Women in the military (BOO HISS) [Archive] - SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network

Grrl

1 April 2000, 13:39

I agree that women that whine and complain about not being promoted, etc, etc, and being touched and suing should not be in the military, but there are women that do their jobs well and don't complain, exactly what I plan to do. Anyway, there are men that don't get their jobs done as well. You can't just say 'women shouldn't be in the military' AT ALL, that's a bold thing to say. Just because of other women that messed up. That's not fair to those who intend on doing their jobs well and not complain about the little things. Thousands of women with the desire to be in the military to not be allowed in, just because of the women complaining about stupid things, would be completely unfair. If I personally experienced a male counterpart making a pass at me or saying something derogatory about women. I wouldn't give a damn I would shrug it off the same way I do as a civilian. I wouldn't whine and complain about it, it's pointless. I'm joining the navy after I graduate high school, and I plan on being a good sailor the navy can use, not a slacker. 'nuff said.

SpecOpNightfall

1 April 2000, 14:05

Fine, fine, but NO women belong in direct combat. ENOUGH SAID.

Grrl

1 April 2000, 16:02

I don't see why not. If there are women who are capable they should be allowed. Men would eventually get used to it. Are you in the military? Just curious.

SpecOpNightfall

1 April 2000, 18:51

I am not in the military yet. I'm sure you don't see why women shouldn't be in military combat, and it's hard to explain. First off, women CANNOT perform on the same level of their male counter parts. Nature didn't make women the same as men physically, and they don't have the basic abilities that the male body does. No amount of P.T. can change that, not on that basic level. Second, women are not raised mentally to be warriors. Even if your family didn't make you a girlie girl, society and your own mind set will not serve well under the high stress, high performance combat that we see in special operations. Another reason is that women have certain things to deal with that could frankly make long term excursions a bitch. PMS ring a bell? Fourth, having women in a close knit unit creates sexual tension. That is a major distraction to both ends of the spectrum, even if you're not looking for that. There are few forces as compelling as the one driving us to reproduce, and more times than not, these urges aren't overcome. If you are involved with a man in your unit or vice versa, then both of your focuses will not be entirely on the mission at hand. Instead, they will be on each other's safety and well being. While the safety of your team mates is a big deal, the protectiveness that mates feel for each other is another thing. And what if a relationship goes bad in a unit? Then there is the animosity, and the countless other bad things that would happen in that instance. Fifth, even if no one takes advantage of the inter-sex unit (which wouldn't surprise me in spec op units), you would still require separate quarters, separate utilities, etc. This can be a pain in the ass, and is especially an unnecessary concern when you're trying to make war. Sixth, as I said before, it degrades unit integrity (which is a VERY important part of the spec op units). Men cannot be equal team mates with a woman. Every time promotions came around, if the woman was promoted, then there would be murmurs from the men. If a man were promoted then there would be complaining from the woman (thought not always). Many times, special operations units operate in environments when they are required to be pressed right up against each other. This would create so many problems in the sexual harassment arena, that half the damn paper work going thru an officers desk would pertain to that. Now, none of these things are certain, but they are all VERY probable. And these aren't all the reasons that comes to mind. When it comes down ti it, though, women are not the warriors. Men are. Making war is the art of man, and women simply aren't made or meant for it no matter how hard one tries to be.

Nissan

1 April 2000, 19:19

OK folks heres my opinion and my opinion only this can't be researched or be changed by numbers or pentagon studies...I THINK that women right now want to go into combat because no women have been there before from teh US. I'm not saying women havn't been involved in combat throughout history we all know they have. Look at the mediteranian area during anciet times where on teh island of lesbos (Yes thats teh islands name) the women were warriors in every sense and cut off 1 breast to make sure everyone knew who they were. When you say being brought up as a warrior makes a difference your only partly correct. Again heres a history lesson...The Spartan boys were raised to fight and fight well...now history shows they did well but there was also civilizations where they didn't make to much of a difference (Germany is the first to come to mind) so your comparison there is rather dumb in my opinion. Now when you say the physical capabilities your correct but that doesn't mean that women are completly helpless...now I've had experiences both ways with this..at a summer camp I had to carry the load of 2 of my female teammates on a road march...but I also saw a female picking up part of the load of a male cadet in a different platoon. When you look at PT you gotta take in how many years you've been conditioning how often you do things etc..a female thats been doing weightlifting all her life is gonna be stronger then a guy who just started no matter what the guy does...its just developing the skills and practicing...not just saying "I'm a guy I'm stronger" cause it isn't always true. Now you bring up relationships...well thats why the Navy has rules against "Fraternization" or in plain english going out with/having sex with people either above you in teh chain of command or in positions of authority/rank that could help you out later on with promotions etc...its in teh UCMJ so thats probably not to good a arguement either...Now I wanna bring up soemthign that I believe was posted her before or it might hvae ben the comshack...a meeting was held at the BUD/S compound for Physical trainers and a woman that went participated in some of the trainees exercises..well she held her own on teh Grinder...but on the sand runs she fell behind and she had 1 helluva time on teh O course...so what I'm generally trying to say right here is sumed up in what she said to a Instructor there when she was asked if a woman could complete the program...There is no way a woman could keep up there'd have to be double standards...now I'm not taking anything away from women they are excellent at certain things but there are some places they should not be..combat is 1 of them...I can see the commanding a ship because thats more of a anyalyze and react deal then straight shoot your weapon watch your buddy 2 feet away have his head blown off combat..its different..the risks are different also..and I think that until another prolonged conflict occurs this just won't hit home...

Grrl what rate are you going for in June?? and I assume your 17 with a B-day in June and your parents won't let you join because they think your making a mistake and want you to goto college or whatever they think is best for ya huh...Well if ya want some hints on how to get em to crack and let ya in early shoot me a e-mail at BF228@aol.com and I'll give ya some ideas that helped me..

E19

1 April 2000, 19:27

SpecOpNightfall,

Interesting to see a male who has amassed such indepth knowlege of of women and spec-ops. Most impressive since he probably hasn't entered into his second decade yet.

What type of warrior training did your family put you through? Are you a Hatfield
or a McCoy?

I'm trying to picture the orgy that would occur when the team is jammed up asshole to belly button waiting to exit a C-130. Damn..Check Static Lines!!!

Grrl

1 April 2000, 20:54

ok, first of all there are women that can perform on the same level of their male
counterparts in combat. They just haven't been given the chance. And I do understand
where you are coming from the traditional, 'they're a sexual distraction, physically and mentally weaker' blah blah blah. You are just some little boy hoping one day to get enough balls to try to become part of a special operations unit. Since you feel you don't have enough balls, how could a woman, right? Also what person is actually raised as a 'WARRIOR'. I'm sure your parents woke you up at 0500 every day "come on son time for PT" lol, wtf. Who does that? And society didn't make me anything I have my own mind I make my own decisions, and no I'm not your traditional girlie girl. I don't even know of those exist any more. SOCIETY has made sure of that. Women's lives are to busy now to try to be a girle girl. No one has time for that. Also, PMS does not ring a bell if you knew anything about women you would know that PMS is a myth we don't actually go through that. Women who say they have PMS just use it as an excuse to be a bitch. And if you are in the middle of a war if a little thing like a woman is going to sexual distract you from the mission you don't belong in spec ops, it takes a certain amount of concentration, discipline, and self control. Which one would be lacking if they were being distracted by a woman in their unit. And you said women would require separate quarters, what quarters, no one has quarters. If you're in the field somewhere you sleep where you sleep. There are no barracks, etc, etc. Most importantly what do you know about 'unit integrity' whatever you called it, you're not even in the military let alone spec ops, you're speaking as if you know first hand. You have never been part of any unit to even know. Then you
said if a woman gets promoted their would be murmurs from men, again if a man reacted
that way to a woman getting promoted that deserved it they don't belong there. If you
were half the man you wouldn't be intimidated by a woman getting promoted if you knew you could do just as well or maybe better. If you were in a war there would be no time to have sex believe me your mind would be on something else more important, hhhmmm let's see, maybe how many more days you have on the earth. You know, trying to stay alive, not trying to get laid. And no one is trying to be anything. 'Making war is the art of a man' I'm laughing hysterically. that's the most ridiculous load of crap I've ever heard. You sound like some super cheesy movie I saw late at night on local TV when I couldn't sleep. 'Making war is the art of a man' lol. NATURE makes us a certain way now, women possess the desires to be in combat. We are not TRYING to be anything, that is the way some of us just are. We are not little fragile beings who don't know how to defend ourselves. Come on.
My suggestion to you would be: first, learn about the female species cause you don't know jack. Second, stop living vicariously through other men in spec ops if you want to talk the talk, walk the walk SpecOpNightfall. Third, until you do stop speaking as if you were part of a spec op unit, the reason I asked if you were in the militray is because I could tell you were not, speaking from second hand and not from personal experience. Really stop because you sound like an action hero from a comic book. 'Making war is the art of a man' I'm still laughing at that. All I have to say is again, if you were half the man and if women are so insignificant and useless in combat, you wouldn't mind if they were in combat. As a matter of fact if I were in your position I would challenge any woman up to it just to prove her wrong. The problem is you are afraid they wouldn't be wrong. You're intimidated by women.

And to Nissan, I'm going for IS I'm still juggling whether to join the navy or the marines, that's why I'm waiting. I think I will end up going for the rating of IS in the navy, because I like the idea of being shipboard. But I definitely want to be in intelligence either way. I just have to take the ASVAB and score high and get the security clearance. My parents don't agree but, hey it's my life. And I'm 18 I graduate high school in june after that I'll be either on my way to parris island to put my feet on the yellow footprints or to great lakes RTC singing anchors away.

SpecOpNightfall

1 April 2000, 22:41

I will respond to your post when you clean out the insults that make up most of it.

Baja

1 April 2000, 22:54

Nissan:

A history lesson, huh? As usual, you're half-cocked...

[No offense. I just love givin' you sh#t every once in a while http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/wink.gif ]

You're mixing the works of the poetess Sappho up with the Amazons. It was the Amazons who (allegedly) cut off one of their breasts to better enable them to shoot the bow and arrow, not the denizens of Lesbos. The missing breast was practical in orientation, not symbolic.

The women of Lesbos were better known for same-sex lovin' than warfare...because of the writings of Sappho. Today, "sappho" or "sapphic" even means having to do with
"LESBianism," which also got its names from her poetry about Lesbos. If you enjoyed watching lesbians as much as I do, you'd know these things *grin*

- Baja

Grrl

1 April 2000, 23:27

Ok spec, I'm sorry I said you have no balls, and that you know nothing about women, and that you live vicariously through other men in special operation units. But I don't take back anything else. Maybe you do have one ball, no, no, just joking.

critter

1 April 2000, 23:54

Well I reckon'them women folk might serve well in support positions, admin, medical...
Because I don't know about you but I'd rather have a hot nurse with a syringe approaching me, than some of the fiendish and alarming Frankensteinesque male corpman I have dealt with-lunging at me with a syringe! Corpman rule!,but on occasion I have encountered Boris Karlofs evil twin posing as an MD in my travels.But brauds, oops I mean females in Spec-ops? No way.NO-NO-Noooooooooo.

SpecOpNightfall

2 April 2000, 00:27

Essh.

[This message has been edited by SpecOpNightfall (edited 04-01-2000).]

SEAL2000

2 April 2000, 00:56

The future of women in the navy, or the military for that matter, is a topic that is going to rapidly expand in the next 10 years or so. There is so much controversy on that topic that it scares me. To tell you the truth, nobody is going to know how women respond in combat roles until we actually begin to experiment. Men who say women cannot hold their own on the front lines are foolish. But they are only foolish because society has built up their minds that way. Men feel they have to live up to and follow that societal aspect. I look down on people that say women cannot cut it in combat roles. First of all, no branch of the United States military has ever experienced with women in combat roles, so how can we say that women can't cut it. Most of the men who say that can't cut it themselves.
The things is, society is stretched too far between the pros and cons of women in combat. Society's perspective of the topic has been blind folded. There are too many mixed emotions involved, and a lot of people make the role of women in combat too personal. Both Grrl, SpecOpNightFall, and Nissan bring up interesting and valid points. One of the things that bothered me, and that SpecOpNightFall put so eloquently, was the issue of sexual harassment. At first it will seem a little strange for women Navy SEALs to be fighting next to men Navy SEALs, (and of course there are going to be horny little perverse wannabees who are going to focus more on getting some action rather than killing the enemy) but come on, the situation at hand during battle is going to be killing charlie. When that pervert gets his balls blown off, he will focus more on battle rather than getting some play. And that whole concept will eventually start to integrate itself into the system. I guess the point I am trying to make is that we cannot begin to specualte too much on the topic until we actually have living proof of women in combat. Then and only then can we make a decision on whether it si a good idea or not. My role on women in combat? I have no role. My position is neutral, I can't say yes, and I can' say no.

