a CO would feel if he had to break up a fire team b/c someone was pregnant? If it were me, I'd be furious. Plus you have to break in a newbie, not part of the team. I have to wonder though, if that would be self-policing. In other words, I think the other women in the unit would kill you if you got pregnant & it put everyone else's ass on the line.

But... didn't the Russians & the Israelis have combat units mainly of women at various times? Maybe the Russians weren't the finest soldiers in the world, although they weren't bad (I mean overall, not selected units), but the Israelis? Even their crappy units are good. If I thought we would do it by studying how somoene else did it & did it well (you know, like Security Theater, I mean, Airport Security), I wouldn't really worry. But it's us... And we came up w/the TSA. So I wasn't worried at first, but now I'm freaking out... Thanks y'all.

[rodog44]

Originally Posted by Old Horn Dog

No need to be abrupt--haven't we observed enough of that in other threads this past week (how come everyone's so cranky all of a sudden--jeez, it's been awful)? If someone asks a question, explain. I'm very interested in what people have to say on this topic. Don't say it's just "common sense" and leave it at that. Lay it out for us who don't have any common sense. Use small words too--I'll find that helpful.

I dont think I said a word about your common sense. I'm sure you can list the reasons just like I can. My point is, if someone cant list them, then in my opinion they dont have a clue about this subject.

[jhende3]

Maybe we should tell the enemy not to shoot at them since they're aren't combat troops. I also served in the military and every woman who was in my unit carried the same backpack ran the same miles every morning qualified the same on a weapon did all the same things I did. They should have the same chances as a male. Hell most of these women pushed me to complete a task because I figured if they didn't quit neither should I.

That's just a thought from an old combat troop turned special forces support unit that had women in it. I would trust them with my life.

[LovelyLolita]

Originally Posted by jhende3

Maybe we should tell the enemy not to shoot at them since they're aren't combat troops. I also served in the military and every woman who was in my unit carried the same backpack ran the same miles every morning qualified the same on a weapon did all the same things I did. They should have the same chances as a male. Hell most of these women pushed me to complete a task because I figured if they didn't quit neither should I.

That's just a thought from an old combat troop turned special forces support unit that had women in it. I would trust them with my life.

Im happy to hear you have had such excellent battle buddies. These woman were obviously pretty badass. However, from my experience I think the army has lowered there standards. I have seen a lot of woman, and even some men, that should NOT be in the service. I have no idea exactly when you served, but I think the military has become more lax.

[ilovedatass]

Originally Posted by LovelyLolita

Lol, ilovedatass,

Personally I didnt think I looked sexy. Them uniforms come in standard sizes,...small medium and large. With my little waist and big hips and bottom I honestly looked kinda fat cus the uniforms were so baggy. I know some women who actually got their uniforms tailored to them, but those were usually officers. If an enlisted women did this it might be frowned upon (depending on how much she got it tailored to her body).

On the bright side when I was seen in my civies I got an amazing response. The guys just kinda of stared and said "whoa I didnt know she was hot!" Lol, miss those shocked facial expressions.

Just trying to imagine you in one of these

[Old Horn Dog]

3rd one is my fave. Also, might match Lolita's figure best, although it's hard to tell. 2nd one might be better. There's only one real way to be sure...

[Hangtime]

During WW II, or the Great Patriotic War, as it is known among the Russians, women served throughout all areas of the military, including as snipers, in the infantry, and in the air forces. Some of these women were as young as 16.

The Russian soldier who placed who placed their flag atop the Reichstag in the Battle of Berlin was a woman. (By the way, there were 400,000 Russian casualties in the Battle of Berlin, and over a million German women, of all ages, raped during and after the battle.)

Russian woman fought in Stalingrad, where at the height of the fighting, the average life span for a Russian soldier was less than 24 hours. (The Battle of Stalingrad lasted from September 1942 to January 1943.)

Russian women flew old biplanes to attack the Germans at night when they were less vulnerable to German fighter aircraft; they were referred to by the Germans as the "Night Witches," and they were greatly feared.

The examples of women as fighters are countless throughout time, one of the last great Viking leaders, was a woman, and she was renown for her cunning and ruthlessness.