SpecOpNightfall

2 April 2000, 01:01

SEAL2000 has finally brought some level headness and common sense to this discussion. All hail him in his glory. :-) Sorry if I seemd a little dumb, but I guess we need to test (not field) women before more can be validly said. I will now change my stance to neutral on the subject, until further concrete evidence is seen.

Grrl

2 April 2000, 01:57

Like I said there are women that can perform on the same level of their male counterparts in combat. They just haven't been given the chance. I'm glad everyone's happy, the subject is closed.

critter

2 April 2000, 06:37

...And further more Women deserve a greater level of respect from all members of the military. I express apology and remorse over my earlier primitive remarks about women. I give a damn. I had a long day and my dog got hit by a car. I got piss drunk and started ranting -please forgive me.

Nissan

2 April 2000, 13:23

Baja....I coulda swore it was the girly girls on lesbos that did that to better shoot the bow and also to show who they were...if it wasn't then my teacher is full of sh*t....And for that last 1 I would rather join in then watch man...and if ya liked it 1/2 as much as me you'd know that http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/wink.gif

Grrl IS is a excellent rate (Did you know you get 30 college credits just for completing the course??)..don't sweat the ASVAB..I didn't even try and got a 72 and they were basically throwing IS and IT at me..and the recruiter is still trying to get me to change. For teh Security Clearence as long as you aren't the daughter of a mob boss or anything like that (parents inculded there) for teh last 20 years you'll have no problem....Why don't you enlist now with teh DEP?? its a definete help for you because it means you've had a longer time in service then those people joining in June (meaning faster promotions) and you also gotta think about the fact that alot of people are graduating in May/June so IS might actually get filled up and you'll have to wait for October for them to open up again...So I guess what I'm saying is don't put it off make the decision on go for it sooner then later cause ya might get burned while waiting...

SEAL2000...HOOYAH..I think the adaptation part of finally accepting that women are there will be the hardest part for most people...especially those in SpecOps where only males have been allowed for so long...

Oh Yeah SpecOpNightfall...I remember hearing that Delta has women working for them...And if memory serves me correctly it was teh intel area they were in...now if ya can't think of how they collected some of that intel then you live a very sheltered life...

RAT

2 April 2000, 14:15

BAJA, Spoken like a TRUE Snake Eater.

As for women in the service. If they quit looking like males, I say send them in masses but that will never happen.... I swear some of the females (Yea Right)where hermaphodites.

For the most part let them have admin, supply, motor T, command of a ship.

Ya'll know the saying a Pu--y hair can move a freight train. So we know they will have their way.

But this is my .02
RAT
OUT!!!

[This message has been edited by RAT (edited 04-02-2000).]

SpecOpNightfall

2 April 2000, 14:16

Nissan, you're begining to sound dumb. I know that Delta has women in their 'Funny' platoon, or whatever they call it. Damn, why is everyone knocking on me?! I was just trying to have a discussion, not a damned free for all.

Grrl

2 April 2000, 14:58

Nissan thanks for the advice I will enter the DEP I didn't realize it counted towards your time in the service. That's true that IS will probably fill up fast, I'll make sure I get on it.

Nissan

2 April 2000, 23:11

SpecOp...I'll reply when you take the insults out of that post...

Grrl...Yes the detailer told me that if I want IS I better take it ASAP or its gonna fill up before I can do anything about it..so get in early and get what ya want cause it can be there 1 day and gone the next..and also remember your competing country wide for the job so make sure you give it your best..

Grrl

3 April 2000, 00:50

I most definitely will give it my best.

GreenGhost

3 April 2000, 22:34

what a touchy subject.. got to be ccareful what you say.. but i feel that.. so long as women can do what men can do they should be allowed int eh military... anythign less and they can go out on their ear like the rest of those who can't cut it.... I was shocked to see the training women marines go through... its almost nothign compared to their counter parts... it is rediculous.. not to mention they get more uniform money since their woredroobe is more extensive... no offense but what a crock..... Do what the rest do or don't do it at all... There is no special treatment for the rest......

Doctor Evil

4 April 2000, 01:00

Women in units oriented for heavy combat is stupid. Could you see girls fighting lean, mean Chinese troops? Or fighting some of those Russian paratroopers we have been seeing in the news over in Chechyna? Come on people, lets use some common sense for a change. Women in purely technician type jobs is fine. And their are a ton of those types of jobs in the modern day military. In fact, most jobs in there are not even combat oriented.

But for infantry, SOF, heavy armor, etc. I say women in combat units is STUPID. They are fine as technicians but not ground pounders.

SEAL2000

4 April 2000, 02:23

Doctor Evil:

Please. You most nearly gave me a heart attack. How can you say something like that when the United States has not EVER deployed women in combat roles. It is disappointing to see someone who is not willing to look at the facts. There are no facts. Therefore you have no basis to make a childish remark like that. You are going with your instinct. Since obviously you are a male, you feel like you better live up to the cruel standards of this society, and automatically believe that women are inferior to men. Instead of remarking about something that you have no facts to back up, why not just stay quiet, and not say anything at all.

pomofo

4 April 2000, 03:02

In regards to the ability of women to perform to the same standards of men, they can't. Sure, some women are stronger than some men, but if you take any study of the physical abilities of women compared to men, most men are stronger than most women. There will be some overlap in the curves, but overall there are still many more men who are more physically able than women. Also, take a look at Olympians. Do women sprint as fast or lift as much as men? They just can't perform as well as the men can and therefore shouldn't be allowed in combat positions such as special operations. Even with years of training they still won't get to the same performance levels that a male would.

[This message has been edited by pomofo (edited 04-04-2000).]

Cole

4 April 2000, 03:07

A good article on women in combat roles is at Hack's site, www.hackworth.com (http://www.hackworth.com)
Women in combat roles, especially SF, presents a danger to unit cohesion. How can a unit be expected HALO drop into the ocean, swim up a river, and conduct survelleince behind enemy lines when it is forced to remember their sensitivity training and how many "female hygeniene products" are required to complete the mission. Political correctness is not compatible with the military; hell, if we were all politically correct, what would we need a military for anyways???

Grrl

4 April 2000, 09:24

Oh my god, here we go again. People, people, just GIVE, IT, UP. This subject was resolved wasn't it? No one can be right. Until there are women in combat then you can judge. Since that day hasn't come yet, why doesn't everyone just be quiet about it. I see now that it's unresolvable we can go on for days and days weighing the pros and cons on women in combat but no one will come out being right. No one knows because there hasn't been any women in combat to judge. Period. There can't be any analysis, statistics, everyone's theories, because it's never been done (having women in combat). Some of you are coming out sounding like male chauvinists. It's a waste of energy to go on and on about this, now can't everyone agree with that?

JOE-BOO

4 April 2000, 10:19

I have not been even remotely impressed with women in a feild enviroment yet. It screws up sleeping arrangements, latrine use, speech, trust with and amoungst the Joes, and is an added distraction if they are even remotely attractive. As far as women in combat I could care less, but women with men in close enviroments equals trouble....period. Somebody is going to be screwin' somebody and someone else is jealous or married or is now pregnant. If they want to fight....so be it...just do not risk people's lives or unit efficiency by putting men and women together for the sake of PC. Otherwise, it is a plan for faiure.

I would love to believe that women can be warriors just like men, but my personal experience has shown this is not so. I do not know if it is biology or social development or evolution or God's way....whatever it is, it does not need to be constantly challenged for the sake of proving something and getting women killed.

SSD

4 April 2000, 17:02

There have been quite a few examples of women in combat in the last half-century. Do a little research and find out why it isn't the greatest idea. I would consider myself to be a man that believes anyone can do anything and should have the opportunity to try but once you have just one woman in a Grunt unit you have to let them all in. Their choice you say? It doesn’t work that way; it’s the military. When the next draft comes around your daughters are going - no ifs ands or buts!

Ursula

4 April 2000, 18:31

SSD is right: there are a number of instances of women serving in combat roles. How many have been successful? I'm guessing not enough if the US hasn't implemented it yet. The British allowed women into its 14IntSec group, and from what I've read it was quite successful. The women went through the same selection process and training and did the same jobs as the men, neutralizing targets and working side-by-side withe SAS. But just like the American woman who can pass combat physical requirements and do just as well as men in the field, this is an exception, not the norm.

Considering how low the recruitment numbers are, if it was feasible to allow women into combat units, wouldn't the military have done it already? Our forces are down, critical MOSs are going unfilled, teams are short, but apparently the powers that be consider allowing women in to fill those roles to be more detrimental to our military force than leaving those slots empty.

Throughout all of these discussions, I've felt everyone should be given the same opportunities. If a woman can pass the same physical standards as the men and do the job just as well, let her in. What I've learned is that, although *I* do those things, I'm an exception, not the norm. Whether it's acknowledged or not, women are serving critical roles in combat situations all the time. If there's a need, simply enough, it's filled. You just won't read about it in the Times or Post or see it on CNN. We don't need to integrate the entire military to appease one group. If it's about the fairness of having the opportunity to work in a combat role, sign up for one of the many law enforcement agencies that already allow women. It's apparent that gender integration has worked out with them.

Besides, until the military does away with dual standards, I wouldn't want to be the woman in a combat role with others thinking I only made it in because of the relaxed standards.

Honestly, I don't believe this has as much to do with whether or not the women can fit in or do the job, but instead it's the men who aren't ready for it. Women who volunteer for the role, pass the same requirements and training as the men, and do the job will be fine. Men aren't ready to open the doors to their world of combat, and that's a fact of life, not a jab at men. That MUST be considered when deciding whether or not to integrate the troops.

-U

Cole

4 April 2000, 19:43

I just want to make it clear that I am not stating that women are not capable of performing missions in combat...there are many fine examples of women performing admirabley in the service for their country. My point is that the social conditions between men and women that exist today make a cohesive military unit composed of men and women impossible. Yes, these social conditions can be changed with a alteration of male-female social perception. But starting social change in an area with life and death circumstances, such as the military, is very dangerous.

GreenGhost

4 April 2000, 23:32

URSULA, while you have some good points, i haven't ever seen, heard, or readof a woman, ever doign the SAME as a man to pass and physical requirements to be in any branch of service. And to tell you the truth, i would like to see it happen. I don't want to sound sexist, but i think maybe its a one and 10,000 shot that a woman can do what a man does. I have seen footage of women going through " the crucible" and a few of them just coldn't cut it and that was WITH the slacked standards. No if women Were allowed in combat roles with slacked standards do you thing they could help the mission or slow it down? If a man gets hit in the feild can that woman carry that man to safety? Chances are likely that she would not be able to. And that pretty much kills the whole SEAL "Don't leave your swim buddy" Ranger " i won't let a fallen comrade..." and so forth... I know thats special forces, but even just beign regular grunts could be the same situation. But if women could do what men could do, i say hey.. go for it. Like you said.... service is low. people are needed. And like SSD said... women could rightly be drafted, but i doubt into combat roles... more like "rosie riveters" of the military. Sorry for such a long reply, but it was necessary.
Ghost

JOE-BOO

5 April 2000, 00:23

The physical standards do not concern me that much...that is just a cases of changing TTPs....It is the complications that arise (pardon the pun) when men and women are in close quarters....All women combat units might be quite successful if the leaderhip is creative enough to change doctrine and TTPs to suit the personnel average requirements. If not women will fail in large numbers. I believe this to be a leadersip and social issue more than a physical issue

Ursula

5 April 2000, 02:07

To clarify my post...my intention was not to say LE = spec ops. The point I unsuccessfully tried to make is that if women are eager to join an organization that sees hostile activity, then why don't we see groves of women going into LE groups like SWAT, HRT, etc? LE and spec ops are very different, I know. But it's apparent when you look at both organizations that women who truly want to work in a field where hostile activity is the norm would find that type of job somewhere else (like LE) since the military won't let them into combat. But we're not seeing that. The people pushing for women in combat are pushing for the sole reason that women are not currently allowed. Kind of like the kid who wants to dye his hair green or get something pierced only because his parents says he can't. When we're told long enough that we can't do something, we often put aside our original passion and conviction in a struggle to get control over the people telling us we can't do something. I agree that if the military lets women in, the numbers of women signing up will be far fewer than the number fighting to get in today. Those who have a true passion for this type of work will find it--if not in the military, then somewhere else.

It's all been about equality of opportunity, and nothing to do with equality of services provided, which is where this issue should be.

Green Ghost, for good reason you won't find many write-ups on women who train and work in combat areas. In extremely--and I mean extreeeemly--small numbers, they are there, doing a bang-up job.

Guy, I respect your thoughts on women, daugters, wives, aunts dying in conflict, and I agree with you. My father was career Army and I work with a bunch of prior-service SF guys and they are all quite protective--and that's just when I go for a late-night run. http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/wink.gif

I hope I've cleared up my original post somewhat.

-U

GreenGhost

5 April 2000, 22:23

I see what oyu are saying ursula. although i think it kind of sinks your defense boat. But I'm no laywer. Not yet atleast. The fact that women are just "voicing" arguments about not being in combat roles, even though if they were they wouldn't take them, should be reason enough not to let them. that sort of mentality isn't a very "go team" sort of attitude. its like a person, male or female, tryign out for Force Recon adn then once they complete it they quit the day of their graduation cause they just wanted to prove to themselves that they coudl be a Force Recon Marine if they wanted to. What good is that to Force Recon? nothgin except a spot was wasted fro some one who didn't want to really go through with the deed. It was really nothing but a waste of time and effort.

BK101484

6 April 2000, 00:04

Im sorry.... I have to agree with SpecOpsNightFall. It has been shown that co-ed combat units have had trouble with sexual tendancies ... just ask Israel. I have seen reports where men have been injured and killed because instead of focusing on the mission they pay attention to the females safety, and kudos to baja on clarifying the Amazon issue. I respect people who are educated in history.

jinX

6 April 2000, 06:40

All the arguments and "final conclusions" seem to point to one thing. Not that women are incapable, but that society isn't ready for it. This I would agree with. As Ursula said, people are yelping for it because it isn't allowed. Maybe they should just allow it to stop the yelping and to make a change in how society views things. You can't effect change unless you make a movement toward it.

Women in combat: Well, even though the Amazons may be a myth, there is always Boudicca (Queen of the Celts) who rode into battle with her men and managed to decimate an entire Roman legion. Then there's the mountain tribe in the Philippines where the women participated as much in war and hunting as the men, if not more so.

My final: Can women perform as well as men in combat? Generally no, specifically yes. Can men handle women in combat positions? Well, the Israeli situation is a reality, so my answer here is no. Should women be allowed into combat positions? Yes under three conditions: 1) They pass the same standards as men (rare cases). 2) They really want to do this. 3) Do a complete social lobotomy - d'oh! Yes, it's all due to society...

Yossi

21 September 2000, 22:59

Regarding the Israeli point of view:

Woman in the IDF only participated in combat situations during Israel's War of Independence in 1948, when Israel was extremely short of manpower. During that war woman serve in all types of combat positions from infantry to pilots. After that war, as stated above in the post by "BK101484", studies showed that co-ed units had much more injuries and casualties then male only units, not because of the low woman performance, but rather due to the man' one, who paid more attention to the females safety then to the actual combat.

In the mid 1990's, after several appeals to Israel Supreme Court, woman gain access to several combat positions. First with pilots, then naval officers in ships and the recent additions in artillery and ABC units (part of the IDF combat engineering corps). Officially, all woman get 20-25% discount when it comes down to physical tests. Unofficially, they get much more. Like showers in the field, generally better (pampering) treatment, and days off in their "time of the month".

The aircrew personal and naval officers currently serve well, mainly because of the lack of field conditions. However, the ones in the artillery and ABC units are falling a part physically and mentally and many of them drop out. The worst thing is that their commanders back up the all thing since they are afraid of woman lobbies influence on their careers.

All and all, personally I think that if a woman pass THE SAME test and meet the same standards as man she can be all she want.

Seoultrain34

22 September 2000, 01:23

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it's okay for women to be in the military. It just depends on what branch. I strongly oppose women entering special operations teams. They could perform much better in an area such as combat engineers, pilots, etc. Not that I'm sexist of course. There seems to be problems with women in certain places in the military. People may not agree with me and think women should have a spot in special operations. Even the SEALs which have a 0% acceptance rate for women. For anyone who any female who wants to join special operations, I simply ask "Why?"

DFC5343

22 September 2000, 03:28

Here's one....if the women can qualify at the exact same standards as a man and be treated the same as a man will be can serve anywhere ....anytime as far as I'm concerned. Good luck girls( and some men)...in following those standards.

Jeff Rambo

22 September 2000, 09:04

Originally posted by Seoultrain34:
For anyone who any female who wants to join special operations, I simply ask "Why?"

ST,

First- Maybe it's time for you to pay attention in English Class.

Next- In return, ask yourself why as well, once you formulate your answer ... just think of yourself as a female for a few hot seconds. I've seen women with more HOOAH/HOOYAH/OOHRAH and GUM-BY-YAH than some men who wish to live the life just as much as you, I, or anyone else does/did ... so, you're simple question just received a simple answer.

DFC,

Simple response will be applicable to your post: D-I-T-T-O.

------------------
w/ Regards,
Jeff Rambo

------------------
I Want A Four Man Team On A Midnight Run ...

JOE-BOO

22 September 2000, 12:43

ST...before you open your pie-hole....I would do a little research on what a combat engineer does/carries/lives and fights before you make a silly statement based upon such limited knowledge....as for that mattter pilots also.

People whose job it is to create breaches can not be soft....they are steel magnets and other types of metal that do not do the body good at high speed. CEs are also trained infantrymen.....sure that is not to say they are "true blue"...but they hump heavy packs and get in a fight in a hot damn hurry right along side....if not before the infantrymen they support....same goes for mech/armor also.

------------------

IT AIN'T THE
BARK...IT AIN'T THE
GROWL...ITS THE BITE THAT
HURTS
11ZULU

Bubbler

22 September 2000, 14:41

I suppose when the barbarians smashed Rome it was all Germanic women while those blonde haired blue eyed boys stayed home. Hannibal crossed over the mountains with African women and conquering the Sicilians the African women began to manhandle those weaker Sicilian men, raped them, and gave those Sicilians their darker skin.

True a woman can be as effective behind a rifle as a man, but so can a 12 year old boy. So maybe we should recruit children into our military. From what I understand some third world countries have found druged children to be far more effective in the carrying out of orders of killing then adult males.

Can someone tell me if it was men or women that invented contact sports like foot ball, wrestling, or boxing. But I suppose if a stick fighting sport is ever created, it will have been invented by women while the men just sit on the sidelines cheering.

knowledge knows that a woman can be effective in combat. Wisdom knows that as can be avoided a woman should never be part of the combatants.

HALO11

23 September 2000, 01:18

Smooth reply Bubbler. Esp. the wisdom part. Believe me I LOVE women. I have a lot of respect for them and consider them equal in everyway, and in some ways they are perhaps better than us pigs. However I think it would be a BIG mistake to put women in direct action roles, esp. in specops units. There are so many factors involved as to why I believe this that I wont get into it here. Better to just leave war to us pigs, we do well enough, why fix something that isn't broken? I have a feeling that if we all knew what war was REALLY like then half of us probably wouldnt be here. I doubt many women would want to be either. Logistics, unit integrity, mission orientation, GAPs between gender personalities, drafts during time of war, sexual attraction, etc. are all serious matters in this sort of a discussion. It just simply wouldn't work as efficiently, no matter how much you want to try it or "just see if it works," and the military thrives on efficiency. In my experience, nearly all women I have talked to about this (and thats a lot!) are against women in combat roles. It just wouldn't work, it's not meant to be. IMHO, I think the day women are integrated into ground combat units is the day the worlds greatest military starts to decline. Not because women themselves weaken it, but because of all the factors involved in having women in that role. Hell, most men wont ever be able to handle the idea of women in combat I dont think! Think of seeing a mans head blown off here, another screaming in pain because he just stepped on a landmine and he no longer has a leg. Then think instead of men, women in their places. Its already horrid enough, but to me and with the feelings I have towards women (and I believe most other men out there are like me even if they don't admit it) it's even more of an unbearable tragedy. Im not saying womens lives are worth more than mens nor vice versa however I think that men have their role and women have theirs, both equal in importance. It is only our perception of those roles that changes their supposed importance. Men are obviously more suited to combat. Women are obviously more suited to other things. Sorry for the long post.
Theres my BS 2 cents. Take it as you will.

Seoultrain34

23 September 2000, 02:26

Sorry, I understand that my observation was without any knowledge of what I was speaking. I know there are women out there who would make great operators. What I am trying to say though, is that no matter how hard I try or how much research I do, I just can't picture a woman in special forces of any type whether it be Green Berets, SEALs, Force Recon, etc.

Snake

23 September 2000, 02:49

So the women's role is to wait in the rear for the victors to overrun them? Read what happened to camp trains during the dozen or so Eurowars during the 13-19th century?
-I'd- certainly want to have a proactive role in deciding the outcome...

So, if I get what your saying...
Female soldiers are fine in the CP, supply trains and other Rear Area Activity, where they can be subject to Artillery, Counterbattery fire, CBR warfare, sapper attacks, air strikes, raids, etc. With only MP's and the Divisional Band to protect em.
All that's fine...

But.... Having em in the Line, and having em exposed to the -additional- threat of close with/destroy is "JUST TOO MUCH"(whimper)....

That kinda outlook I just dont really get.
It's one thing to say, SPC(4) Mary X is too weak and small to be a Sapper, But SGT Bertha Z. is 6'4 just right, physically. It's another thing entirely to point at a vast group and say "we dont like them...just because". Thats called a circular argument.
You lot would laugh me offa the board if I said "I dont think Niggers can fly aircraft".
Sorry about the bluntness, but THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID, during WWII. Buncha brass were morally -certain- that blacks were unsuitable to mix with regualr troops, much less fly combat aircraft(as officer's no less!). -Some- of the opinions expressed above are direct copy's of the WWII opinions, substituting -Women-, for -Blacks-.
And before the BTDT crowd, led by JSOC and Fred, descend upon me with torches and pitchforks, let me add something. A lot is said about how putting women in Combat Arms units will shoot cohesion to hell...
Same thing was said when Truman integrated the Army. Same. Exact. Thing.

BTW, Bubbler...your on crack. Hannibal was never on Sicily. He crossed from Iberian to Italy, over the Pyranees and Alps. Never coming anywhere near Sicily. And, BTW, Africanus defeated Carthage. And the Carthaginians were'nt Africans, they were a Pheonician colony. Rome still stands, archeologists cant -find- Carthage. Violence -does- solve problems, no?

Snake
tired, want nap.
25th ID(L)

[This message has been edited by Snake (edited 09-23-2000).]

Jeff Rambo

23 September 2000, 03:59

Guy,

First off let me say this, I'm not looking for a flame-fest as I have nothing but respect for you ... but just trying to make sure I understand where you are coming from with things, so a simple answer will do ...

Now unless I misunderstood what Snake stated, which may very well be true since I've been half asleep thru a near 2hr Rain Delay with the baseball game with the addition of other things flowing thru my head at the moment ... from what I read in two of your post in this thread, you've contradicted yourself with your last post on this thread. I'm just looking for you to shed light.

Take Care

Back in April:

Originally posted by GUY JONES:
TO: URSULA

There are several points in this reply that I will respond to honestly.
1. The reason I do not use a cover is because, I will only post an opinion which I have experienced.
2. Should women serve in combat arms? No! Why? Until the American culture/society change to accept women,(IE. wives, daughters, nieces, aunts and etc.) dying in a conflict it will never be accepted in my lifetime and I hope it never will. In unique situations can women contribute or serve in select areas "yes" and you should know what I am refering to.
3. By comparing SPECOPS to the FBI, DEA, SWAT and other civilian agencies is dead wrong. The vast majority of these civilian agencies do not endure a hardship over a extended amount of time w/o out some type of immediate support which can be called on ASAP
4. Having two daughters and one son would I encourage my daughters to follow my path if the field of SPECOPS were to ever be opened to women, HELL NO! For my son? I do not really know, not with the way the economy is and the way this politically correct way of action that I find appalling and deceitful.

De Oppresso Liber

Tonight:

Originally posted by GUY JONES:
SNAKE,

Tell it like is...AMEN!

GUY
DOL

------------------
w/ Regards,
Jeff Rambo

------------------
I Want A Four Man Team On A Midnight Run ...

Snake

23 September 2000, 04:10

still.....awake....