Sure no woman wants to be captured and tortured, just as no man does, but that really is not the point. We should all be treated as equals, fit for any job, regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or whatever factor is used to separate us, as long as we meet the physical, mental, emotional, or other criteria needed to perform the job. Life is difficult enough without us erecting random, artificial barriers that make it even harder.

Only the good old boys, who are worried about the blow to their egos and machismo, have any fear of this. The same was true when these same good old boys opposed the civil rights movement, or giving women the right to vote, or letting gays serve in the military, or letting woman work in law enforcement, or so on throughout history; small minds always have, and always will, fear change. And, that's just crazy, because the only constant in life is change.

Now... let the flaming begin!

[rodog44]

Originally Posted by jhende3

Maybe we should tell the enemy not to shoot at them since they're aren't combat troops. I also served in the military and every woman who was in my unit carried the same backpack ran the same miles every morning qualified the same on a weapon did all the same things I did. They should have the same chances as a male. Hell most of these women pushed me to complete a task because I figured if they didn't quit neither should I.

That's just a thought from an old combat troop turned special forces support unit that had women in it. I would trust them with my life.

I've seen combat and couldn't disagree with you more. Having said that, thank you for your service.

[Shadowbeast666]

One factor everyone seems to have forgotten, or failed to mention, and IMO, the most important reason why, is the psychological effect women have on men. Allow me to explain;

Most men are ‘protectors’ by nature. That ‘protector gene’ is ingrained in our DNA since the origin of our species. It’s how homosapiens evolved and survived throughout time. It has been proven that in many stressful, life-or-death situations, a man will instinctively put himself and the lives of other men at risk to save a wounded woman merely based on the fact that it was a female. That is not to say men won’t do the same for other men, but from a purely psychological standpoint, men are more apt to make those types of judgment calls when the situation involves a woman versus a fellow male soldier. When this happens, and it will happen, those decisions will put the lives of other soldiers at unnecessary risk. It risks the lives of men, the mission and the battle as a whole. (Think big picture if you don’t understand my point.)

Being an Army Infantry veteran I do believe that women are a crucial, extremely valuable part of the military. I’m NOT bashing on women, nor implying that some of the combat jobs couldn’t be accomplished by women, but I want to see your ‘typical’ female recruit, strap on a 80 pound ruck, pick up their M60 (with an average weight of 22lbs not including any ammo) and hump 10-15-20 or 25 miles like we did. Really?, a fit 125 pound female is going to strap 100+pounds of gear on her and still be able to keep up with a fit 225 lb man carrying the same load? I wanna see that! OR, do we lower the weight the women need to carry into combat? Should the men pick up the slack and carry some of the women’s gear? Yes, some other Armies have or have had women serving in 'combat roles', but don't be fooled, that is certainly NOT the status quo.

Aside from PMS, do women even remotely realize some of the conditions that will affect their hygiene? It’s bad enough as a guy, and we aren’t even remotely as susceptible to things like yeast infections and other issues that women can have. When you get bad jock-itch or whatever, they give you some lotion to rub on your nuts and tell you to “drive on grunt”. Are they going to tell a woman with a severe yeast infection (or other ailment) to just drink some water, rub some lotion on it and get back to their unit? OR, do we allow the women to go back to the battalion aide station and get treated, showered and cleaned up, thus leaving the unit a person down? Maybe half of your unit has already been shot up and you can’t afford to have ANYONE leave for ANY reason.

The Army military ‘standard’ is that you must maintain a minimum standard of 35% in each of the physical fitness categories; push-ups, sit-ups and the 2-mile run. ‘INFANTRY’ standard was that we must maintain a MINIMUM of 70% in each of those categories. No offense, but I seriously doubt there are very many females out there that could have hung with the requirements we had to adhere to. When it comes to the male/female difference in physical capabilities of most military jobs, it’s not that big of a deal. ‘Combat units’ are the exception. Physical capabilities of a soldier

In today’s ‘society’ with today’s ‘rules’, how long before harassment lawsuits would be cluttering up the military courts when a women had to strip down in front of a water-buffalo to maintain her hygiene with the other 75+ men in the unit looking at her. That’s how we washed for 45-60 day deployments. We didn’t have showers, we didn’t have toilets, and we didn’t have ANY privacy. I just don’t see women being able to handle the comments and looks that she would receive. How many women would get offended by the language the men used in the field? Hell, most women get bent out of shape over the slightest joking ‘innuendo’ in the workplace, or they ‘heard’ some guy make ‘such and such’ comment and now they’re offended and want to sue…I’m just saying, it WOULD happen.
I’m sure there are some women in the world that could do some of the combat roles, but honestly, I don’t see them being able to compete with their male counter-parts without some sort of exception being made to compensate for their physical size and abilities. Mentally, I’m sure many of the women are every bit as strong as most of the men.