Let me cap my statment by saying:
In this, present, environment of political expediancy I would not want my wife or daughter in Combat Arms. They would not be trained in the correct manner. In a more "warrior-positive" culture, yes. Here and now, no. Hell, the males dont get the kind of training and indoctrination they need. BUT, thats a cultural fault, and not a fault of the Females...

Snake
25th ID(L)

[This message has been edited by Snake (edited 09-23-2000).]

HALO11

23 September 2000, 05:04

Snake, in my friendly opinion your comparisons don't mean much. While they are very good and well thought out, I just think that gender and race are far to different to classify them in the same category. Your historical analogies, while also very good, still don't...blah blah blah im tired later all. Snake im not flamin ya just stating why I disagree. Take it easy.

No-Lifer

23 September 2000, 08:58

So are women allowed in combat units in the US? Over here in the UK, Regiments are open to males only, with women working the support trades. But what do you mean by 'combat' positions...you talking about field units? Many women over here are Systems Ops, Navigatiors, Pilots in the RAF which I suppose could be called 'combat' positions.

P8nt2

23 September 2000, 14:27

I'll agree with you on 1 thing, some women are qualified physically and mentally to serve in the military. And with all the bitching from those women about how they want to serve as combatants in the Armed Forces they're bound to get their way one of these days.

Unfortunatly for the majority of the women that's not what they want. You see, there are some normal women (the cooking and cleaning type) who would rather not be drafted into the military only to recieve very basic training and be sent out as cannon fodder. Tears aren't bullet proof so all the crying int he world won't stop the stream of .223's that just pierced Johnny's chest and are heading for Marry.

I know alot of men who would get themselves killed saving a woman's life on the battle field no matter how many times that man was told in training that the woman is just another combatant. (Myself being one of them.)

P8nt2

23 September 2000, 14:32

Kiva

23 September 2000, 17:12

Originally posted by P8nt2:
[B]I'll agree with you on 1 thing, some women are qualified physically and mentally to serve in the military. And with all the bitching from those women about how they want to serve as combatants in the Armed Forces they're bound to get their way one of these days.

Unfortunatly for the majority of the women that's not what they want. You see, there are some normal women (the cooking and cleaning type) who would rather not be drafted into the military only to recieve very basic training and be sent out as cannon fodder. Tears aren't bullet proof so all the crying int he world won't stop the stream of .223's that just pierced Johnny's chest and are heading for Marry. [B]

Stuff like what you just said, and the long speeches from my father and brother, make me feel like such a weirdo... Now I'M gonna cry http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/frown.gif I'm not normal... j/k

I cook and clean. I wouldn't mind being in a combat unit, but I don't want to be under fire. I don't know about anybody else, but I like being alive. I don't think being shot at or being shot would be a good experience... But if I had to I would, that's part of your job in any branch of the armed forces, defending this country. That's everybody's primary job isn't it? It is possible for women to be in the line of fire with the current policy. If I'm wrong about that, I stand corrected.

Those women that "bitch" about wanting to be in actual combat are feminazis. AKA women who do anything in their power to piss men off. Like Ursula said above "the people pushing for women in combat are pushing for the sole reason that women are not currently allowed." Feminazis are women who would never serve a day in the military. IMO "feminazis" are not normal humans. They are strange. But women who want to be in a combat unit not out to prove a point, not out to prove men wrong and make a statement, but for their own personal reasons, are normal. They just want a job that the average "oh no I'm going to break my nail" female does not want (not that there is anything wrong with them caring about your nails). But they are still normal women. I don't think having a certain occupation would take away my womanhood.

I hope I didn't go on and on...

(Too bad I'm giving away this piece of junk computer, no time to read through this wonderful thread)

Kiva

Kiva

23 September 2000, 17:16

Originally posted by HALO11:
[B]Snake, in my friendly opinion your comparisons don't mean much. While they are very good and well thought out, I just think that gender and race are far to different to classify them in the same category.B]

I'm a black female, and in my opinion it's not that different. The things ignorant racists and ignorant sexists have said to me in my 18 yrs. have been very similar. No, I'm not calling you a sexist or a racist.

Kiva

Jeff Rambo

23 September 2000, 18:23

Guy,

Cool deal.

- Out

------------------
w/ Regards,
Jeff Rambo

------------------
I Want A Four Man Team On A Midnight Run ...

Bubbler

23 September 2000, 18:41

Snake,

I may be wrong about Hannibal and Sicily. But it was always my understanding that it was a result of Hannibals army as to why the Sicilians tend to have dark skin.

But I am going to disagree with you about Carthage. Carthage was an African city even though it may have been conquered by the Pheonicians. I use "African" interchangably, but you know the truth is that Africans come in different features and to some extent different complexions. So if the Ethipoians or Pheonicians were to have / or have semitic features that does not mean they were or are not Africans. Ok I know your going to say that the Pheonicians were not even from the African continent (which I don't think they were), but we still must keep in mind that the inhabitants of that land in north Africa prior to the coming of the Pheonicians may very well likely been still resideing in that grand city called Carthage developed by the Pheonicians. And as far as I'm concerned we today can not be sure how the Pheonicians looked. But due to the Sicilians sometimes dark and curly (even to the point of being nappy sometimes I would say) hair. I'll rest with the notion that there were black warrior in Hannibals army.

By the way since you can tell me what ethinc group was a citizen of Carthage. Then perhaps you can tell me what ethnic group is citizen of the USA?

Sharky

23 September 2000, 20:28

We had a Medical detachment at Ft. Benning about a block away from the 3rd Ranger Battalion that was full of women in uniform. One of them was a beautiful redhead that convinced me that we need women in the military. Hell, eventually she convinced half of my platoon. Too bad the 1SGT wouldn't let us take her on deployments. Beautiful redheaded medics are a definite plus to any snake-eating unit. She would even install your blank-adapter for you if you wanted her to. God bless em, we just need more of em. http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

------------------
F.I.D.O.

Yossi

23 September 2000, 20:45

Putting physical and moral reasons aside, I think that there is a major reason why woman should be allowed to join combat units. In this day and age most western armies are voluntary ones not mandatory service (like in Israel). The main problem with voluntary service is the quality of the manpower, which is often less, then ideal. This especially true with modern economy with all the high quality personal going to the High-Tech sector.

Opening as many as possible positions for females will allow more freedom in personal choosing - hence more high quality personal for the armed forces.

BTW, I think that the model displayed in the movie "Troopers" is the ideal - man and woman, same standards and same treatment (they even showered together…).

Jeff Rambo

23 September 2000, 21:28

Guy,

I'm with you know. Just wanted to get that cleared up so I was sure I didn't misunderstand where you were coming from.

Good to go.

Take care, and stay hard.

- Out

------------------
w/ Regards,
Jeff Rambo

------------------
I Want A Four Man Team On A Midnight Run ...

Kiva

23 September 2000, 22:55

Guy Jones,

1. I'm 18 years old.

2. No, there are things I still need to get ironed out with my recruiter, after that I'll be enlisting in the Army.... finally.

What caught your attention Guy?

HALO11

23 September 2000, 23:11

Good first post Kiva, and you too Guy, they both made me think a little bit differently on this matter. Though I stand by the difference between race and gender.

Kiva

24 September 2000, 00:04

Guy,

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be disrespectful at all. I apologize to P8nt2 if it sounded like I was trying to tell him what reality is. I don't know what the reality is, hopefully after I'm actually in the Army I'll find out.

The hammer of reality knocked sense into me, thank you.

Kiva

Snake

24 September 2000, 02:15

Carthaginians were ethnic Semites (In the Arab/Hebrew/Aramean group). Carthage is notable in that it was very ethnically homogenous, which is remarkable for a major trading State. If you werent a Pheonician (Carthaginian), you were carrying luggage on your head. Mostly, Carthage is just a footnote on the Roman rise to power.

The Italian peoples have most always been dark haired, the Sicilians having exceptionaly swarthy features. Plato mentions this several times. The influx of Huns and Goths didnt do anything to lighten them up, either.

The Greeks on the other hand, were lighter complected. However, when the hammer fell and the Sultan kicked open the door to Europe, Greece spent time under Turk domination (the Turks being the USSR of the day). Having your soldiers rape anything that moves will mess with a semi-homogenous gene pool. Take a look in a London cafe, then look in one in Reykjavik or Tokyo, and you'll see what I mean.

HALO: Of course race is different from Gender. However, the statement "XXXX-group is unsuitable, because YYYY-group dont like em, and thus the Army cohesion would be compromised" is still false. Whats the diff between me saying "Niggers is stupid, and we dont want em", and you saying "Bitches is weak, and we dont want em". Both silly statements, no?

Snake
25th ID(L)

P8nt2

24 September 2000, 10:17

Kiva, don't ever apologize if you believe what you're saying is correct. You made a great post too.
You don't mind if I use your word do you? Feminazis (That sums it up so well) http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

Bubbler

24 September 2000, 17:16

Originally posted by Snake:
Carthaginians were ethnic Semites (In the Arab/Hebrew/Aramean group). Carthage is notable in that it was very ethnically homogenous, which is remarkable for a major trading State. If you werent a Pheonician (Carthaginian), you were carrying luggage on your head. Mostly, Carthage is just a footnote on the Roman rise to power.

The Italian peoples have most always been dark haired, the Sicilians having exceptionaly swarthy features. Plato mentions this several times. The influx of Huns and Goths didnt do anything to lighten them up, either.

The Greeks on the other hand, were lighter complected. However, when the hammer fell and the Sultan kicked open the door to Europe, Greece spent time under Turk domination (the Turks being the USSR of the day). Having your soldiers rape anything that moves will mess with a semi-homogenous gene pool. Take a look in a London cafe, then look in one in Reykjavik or Tokyo, and you'll see what I mean.

Snake
25th ID(L)

Is there any history you don't know *smile*? Your knowledge of history is far more indepth then mine, so I'll submit to your expertise of history for the most part.

But were not going to see the same way on the issue of women in the military. And I don't find your argument to HALO all that compelling. By the way for all, there is no such thing as different races of humans. Modern science recognizes only one human race from a common ancestor. Different types of people, yes. different races, no. But now there is a major difference in the sexes, still all humans, still all one race, but a major difference. A woman carries a baby in her and can feed her child from her breasts for a reason. And my knuckles closer to a Ape for a reason.

E19

24 September 2000, 22:03

Originally posted by P8nt2:
You see, there are some normal women (the cooking and cleaning type.)

P8nt2,

What cave did you just crawl out of after 75 years in a drunken stupor?

HALO11

27 September 2000, 00:36

Snake you sure twist words real well don't you. I never once said, "Bitches is weak, and we don't want em," nor implied that. Nor did I ever say that "yyyy group is unsuitable, because xxxx group don't like em." What you say never even crossed my mind, and I have the utmost of respect for women, I don't think of them as, "bitches," and I don't think of them as, "weak." Your just jumping to conclusions. What can I say, I guess im an old-fashioned 23 year old. Im wasting too much time on this forum, im staying out of these opinion wars from now on. Im going running.

Snake

27 September 2000, 01:54

WHOAH!!
HALO, I was making no attack on you or your opinions. Was making what the Philosophy Profs call "agressive comparison".
You never did state any such thing as was outlined, but othes have. It's a standard debating trick: Take the other guys opinion to the extreme, making his statments look groundless. Mean, but fun. My part was to point out holes in the "keep the femmes out" theory, yours was to defend it. Taking offence at me attacking your statement is childish.

Snake
25th ID(L)

Paintman

27 September 2000, 06:21

A friend of mine has a boyfriend who went into Marine basic training a while ago, and is (was) a Marine.

Two days ago he was dishonorably discharged along with a female Marine Lt. in his unit for sleeping with her. He was not a Marine for even a month.

Chris

Snake

27 September 2000, 16:43

Ya play, Ya pay...

Snake
25th ID(L)

Ursula

27 September 2000, 16:56

Two individuals who get caught having sex when they've been told not to don't define either gender group as a whole as being irresponsible when co-existing.

I'm assuming you wrote what you did as an attempt to point out that human sexual nature goes on regardless of what we're told not to do, and perhaps even intended it to justify why men and women should not serve in the military together. I could say that this happends regardless of what jobs men and women have together, but national security and our freedom are much more important than Jack and Jill who work at the convenience store together. At least if they're getting it on in the stockroom there is most likely no risk of jeopardizing the lives of their coworkers or countrymen.

I work side by side with AD military and civilian men teaching combat survival, E&E, and much more. Have I been hit on? Yup. Have I been the object of sexist jokes? Yup. Have I been told I'd be better off spending my time at home "squeezing out puppies and cooking dinner for [my] man"? Yup. But I still get my job done, the big burly manly men who exude machismo and epitomize unit cohesiveness still learn what they came to learn, and in the end we're all a bit smarter and wiser.

I was hired because I can teach what needs to be taught. I was given a chance and a huge responsibility and have done well for myself and those I teach. There are exceptions to the rule that male groups will suffer if a female is instroduced. But they are exceptions, and I wouldn't place my freedom, our national security, or the lives of soldiers on the line to test this on a broad, general, military-wide platform.

-U

Paintman

27 September 2000, 18:48

Commendable
Actually I just put that in there for the heck of it, because it had relevance to the topic at hand. But I have heard lots of horror stories of women banging on men at military jobs, and vice versa.
Bottom line, you put ordinary women and men together, it's GOING to happen somewhere. Some people can't resist nature's call, I guess.

wcollar

27 September 2000, 20:51

Look at the example of the Canadian Navy:

Thursday, August 31, 2000 Back The Halifax Herald Limited

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making love, not war - for a few
The intimate surroundings of mixed-gender navy ships

The Canadian Press / file
The Canadian Navy patrol frigate HMCS St. John's cruises the Adriatic Sea during a NATO exercise in 1998.

By Deen Beeby / The Canadian Press

Men and women aboard Canada's navy ships are making love, not war, more often than their commanders may be aware, new survey results suggest.

"I have served on two mixed-gender ships," said one male sailor. "While for the most part, people behave professionally, it has always been the case that sex occurs."

Said another: "After serving on a mixed-gender ship for two years I know for a fact that sailors become intimate despite what policies and leaders dictate."

The responses, released under the Access to Information Act, suggest a hidden level of forbidden sexual activity within the narrow confines of Canada's warships, where men and women work closely at sea for months at a time.

The anonymous poll of 826 navy men and women was conducted last year. Only summary results have previously been made available - the military refused to release detailed comments from respondents.

But after a complaint by The Canadian Press to the Information Commissioner of Canada, National Defence this week provided the verbatim written responses.

The survey was conducted to help determine whether Canada should allow female sailors to serve aboard Canada's new Victoria-class Upholder submarines, the first of which arrives in Halifax on Oct. 22.

Unlike surface ships, accommodations on the cramped subs would likely be co-ed.

The problem of sexual temptation is a recurring theme in the compilation of more than 300 often-blunt comments from both males and females:

"With mixed accommodation on a sub I have no doubt that fraternization would take place when the sub is deployed. It happens quite a lot at sea - more than people are willing to admit."

"It will not be failure of leadership nor guidelines for conduct when boys and girls get together in close quarters and high-stress conditions and do what they are genetically predisposed to do."

"My observations and personal experiences showed mixed-gender ships were not always successful . . . and led to . . several broken marriages."

"It would be unrealistic to make a close environment like a submarine mixed gender and not expect a lot of fraternization and sexual misconduct."

The navy began a concerted effort to put women sailors aboard surface ships after a 1989 human rights tribunal ordered the integration of females within the Armed Forces. All of the surface fleet is now integrated to some extent.

But the human rights panel specifically excluded submarines because of the cramped, difficult conditions.

However, with the April 1998 purchase of four surplus submarines from the Royal Navy, the Canadian Forces announced it would study the feasibility of adding females to the ranks of submariners. No decision has been made.

The navy forbids sexual activity of any kind aboard ships but recognizes that personal relationships will develop, says Maj. Lynn Bradley, who has recently completed interviews for a study on mixed-gender crewing.

"Personal relationships onboard ships between members of the same crew is an issue that gets raised fairly frequently in discussions," Bradley said from Ottawa.

Navy rules require personnel to report their personal relationships with other crew members.

The pair are then typically sent to separate ships so as not to disrupt morale and cohesion, a policy that could induce some to keep their relationships a secret. The rules are currently under review.

Bradley said she knows of no statistics estimating the frequency of illicit sex aboard Canada's surface ships. The military's prosecution office says it does not keep summary statistics on sex in the navy.

The women-on-submarines survey found that two-thirds of 256 submariners who responded were opposed to allowing women to serve aboard their boats. Many said their wives would be upset about the sexual temptations.

Many also warned about the frequent exposure of private parts in cramped quarters:

". . . some woman gets undressed in the same (area) as I am in, how do you expect me not to look?"

"Very often we must dress-undress often just inches from each other, and certainly in front of many others."

"I, as a male, hope they (women submariners) sleep in the raw. I'll always have my bunk curtain open."

Only Australia and Norway currently permit women to serve on their submarines.

The Canadian navy has already rejected a proposal for an all-female submarine, estimating it would take at least 15 years to train the captain and crew.

The Upholders, ordered in 1998 for $750 million, have two decks unlike the older Oberon subs which Canada has decommissioned. But the living space remains cramped.

The navy is also examining whether to refit the Upholders to segregate the sleeping quarters, a potentially expensive solution.

DFC5343

28 September 2000, 03:08

Guys face it... when all counts....women can't be ruthless enough...kill this dead horse before it walks again...

Snake

28 September 2000, 12:18

Oh, now theres a well thought out statement. Women cant be ruthless enough? Yeah, I have fond memories of OSUT, where we strangled kittens all the live-long day. Idiot.

Snake
25th ID(L)

Daredevil

28 September 2000, 12:42

Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher.

I don't think these women were pushovers. Anyone with any doubts that a woman can be ruthless need only look at Hillary Clinton.

Fred

28 September 2000, 15:19

dfc's post was indeed idiotic

in my estimation, equally as idiotic are the neophytes indoctrinated by COO etc. who completely dismiss the cohesion issues that women in close knit units would raise.

the issue isn't whether SOME women are capable, it is a utilitarian calculation of whether adding those women = improvement or degradation of effectiveness

snake's correlation between race and gender vis-a-vis cohesion is logically inconsistent - a faulty analogy as
racism is a learned trait - and can be overcome by education, etc. Sexual behavior - the root of problems which would appear in mixed-gender SOF units is biological, and no amount of education, save emasculation (which is obviously making inroads in certain circles here) will avoid those problems.

again, you can punish behavior deemed "wrong", and the success of racial integration proves this to be effective

but it is harder to categorize as wrong completely natural feelings and behaviors (don't eeven bring some weak shit about racism being natural to some people - it is still LEARNED behavior and a logically inconsistent argument)

I'll take the analogy of the 7-11 clerks humping in the storeroom further - MP's, supply, RE folks in general - may be exposed to the long arm of combat - but it isn't nearly as critical as having your front line comabat troops cohesive - and not chasing tail or pissed off at a platoon mate for bagging pfc daiseydukes when you wanted to. Ive seen the dorm-like behavior in support units and I wouldn't want to deal with that shit from a disciplinary point, yes you can punish the behavior, but with racism it consistent ie that behavior is wrong on and off duty. Trying to make youngsters turn their hormones on and off like safety switches is a folly.

In discussing this topic for 5+ years, I've yet to have one of the gender mixing proponents elucidate the utilitarian value of females in SOF (again not some weak shit about using them in civvy recon as a spouse decoy - that may be applicable to .00001% of operations done or considered, and does not require full integration of women into SOF units anyway)

A reminder, the supreme court has upheld that serving in the military is a privilege, not a right - so CRA doesn't apply to access to all jobs (if you want the citation, I'll dredge it up for you). So the fact that 6'4" 210 LB. sgt Bertha is qualified and wants to be a Ranger is irrelevant at this point. Will she make the Rangers a more effective fighting force - I, for one, think not

bring it on

Daredevil

28 September 2000, 15:53

I have some buddies who are in support units with women and they back up what Fred has said. Batting the eyelashes at someone a little higher up goes a long way.

The point is that you have a lot of college aged kids together in a close quarters. I can only imagine that being in the military with people day in and day out it becomes your entire world and sex is going to happen.

As for the physical aspect of some support roles, one friend of mine is an Air Force mechanic, he has one girl that works with him who isn't strong enough to carry her toolbox herself. If there isn't anyone around to carry it for her, she sits on it and does nothing until someone shows up who can.

Bubbler

28 September 2000, 17:53

Originally posted by Daredevil:

As for the physical aspect of some support roles, one friend of mine is an Air Force mechanic, he has one girl that works with him who isn't strong enough to carry her toolbox herself. If there isn't anyone around to carry it for her, she sits on it and does nothing until someone shows up who can.

Sounds a bit exaggerated to me.

Kiva

28 September 2000, 18:49

Originally posted by Fred:
dfc's post was indeed idiotic

in my estimation, equally as idiotic are the neophytes indoctrinated by COO etc. who completely dismiss the cohesion issues that women in close knit units would raise.

When you said "neophytes indoctrinated by COO etc." Were you are talking about me? If so, I'm not for the integration of women in SOF units either.

Snake

29 September 2000, 00:23

Fred,
I aint arguing -for- integration. I'm telling you guys it's gonna happen. DACOWITS and their gang hold more political staying power than the American Legion, VFW, and the NRA put together. It's pretty much inevitable at this point. Me and JSOC hashed this one out back in June over on the Canadian SPECOPS board on FORNET. I predicted 10 yrs at the outside. The only question is, what kinda damage will result.
JSOC predicts catastrophe, I predict (theoretically) controllable, long term damage. But it's less damage than will result from the Army's lack of emphasis on combat training, both in Combat Arms and in CS/CSS units. -That- will get more people dead, I flat guarantee. I won't even bring up the Navy, with the Lazer-marksmanship at Great Lakes. I also have a big problem with the coversion of Heavy Mech and Armor units into Medium Weight units oriented towards peacekeeping. 'course, I thought it a mistake to disband the US VIIth Corps. If Congress wants Medium Divisions, they oughta shell out cash to stand up the 5th and 9th as Mediums...

We have bigger problems than letting the girls play in the mud.

BTW, has anyone noticed on ops (least in the Line) that Supply, Intel, and Quartermaster personnel are -all- over the FLOT? Females are already in situations where, in a sizable shooting war, they might as well be Grunts.

Snake
25th ID(L)
Gotta go meet the ROTC Sturmbahnfurher..

DFC5343

29 September 2000, 03:45

What I said is equally as idiotic as the questions in this forum raised. This is what starts the stupid dicussions. Politicans will decide rgardless of opinions. Sorry lads if that offends anyone but i have shown that one stupid comment breeds stupid points of views.

Fred

29 September 2000, 20:49

snake - I smell more than a fatalist resoluteness in your posts.
you definitely show signs of proponency

whether you know and admit it or not, you are a product of the new Army

btw, redirecting the topic to other problems in the Army (lack of combat training, decom of heavy armor units) is a good political debating move, but shows how weak your stance is in the original topic. you still avoid answering the mail on your weak race/gender analogy, as well as the right v. privilege issue

[This message has been edited by Fred (edited 09-29-2000).]

Snake

30 September 2000, 01:59

Mail? I aint got a steady box, so post it here, or I aint gonna see it.
I was trying to let sleeping dogs lie, noticing the arguments were becoming exhausted on both sides of the wire. If you'll jusmp back to around June on the Canadian portion of FORNET, you'll see a good the same issue hashed over by me and JSOC. I've held forth on everything I feel competent enough to comment on. The majority of the crowd seems to think it's intrinsically bad, but ignore the very real and overwhelmingly important -political- considerations. Simply put, the American People get the Army they deserve. If the politico's say "march", the officers and men who dont, get fired and thus no longer factor in. I.E. Integration is inevitable. Now, my opinion: It's inevitable, but not
-BAD-. Not by nature, anyway. It's the way it'll be -implemented-, thats what'll be bad.
-That-, at least, JSOC agrees with me on.
Of course, I'm a product of the New Army. I upped in '96, how could I -not- be. My Dad would refer to -You- as "New Navy", i.e.
post '65, post Zumwalt. Nothing I can do about that, I inherited the Army that Ole SF'er, Tracy, Hazen, JY, etc all left to me.
I try to do my best.

BTW, do you agree with me about combat training re: lack thereof?

Snake
25th ID(L)

HALO11

30 September 2000, 02:29

Wow Fred that was a smart argument. Exactly what I was trying to say, but not so successfully as you!

Snake that's great if you didn't mean offense, and Im normally a very easy going guy, but there a few things in this world that just tick me off, and implying I said something I didn't is one of those things. Thats why I was angry, have you ever been upset by someones comments? Do you consider that, "childish?" Haha, i've been called a few things in my life but childish has never been one of them. I just don't get into this 'debate' crap.

[This message has been edited by HALO11 (edited 09-30-2000).]