I agree with the ‘choice’ concept though. I truly think that the majority of this issue surrounds the ‘choice’ to be able to do something. Not that they necessarily want to do the jobs, but they just don’t like being told they aren’t allowed to.

[LovelyLolita]

+1

[Arverni]

Only the good old boys, who are worried about the blow to their egos and machismo, have any fear of this. The same was true when these same good old boys opposed the civil rights movement, or giving women the right to vote, or letting gays serve in the military, or letting woman work in law enforcement, or so on throughout history; small minds always have, and always will, fear change.

Now... let the flaming begin!

You had a good post there and were doin' okay with your points until you decided to launch a completely gratuitous attack on people who have a different opinion than you did.

[Old Horn Dog]

I'm not so sure about ShadowBeast666's example of a 125 lb. woman keeping up w/a 225 lb. man w/a full combat rig. I figured all Marines would be great big apes. Nope--all the ones I met were 5'9" to 6'0" & SKINNY (that isn't me--and no one will ever mistake me for a Marine). They hire track men in the USMC. So... if you have a big girl, say 5'7" to 5'9" who's a runner & is pretty strong other-wise: isn't she going to be able to handle her gear @ 130 lbs? Some of the Marines couldn't have weighed more than 150. Your other points are well-taken & certainly worth considering, but I'm not sure about this one--it seems to me that, once loaded down, it isn't the strength, but the endurance & stamina of these skinny guys, that makes them successful. I've never been one of them.

Not to be flip: but after being in the field for 60 days, she might be so happy to see that water buffalo that she doesn't care who watches. And the guys may be so exhausted and sick of seeing her every day they could give a shit about looking. Not saying that's what will happen--but isn't that also a possibility? I served with some great women, but there was a VERY SMALL number I wanted to see naked--a high number were pretty obviously gay but under DADT... I didn't care. They liked the job, they could do what needed to be done, and afterwards we went to Hooters & ogled waitresses together. Even the straight ones--pretty small number I wanted to see naked. Even after a 30 day FTX. Now, Canadian women in uniform are a different matter. How come all of THEM are hot?!

Here's the thing: some things SEEM like common-sense, but then the dire predictions don't materialize. They said all kinds of stuff when the military was integrated in the late 1940's. Most of it turned out to be bogus. To use a different (and yes, very highly-politically-charged example for which I apologize but it's the one I can think of most easily before going to bed), when EACH STATE that has gone to "shall-issue" concealed-carry permits did it, various people went into hysterics claiming that EACH PLACE that did it would be turned into "the OK Corral" "the Wild West" "there will be blood in the streets" "People will shoot each other down over parking spaces in the Mall". Hasn't happened.

I think the pregnancy example of Lolita's is something like that maybe: it's POSSIBLE it would be a disaster, but it's almost equally POSSIBLE that the issue would be self-policing--where I'm sure it would happen, but not nearly at the rate people think it will. Everyone so far seems to agree that "combat" and "support" are VERY different. So the fact that women on ships in the Navy get pregnant A LOT, AFTER getting underway, I don't think is a valid predictor for the rate in combat units, esp. combat units which are doing their assigned roles of... combat. We just don't know.

What we DO know is different militaries have done this, with various degrees of success. We DO know which ones have had more success than others. My concern is we will blithely ignore their examples, and come up with a distinctly stupid way as Americans to FUBAR this thing so completely that everyone, I mean EVERYONE, men, women, Pentagon-istas, legislative staffers, Wall Street Journal columnists, Mother Earth columnists, Atlantic columnists, comedians, parents of serving members, CNN reporters, Oprah, hell, even Europeans (the professional soldiers among them), just stand there, cross their arms, shake their heads, and walk away from the train-wreck...