Snake

30 September 2000, 04:33

Ah,
sorry HALO, I read you wrong on that one. I -at no time- meant to imply that you said that. That was me pointing out that "blanket" statements = incorrect statements. Read my post again without reading such an intent into it. I was pointing out that if one blanket statement is incorrect, the same statement made about another group is probably also in error. See where I'm going?

Ted

30 September 2000, 13:42

Snake, I used to be enlisted, but now I'm an officer. You are right, we need to do more about combat training, as that is what the military is supposed to do. However, the military is not be used as some social engineering experiment nor is it to be used to advance a particular group's political agenda.

When I went to PLDC back in 94, I observed that the women were not held to the same standards as the men, in spite of all the lip service that was spouted off about "standards being the same for everyone". I even spoke to some of the women there, and they agreed that the standards were different for them. In all honesty, the lack of standards was due to the shitbag male instructors there that allowed this to go on, but the women took advantage of their laxity.

Why do you want to institute this duplicity into the combat units of the Army?

It's bad enough that the rest of the units have to put up with it, don't let it creep into other areas. And don't fool yourself, this topic is being used by politicians (and some military officers) solely to advance their own careers.

Snake

30 September 2000, 15:20

I'll restate once more:
I aint advocating integration. I -dont- want it to happen for one reason only. It'll be clumsily implemented, with a drop in standards across the board. Thats pretty much my only objection.

Ted, -of course- politicians are using it to feed their machine. What did you expect?

Snake
25th ID(L)

wcollar

30 September 2000, 19:21

Snake,
The problem arises because the military is supposed to fulfill two separate tasks: functional and societal. The functional task is to be prepared to win the nation's wars. If you can't win your military conflicts then you risk becoming either poltically irrevalent or, even worse, like the French (always having to kiss German #ss). The societal task is to establish a proper connection to society so that the military maintains a healthy role in the country. A military divorced from society is prone to be poltically meddlesome (like those Latin American military dictatorships) on one extreme and potentially useless on the other (because no one knows how to properly utilize it and no one wants to join it). Neither of those scenarios is good.

The current feminization of the military is being done in the name of the societal task: the military must resemble society at large as well as provide an equal opportunity to all its members. What Fred, JSOCMarine and all the others are arguing is that in the pursuit of this societal imperative (we all know who's leading it)we are seriously risking our ability to fulfill our primary function: winning wars. By embracing this societal task (as you advocate. Just look at the posts on the Canadian Forum)and not fighting for the functional task, we accelerate the destructiveness of these policies. Just look at all those careerist officers who are agressively implementing COO and its spinoffs and the damage they're causing from that.

As a world power with global interests, we will still be drawn into military conflicts and some of those will be intense. Our failure to be ready for them will translate into dead people. Our military has a pretty sh*tty record of being prepared to fight at the beginning of a conflict. Bull Run, the Kasserine Pass, Task Force Smith and certain actions in Grenada are examples of the consequences of our unpreparedness. Fred and JSOCMarine may not get it according to the "new" military but they get it all too well according to history and experience. To continue our current military policies only increases the chances of a military f#ck up that will unnecessarily kill our soldiers. To not speak up about it because it's the party line or it's inevitable will only make things worse.

A little perspective can be gained from T. R. Fehrenbach in his discription of the problems the 24th ID faced in fighting at the beginning of the Korean War:

What happened to them might have happened to any American in the summer of 1950. For they represented exactly the kind of pampered, undisciplined, egalitarian army their society had long desired and had at last achieved....They had been raised to believe the world was without tigers, then sent to face those tigers with a stick.

R/Wcollar

HALO11

30 September 2000, 23:20

Snake, gotcha, guess i've just been a little defensive lately on this forum. Thanks for the clarification. It's tough to discern real intention just by reading words on a comp. screen.

WS-G

1 October 2000, 04:30

Yossi:

Opening as many as possible positions for females will allow more freedom in personal choosing - hence more high quality personal for the armed forces.

Define "high quality".

With regard to the following statement you made: BTW, I think that the model displayed in the movie [Starship] Troopers is the ideal - man and woman, same standards and same treatment (they even showered together…).

... I say (1) read the novel, and (2) that bit about mixed-gender showers is ludicrous (êçåâî).

------------------
Co. G (-)(Abn/Rgr), 143d INF(LRRP), TXARNG 1981-1985
433MAW (AFRES), 1985-1991
Co. G, 143d Inf (LRS), 2000-present

State of Texas certified Peace Officer

FAA-certificated pilot and Advanced Ground Instructor

Enfield

1 October 2000, 06:14

Speaking of Starship Troopers...
In the novel, Heinlein has the Infantry all male, but the pilots are all female, because women have better reaction time and can stand G's better.

Is this true? Would women, physically, make better pilots?

Enfield

trident86

1 October 2000, 11:40

Ted, you are exactly right with the dichotomy of physical standards bit. As long as there are two or more sets of people held to two or more sets of standards, we cannot possibly view everyone equally. We (most males) want the same set of standards across the board, as do quite a few of the women I've worked with, but we all know that this will never happen, since our leadership is deathly afraid someone will throw the discrimination card on the table.
This is what I really dread: we allow women into the Special Operations and Submarine communities, allowing two separate physical standards (due to obvious physiological differences). Our leadership has demonstrated that it will not risk failure in this social experiment, once begun. I can easier swallow women working beside me under a different standard, than the slew of males who couldn't cut it under the old standard, who in turn reapply and demand to be let through under the women's standard.

One last thought--there is a lot of pressure to meet recruiting quotas, and women make up at least 50% of the US population, so some think that opening up ALL jobs to both genders will increase the number of female recruits. I don't support this, but hear about it almost daily within the hallowed walls of our Bureau of Personnel in DC.

WS-G

1 October 2000, 16:46

Enfield:

To answer your question...
Speaking of Starship Troopers...
In the novel, Heinlein has the Infantry all male, but the pilots are all female, because women have better reaction time and can stand G's better.
Is this true? Would women, physically, make better pilots?

No.

The late Dr. Heinlein also had the protagonist of that novel alluding to the necessity of probability, game theory and similar subjects as being indispensible to the training of a military officer. This isn't true either.

The term "story factor" comes to mind.

------------------
Co. G (-)(Abn/Rgr), 143d INF(LRRP), TXARNG 1981-1985
433MAW (AFRES), 1985-1991
Co. G, 143d Inf (LRS), 2000-present

State of Texas certified Peace Officer

FAA-certificated pilot and Advanced Ground Instructor

Snake

1 October 2000, 18:30

Trident,
you basically boiled down what I was trying to say. Well said, especially about the non-hackers reapplying under the -female- standards, aieeeee....

Snake
25th ID(L)

wcollar

1 October 2000, 19:04

Trident86,
The reason why everyone is saying that at BUPERS is because the CNP and the senior leadership have not yet articulated the definitive policy on the integration of women into most communities. What you have is a host of O5/O6's who are charged with implementing these programs but who don't yet know the exact goals and are thus willing to try anything. I had to sit in on one meeting and it was obvious that no one knows exactly where we're heading with all this.
IRT different standards with subs and spec ops, there already exists two different physical standards for the surface and aviation communities. In surface, you need strength for damage control. There was a 1985 study from the Naval Personnel Research and Development Center in San Diego that found women quite unprepared to perform five common damage-control tasks: carrying stretchers up and down ladders and across level surfaces, moving and starting emergency pumps, turning engine bolts, and directing fire hoses. If they chunked the standards for one community and no one's really complained, what's stopping them from doing it with the other communities? I just don't want to be there during the next USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS situation when the whole crew has to fight for the survival of the ship and those double standards will finally hit back with full force. V/R wcollar.

RUDEDAWG

2 October 2000, 13:06

Thanks Fred for your posts,

I had been tracking this thread for a while and was unsure how to counter some of the arguments being presented seemingly in favor of gender integration. I wasn't sure how to phrase it but you hit the nail on the head. The physical differences between man and woman create a greater divide than the cultural differences between black and white.

9533

2 October 2000, 18:21

Fred and Trident,

Great responses! Good day to you both.

P.S. Fred, based on your intelligent and cogent replies it appears the "Post-Graduate" education is paying off in spades!

Enfield

2 October 2000, 19:49

WM Salter - Just a simple question.. =o) Figured since he usually puts forth a lot of facts, and his own beliefs in his novels that maybe that was one.

Enfield

Snake

6 March 2007, 16:08

OMG IT'S BACK!!!!

6 March 2007

WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq, which has killed or wounded more US women in combat than any other conflict, has redefined their role in the military and triggered a rethink of their place on the front line.

Women in the US military are barred from belonging to ground combat units under rules drawn up by the Pentagon more than a decade ago and are limited to serving on surface warships and in attack aircraft.

But Afghanistan and Iraq, where the lack of any clear front lines as such has drawn many US military women directly into the line of fire, have become proving grounds for female soldiers in battle.

“The Iraq war marks a turning point for women in the military,” Lori Manning, a retired Navy captain who heads the Women in the Military Project at the Women’s Research and Education Institute near Washington, told AFP.

“These two wars, if they’ve done nothing else, they have shown that women can be quite effective in ground combat,” she added.

“In Iraq, women are certainly engaging in defensive ground combat, if not more, and they are doing it very well.

“So all the horrors that people used to predict about men going to pieces if women were injured, or the American public not being able to bear it if women were killed, those things haven’t happened.”

There are about 150,000 women currently enrolled in the US Army. Eighty-three have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002, and more than 500 have been wounded, according to Pentagon figures. About 70 of those killed were in Iraq, as were the majority of those wounded.

While the Army maintains it has honored its combat policy concerning female soldiers, the guerrilla war taking place in Iraq, along with a shortage of trained troops and an increasing number of women in senior military positions, have blurred the traditional lines between combat and support functions.

“We now have real-life experience, current experience, that we can drawn on when we look at the question of women in combat again,”Manning said. “In the past we just sort of had to guess.”

An attempt by some members of Congress in May 2005 to translate into law Pentagon regulations concerning women in combat was quickly shelved under pressure by the Bush administration which realized the pitfalls of such a move.

“They realized that if women couldn’t fight, they would have to pull everyone out,” said Manning. “I think our experience in Iraq will result in us abolishing the (Pentagon) policy ... but the whole question is tabled and it will stay tabled until the end of the war unless something dramatic happens.”

Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Hilferty, a Pentagon spokesman, said though female soldiers are not “assigned to units whose primary mission is to engage enemy forces in direct ground combat, (...) all soldiers are warriors, and all soldiers are trained and ready to fight when necessary.”

Opponents to putting women in ground combat maintain that their presence on the front line would hinder the effectiveness and cohesion of fighting units and accuse the Army of toying with semantics and sophistry in order to send women to battle.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, charged that female soldiers were being assigned to jobs, which on paper appear to be out of the line of fire.

In reality, however, she said, they are placed in units that engage in direct ground combat.

She said that by circumventing regulations, the Army was placing its soldiers in harm’s way because of the physical disadvantage of women in combat situations, and because romantic liaisons could harm unit cohesion.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...on=focusoniraq

English

6 March 2007, 20:39

My mother was a Commander, and served on the USS Constellation during it's deployment to the Persian Gulf in the 90's. I'm extremely proud of her, but I still agree that women should not be in combat roles.

Purple36

7 March 2007, 06:25

Damnit, I just spent too long reading through posts that sound like they're from an Airsoft site. Then I noticed this thread is from 2000. If any of you are still lurking around who've promised to boycott the military if women are in SOF units-put your money where your mouth is. But you won't. Hot air and immature.

SWCC18

7 March 2007, 10:48

GUY JONES PM me!

Guy

8 March 2007, 08:15

GUY JONES PM me!Send it...

Stay safe.

Mrswildweasel

8 March 2007, 18:09

You know I thought I had just about heard everything when I landed in an all male shop when I was in. Even if the doors were open to women filling combat rolls as long as they can pass the same standards as men for those jobs, I think you'd still only have a handful of women that would qualify.
The crap I had to deal with when I was in was unbelievable, but you know what..once I proved I could do my job and do it well it all ended. I've even done that in my civilian life with a few jobs I had.
I am one that believes that there are some jobs that shouldn't be opened up to women also.

PsYcHo16

8 March 2007, 18:16

Great read guys. Speaking of which, we have a wonderfull womens app. ceremony tommorow for USASOC, with some high level women in the military giving a presentation on contributions they have made over the years.

We were told that it was going to be a 2 hour long pres, and we were to be there with smiling faces, my reply to my det SGT, was where do we get issued our smiling faces?

busdriver

8 March 2007, 20:13

I've heard a bunch of crap about women in the military, as we all have. If the job requires a certain standard of physical ability than gender be damned that's what it is. Gender norming for PFT standards is OK, they only exist to make sure you stay in shape. I can see problems in inter personal dynamic in close nit units. But anyone claiming women don't have the "killer instinct" don't understand a professional soldier's mindset (by soldier I mean anyone shooting at the enemy).

Mav

8 March 2007, 20:22

Gryfen-FL

8 March 2007, 20:35

It's not all bad. We just had to load shit up today & got some new tents in. On the bags it said "6 person mixed gender lift". And the jokes didn't stop untill lunch break. Made the morning go much faster.

....problem ain't chicks in the military. It's the fuckers who've never worn boots trying to stick their noses where they don't belong.

PsYcHo16

8 March 2007, 21:12

MixedLoad

8 March 2007, 21:34

Thank god for mod's/admin's on this board. Back then it was a mess!

This place has come a long ways from 2000.

SnakeEat

8 March 2007, 21:56

http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/archives/2007/01/012607-gender_barrier.aspx

Guy

8 March 2007, 23:16

Snake

8 March 2007, 23:19

Yeah, I don't know how it ended up the SEAL forum. Must have been during the expansion a few years back (used to only have 1 forum for each Service).

busdriver

8 March 2007, 23:23

I remember reading an article that stated the army had done studies that explained that seperate basic was necessary to bring both genders up to snuff while still properly challenging each without creating undue unjuries. Basically, women showed a higher incidence of stress fractures and required a different ramp up to full on ruck marches. Unfortuneatly the political correctness bug bit the military as a whole and everyone suffers as a result.

Guy

8 March 2007, 23:53

Unfortuneatly the political correctness bug bit the military as a whole and everyone suffers as a result.If they want to do a study...

Study the commercial construction "building" field; ain't many women in this field also!;)

Stay safe.

Purple36

12 March 2007, 05:33

Being a part "of" SOF is one thing...going thru training and become one...is a different story!

Stay safe.

Tru Dat Guy, but that wasn't how the post was written, so I replied to as is!
Where were you this weekend?:D

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 12:38

B 2/75

13 April 2007, 12:52

Reconraider, I'm sorry, but that has got to be the most severely retarded posting I've seen in quite a long time.

Did you come up with all that data all by yourself?

Hoepoe

13 April 2007, 12:56

Someone should define a combat role. It is a role whereby the person is in the field in an either defensive or offensive function.

It isi not specific to carrying heavy packs as do infantry.

It could be tankers, pilots, signals, intelligence etc.

Physically, there is no reason why women cannot perform combat duties that are suited to them.

Currently the IDF has several women and mixed gender combat units. These ramge from infantry to fighter pilots.

Looking back at history, the Palmach and Haganah also has many women combatants that fought in our War of Independence.

The whole testosterone post above is also not a valid argument. Man, have you ever argued with a really pissed off woman? Our testosterone has nothing on them :-)

Some relevant pictures here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVz6d24Q52c

Hoepoe

HOLLiS

13 April 2007, 13:01

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 18:37

I am so sorry that I used facts about the difference in men and women to back up the argument on why women should not be in combat roles, don't mean to be confusing the argument with facts here Gents.

If you seriously think you can say with a straight face that women can fight as hard as long and as mean as a man, then let me ask questions,

Why is it that domestic violence laws are more for the protection of women and not the Male partners even though now they are finding that women start half of the physical fights?

Why is it when a domestic fight does happen the woman almost always has much more severe injuries?

Why is it women don't compete in boxing, Martial Arts, Wrestling(the real kind) with men. Why because a woman Boxer ect knows her chances of ever being succesful if these were coed would be nil.

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 18:42

Did you come up with all that data all by yourself?

No they hide facts like that in books.

HOLLiS

13 April 2007, 18:53

Recon, I would suggest getting a close look at the "Bell shaped curve"

Generally women may or may not be things, specifically is another issue. BTW there is this piece of equipment called a rifle that tends to put people on par with each other, along with other weapon systems. Being bigger is not necessary any better.

Generally in marriages, women marry men who are bigger than they are. Generally women have softer jobs.

Whether women could be snake eaters is a whole lot different than being a plain Jane grunt. Most men who try for SF Never make it. I guess the men who don't make it through Selection or Q are.... Gilly Men? No, they are not.

The bell shape curve for men and women overlap, where they overlap we have agreement of their abilities to carry out the same function, where they don't we have problems trying to force one or the other to conform.

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 19:03

The bell shape curve for men and women overlap, where they overlap we have agreement of their abilities to carry out the same function, where they don't we have problems trying to force one or the other to conform.

And my argument is this, as far as ground combat goes, wear the meet the standard must be higher,

With a 100 pound ruck and weapon, how many women could make it in an infantry march seriosly, lets say some horse of a woman makes it lets say 3 or four, so lets turn the whole military on its ear for this , to let these 2 or 3 freaks of nature in now do we build seperate heads for them or what showers what?

Want documentation on the difference in men and women their is? There is a branch of research called exercise physiology, which has studied the physical capacities of men and women in near-infinite detail (largely to help in training athletes.) Check relative cardiac capacity, erythrocyte counts, muscle-mass-to-body-mass. I'm not making wild assertions. You can find all of this in any university library.

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 19:24

Another thing any man here letssay your lying in bed, you hear a bump in the night are you going to tell your wife she should go check it out, or are we gonna' talk about bell curves and girls are in the IDF. Or are you going to protect your wife, I tell you what my wife would shoot me if i suggested that as I lay there. Kinda the same thing as letting your wives and daughters go do the fighting

Gryfen-FL

13 April 2007, 19:25

I've been watching and waiting for this thread to finally give out it's last gasp and expire, but it's still more of the same. Good thing for me, I’m not holding my breath.

RECONRAIDER: You haven't brought up anything that hasn't been hashed over ad nauseam years ago. What's your point?

HOLLiS

13 April 2007, 19:31

And my argument is this, as far as ground combat goes, wear the meet the standard must be higher,

With a 100 pound ruck and weapon, how many women could make it in an infantry march seriosly, lets say some horse of a woman makes it lets say 3 or four, so lets turn the whole military on its ear for this , to let these 2 or 3 freaks of nature in now do we build seperate heads for them or what showers what?

Want documentation on the difference in men and women their is? There is a branch of research called exercise physiology, which has studied the physical capacities of men and women in near-infinite detail (largely to help in training athletes.) Check relative cardiac capacity, erythrocyte counts, muscle-mass-to-body-mass. I'm not making wild assertions. You can find all of this in any university library.

I understand with what you are saying. I think the problem where things over lap. How any "soldiers"/grunts will hump 100 pounds or can. There are also combat units that are mechanized, support, etc.

I can see high standards for units, like Rangers, ,Recon, SF etc. With the current changes in how the military is utilized maybe not so much with the regular infantry.

BTW, I was a Grunt in RVN in '69. I think there are other issue other than physical that would probably be a bigger hurdle for women getting into the infantry.

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 19:48

This is my thing, women already risk their lives, having us. I do not beleive men are thebetter sex, I feel women are, I beleive women on average are kinder more thoughtful and giving, andshould be excluded from it as their right ,but that is a moral argument and a can of worms I would not want to open here.

From a logical and evolutionary view point a woman's survivial were more valuble to the species than men, up until a hundred or twohunred years ago we needed as many women to breed children, a couple of times, in our history we almost went extinct as a species, Homo Sapians, and if women went off to hunt and fight when there were less humans in Europe than there are gorillas in Africa now, we would have gone bye bye,women each are needed to produce kids, where as one man can impregnate in theory 1000 women and then die, , isn't it logical that men would hince have evolved a far far superiour hunting/fighting ability than women since they had to be the ones to go out and do this.

If combat involve Gymnastics, and a multi tasking mind, then the men would stay home and raised the kids in Anceint times and in prehistory

Women actualy in lots of Macho War cultures had more rights or as many as men, in Sparta women made all the choices in the home and about her and her husbands property when he was away fighting. Women who had children were as venerated as the men who fought for it was for there society and they risked death, to bring kids into society. Women worked jobs more than us up until recently for us. and yet they diod not consider it wrong for only men to go fight.

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 19:52

Gryfen-FL

13 April 2007, 20:24

It's actually been interesting to see some of the different perspectives out there. And, see who considers which roles to be ‘combat’.

I’m pretty sure DACOWITZ didn’t have a clear grasp of the kind of shit truckers can get into. Those clowns are a fucking liability as far as I’m concerned, and Military policy should damn well be decided by the Military. Given the background of many people on this board, they could probably come up with a better plan given a few kegs of beer & a SocNet linkup.

Reasons for women to NOT be in combat roles have been well delineated. And it's been said before; the tricky part is defining ‘combat roles’.

The physiological / psychological issues as they apply to females in a field / combat environment have already been brought to the table. Re-hashing the liabilities in and of them selves isn’t helping to define a ‘combat role’.

RECONRAIDER: Is a trucker a 'combat role'. How'bout MP, EOD, various types of Engineers, Field Medics....ets. What's your .02?

And just for the record: Oh my God! I'm out of Beer. That's what bothers me. :)

13 April 2007, 20:28

If it bothers you don't watch it.
Don't be rude or you can take your argument elswhere.

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 20:33

Actually I wasn't being rude but I guess someone can call your post retarted and thats not rude.

I din't see you Mod him

I made no name calling or such. I have strong opinions, but have not insulted anyone, even when i was insulted.

13 April 2007, 20:50

Fine.

Everybody be nice to RECONRAIDER.

Now, I say you are rude because I percieve highly opinionated people as not percieving when they are rude. In addition, you haven't picked up on contextual trends here.

So, be cool with your highly opinionated self or find a different outlet.

13 April 2007, 20:52

Disclaimer. B2/75, a vetted member here, is fully authorized to call any post he wants, whatever he wants to call it.

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 20:59

DY

Ill just stay over in the Recon/Marine threads and leave you be, since speaking your mind is considered rude here

Sorry I caused you grief

13 April 2007, 21:04

Speaking your mind is not considerred rude here. Being rude is considerred rude here.

How long would you like your hiatus to be?

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 21:07

DY edit: Please. Just stop.

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 21:17

:) :) :)

13 April 2007, 21:25

Ok dude. Here is what rude IS NOT. I know that you are going to be hitting the "post" button a few more times, so I hang around here to provide some insight in the hopes that you might chill, in spite of the fact that I have other things I need to be doing right now.

But you lack. Insight of what I've been trying to do. You lack. Understanding of what this website fosters. You lack. Probably some other things, but you are most likely a real vet, so I give you some stretch. So here I sit, spending my time writing stuff for your benefit. If you can't handle that, what makes you think that going alongside your fellow MArines in another forum topic is going to comfort you. You apprently haven't realized that the other MArines here who have been here for a while "Get it." So I have specifically asked if they would be willing to tighten you up on the knowledge of how things go here.

Now, in spite of what you may be doing this Friday night, I am going to go do some other things equally as important as catering to you. Sorry, if that offends you.

RECONRAIDER

13 April 2007, 22:00

Really not offended, I just was offering facts, and suddenly everyone got like I was insulting their mother, How do things work in here I am not trying to cause hate and discontent, sure if you insult my posts or me I might try to back you up, being a bit of a BTDT I feel i have as much right as anybody to post my opinion as someone who may have 1000 or more posts. I have nothing against anyone here, I have a right to post my opinions so do they, they can disagree with what I say i can with them(Or am I wrong) i just wanted to debate, campare notes with people of a similar background, by coming here

Not running back to Marines for comfort just conceeding it is not my forum and backing out, because it ain't that importantthat I have to make enemies. I just posted smilys just to show I was not being a pisser since the internet does not lend itself to showing tone of a remark.:)

I am done with this thread so yo can know I wont trouble you anymore friend

B 2/75

14 April 2007, 00:48

Lets see why shouldn't women be in combat.

Testosterone is the hormone of aggression. Males have much much much more of it. it is what makes us fight,and give muscles strength size and stamina.
Doesn't have anything to do with females in combat

Male hormone levels are normal at 400 to 600 hundred parts per deciliter of blood , and up to 900 normal, of natural occuring testosterone
studies have found military male members naturally having way over a thousand.
On this lil factoid I throw the BS flag. You're claiming that male servicemembers have an increase of testosterone above the civilian male population of 20 - 100%???? To quote Penn and Teller.... Bullshit.

If a woman is 50 parts per deciliter, she is elevated in testosterone levels.
Doesn't have anything to do with females in combat

Male skeletons handle stress of combat training far beyond any woman's
Another BS flag... bones are bones, and here you're talking training, not combat.

Bet you go to Navy Seals Marine Recons, and such youl find higher than average Testosterone levels in them, makes you more agressive gives muscle more stamina and hince helps you last through training.
More BS, which still doesn't have anything to do with females in combat

BTW Service in the military is a privelege, it is not a right. there is no equal opportunity in it.
[b]On this point we agree to a point... service is not a right, and while there is indeed EEO, everyone can't be a NinjaRangerSFReconSealButtPirateSniper. However, there are more than one females on this site who, as combat vets, will I'm sure take exception with your comments.

I called your posting retarded because it is a poorly considered, ill-thought out line of BS from what I believe to be a guy who doesn't think much of, nor treat women very well.

I'll predict that should you continue to express opinions of this type and extreme, you will find your stay here rather short. Not because the members of this board are pricks, but rather because they simply don't make it a habit of supporting small-mindedness.

BTW, welcome to SOCnet. This place is a wealth of information, from some of the most experienced people in the world. But please remember the rules, as posted in the sticky note Rules of Engagement.

SOTB

16 April 2007, 09:37

Ill just stay over in the Recon/Marine threads and leave you be, since speaking your mind is considered rude here....Well, your stay there will also be short-lived if you cannot write your posts without an overwhelming presence of ASSitude.

You CAN debate such a topic as this one without being rude. Sure, emotions sometimes generate poorly-worded posts. Calm thinking and a willingness to go back and clarify something previously written go a long ways towards getting your points across without offending.

Follow the advice given, or find yourself not welcome in the jarhead AO as well....

shiningpath

19 April 2007, 18:38

We need more women not less. However, a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Women should not be inserted as links in the strongest chains.
They also shouldn't be integrated into combat units where their presence might compromise the mission.

Southern boy's are trained from a very early age to treat women differently. Wherever you're from, I suspect that a woman on your right or left might influence your decision to spontaneously lead a bayonet charge. :)

Now I suppose being in armour might be different. I reckon a woman could kick ass in a tank just as well as anyone. Infantry? No way.

Bailaviborita

20 April 2007, 16:13

There are women in the service doing some hairy stuff- but they are the exception for their gender. In an organization that favors merit, professionalism, and competence- what hangs in your pants (or doesn't) isn't that important. Unfortunately, many units in the Army don't favor merit, professionalism, or competence. Standards are not enforced, double-standards exist, and politics rule. Where you have that type of atmosphere, it is my opinion that if you are engaged in combat men should not have to put up with the added distraction of women. Until women in society stop viewing themselves as victims and "historically oppressed" (and thus needing "affirmative action"), having women in combat units leads to more problems than it solves. The Armed Services are a service to the nation- not a right- and when people's lives are at risk we shouldn't be trying to undo biology. Having said that- if you ARE a bad-ass woman, you have plenty of opportunities. It just sucks if you are the average woman .................................and you want to be like a man. ;)

KidA

20 April 2007, 16:18

If they'd just make all the women work in the chow halls the food would be better and the dudes would be freed up to do man stuff.

Just sayin'

ubtaught

27 April 2007, 20:10

Greetings:

As a 92B10 ('82 -'85) with a BS in biochemistry allow me to introduce all of you to the fetus...
...until the testicles develop we are, (until about the end of first trimester) for all intents and purposes, female.

Now, while I have your attention...

Has anyone brought up the IDF? I apologize for not reading each post...but my grandfather was heavy into the ADL and B'nai Brith and I remember talking to two IDF officers who had come to speak and they told me that Uzi's were designed for women. I admit, I was about nine or ten and I may have heard things wrong but it is my understanding that the Israelis have had women in combat positions, including, if I remember my friend who did a tour in Germany, in armor.

What info/intel do we have from the Israelis about women in combat?

Also, if Vikings aren't going back too far...mom trained little Viking Junior in how to swing an axe.

Women have a place in the military and just as there are some men I wouldn't want in a foxhole with me there some women, my mom one of them, I would love to have in a foxhole with me (keep your pants zipped!). Ask me about my mom and an assault with a deadly weapon charge.

I suggest all men read a book by Blackledge called the Story of V.

Once women can be bio-modded (increased strength, bone mass etc) I think we all might find that a female SEAL might just show a male SEAL a thing or to about converting 'Charlie' into subatomic particles while silently laughing.

Just a thought from a newbie...I will be taking cover now...

Tim Roesch
Command Private Major

Spinner

27 April 2007, 20:20

Once women can be bio-modded...

I assume by bio-modded you mean that once a woman can be biologically modified to perform to the standards expected of men in that field.

And what about when men are "bio-modded" to increase their bone density and muscle mass? At that point, you'd be back to square one. If this biomodification meant an increase in strength and endurance for one gender, I imagine it would do the same for the other.

Looon

27 April 2007, 20:40

This is an entertaining thread, to say the least........

SOTB

27 April 2007, 22:52

Just a thought from a newbie...I will be taking cover now....Good idea -- Read More, Post Less....

Parajuevos

27 April 2007, 23:23

Greetings:

As a 92B10 ('82 -'85) with a BS in biochemistry allow me to introduce all of you to the fetus...
...until the testicles develop we are, (until about the end of first trimester) for all intents and purposes, female.

Now, while I have your attention...

Also, if Vikings aren't going back too far...mom trained little Viking Junior in how to swing an axe.

Women have a place in the military and just as there are some men I wouldn't want in a foxhole with me there some women, my mom one of them, I would love to have in a foxhole with me (keep your pants zipped!). Ask me about my mom and an assault with a deadly weapon charge.

I suggest all men read a book by Blackledge called the Story of V.

Just a thought from a newbie...I will be taking cover now...

Tim Roesch
Command Private Major
Now, while I have your attention, let me point out some things to you.

The Vikings? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. That was some time ago, wasn't it? Women may have been a little rougher around the edges then, due to the circumstances of their times and I doubt that any of them were on the ships wielding swords against their foe, with Lief Erikson and his crew.

As for your assertion that any of us should read a book by someone named Blackledge, called the Story of V, my response would be; Maybe I will, but I'll stake my reputation on the fact that the BTDT on this forum know more about serving in the combat arms, in todays military than Blackledge does.

By the way, how long did you serve in the Infantry and how many miles have you lugged 60 or 70 pounds of gear over rugged terrain? Never? You don't say. Well, I'll be damned.:confused: :rolleyes: :D

That said, there are plenty of places in the Military that women perform extraordinarily well and are an asset to our armed forces. But realistically, they are just not physically designed to perform the stressful jobs of an Infantry Soldier or Marine, a Seal, a Green Beret or a Ranger.

Currahee and Garry Owen to you Sir and have a nice day.

e5wsf

27 April 2007, 23:58

Greetings:

..Once women can be bio-modded (increased strength, bone mass etc) I think we all might find that a female SEAL might just show a male SEAL a thing or to about converting 'Charlie' into subatomic particles while silently laughing.

ehh, no.

I'm just too lazy to type out everything that is wrong with this statement.

Type-82

28 April 2007, 02:53

Well well well.. WHat a den of pig slop I am going to wade into... First and foremost. I married a female soldier. She had every right to be in the military and performed to a very high level and was subsequently promoted before her peers. That said, no I don't believe women belong in combat units. I did a presentation when I was attending an EO school on this very subject. I wish I still had all of the documentations. I'll summarize. The average woman is physically weaker than the average male. The top % of women can be trained to perform to the same standards as the average man given the same level of training. There is no shortage of men willing to volunteer for combat units. Based on the events of WWII the Russians said they would never again employ women in combat rolls in their armed forces. Women in the Israeli Mmilitary contrary to common belief are not front line combat soldiers. Women are in fact more vicious than most men (ask any guy who has been thru a divorce).

"Most" women do not want to be in combat units (have you seen the huge protests now that there is a shooting war going on of women demanding to be assigned to combat units?) If women want equality in the military, when will they fight to be included in the selective service system? Bottom line is, "Some" women want advantage in the military and see combat units as a way to gain this advantage. I am sure there are women who would perform well and are capable of the rigors of combat, however, should the entire social structure of a well oiled combat unit be required to change to accommodate this? My answer is no. There is no need other than to satisfy the feel good we are equal mentality of a minority. The cost to rediness is to great.

NightLandNav

28 April 2007, 04:28

Women in the Military? They kick ass...That's been settled.

Now, in Combat Arms...situation dictates...clearly there are women = to the task, so at that point there is only one "?"...what effect on the men around them?

It's been done in modern warfare...and there is plenty of precedent, look it up...see for yourself.

To ignore the obvious for PC..OR ANY reason...in the balance of second to second life and death reality? It's not Venus vs. Mars...not at all.

But it IS...win vs. lose.

SOTB

28 April 2007, 04:37

....maybe it was that ass.It was the ass....

Bravo Five Romeo

28 April 2007, 04:37

...I remember talking to two IDF officers who had come to speak and they told me that Uzi's were designed for women. I admit, I was about nine or ten and I may have heard things wrong but it is my understanding that the Israelis have had women in combat positions, including, if I remember my friend who did a tour in Germany, in armor.

Unless my memory fails me, the UZI was developed as a short barreled weapon for tank crews and was later adopted by the paras and other units for it's ease of maneuverability in CQB.

As to women in combat in the IDF... there are no women in infantry or related combat arms units in the IDF. That's not to say Israeli women haven't seen combat. The misconception regarding women in the combat arms in the IDF stems from the equal policy of mandatory service for women and men alike in Israel.

Hoepoe

28 April 2007, 05:13

Unless my memory fails me, the UZI was developed as a short barreled weapon for tank crews and was later adopted by the paras and other units for it's ease of maneuverability in CQB.

As to women in combat in the IDF... there are no women in infantry or related combat arms units in the IDF. That's not to say Israeli women haven't seen combat. The misconception regarding women in the combat arms in the IDF stems from the equal policy of mandatory service for women and men alike in Israel.

A few years back a mixed, male/female infantry unit was formed as a pilot. It has so far been very successful. It's called caracal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion

There are also women in MP units assigned to hostile areas, border police (para-mil police), as well as AA units in the field in combat positions. There are also female combat flight navigators and one that was in fight pilots course, but unfortunately did not complete training.

Women are combat capable. Combat:

Military. active, armed fighting with enemy forces.
a fight, struggle, or controversy, as between two persons, teams, or ideas.

One does not need to be 6 foot and broad shoulders to fight.

It is all about defining the suitable combat roles for females as opposed to men.

Hoepoe

NightLandNav

28 April 2007, 06:01

SOTB,

I edited my post...but you are right...it was her ass.

NO argument there.

KidA

28 April 2007, 09:51

Unless my memory fails me, the UZI was developed as a short barreled weapon for tank crews and was later adopted by the paras and other units for it's ease of maneuverability in CQB.

Much better weapon for tank crews than the damned "Grease Gun," that's for sure!

Type-82

28 April 2007, 10:16

Women are combat capable. Combat:

Military. active, armed fighting with enemy forces.
a fight, struggle, or controversy, as between two persons, teams, or ideas.

One does not need to be 6 foot and broad shoulders to fight.

It is all about defining the suitable combat roles for females as opposed to men.

Hoepoe

I never said women were not combat capable. I said there is no need other than to bolster careers. Perhaps I have missed something. Is there a large number of female soldiers pushing (now that there is a shooting war on) For changes to the Combat Arms exclusion of women? I spent a fair number of years in combat arms units. Young men who besides enjoying the life and brotherhood of combat arms, like to spend the majority of their lives in persuit of women. Of course when we have these mixed gender units, we simply adjust their attitudes and life styles to a more kinder genteeler attitude so they will not offend or harass the female soldiers working along side them. No talking about sex with women, nor giving leering looks at women.

War is all about resource management. Is there a "need" for more combat arms soldiers that can not be met with standard recruiting of a male only combat arms force? What additional expense will be generated by mixing the gender of combat arms? Will the addition of female soldiers in combat arms units improve or degrade the combat readiness of these units? Is the American public ready for this? When will women begin their registration for selective service?

Conservatives and liberals love to test their current social experiments on soldiers. We are a captive audience and have no choice. Should a soldier be prohibited from having a picture of a naked woman in his barracks room? It is after all his home and he should be able to enjoy his meager living space. Not allowed! Socially unacceptable and degrading to women. Porn can not be sold in post facilities as it is demeaning to women and soldiers are not allowed to have impure thoughts, etc, etc..

When we get rid of affermitave action and have one standard for all (women have different standards with regards to PT. If an 18 year old man needs to be able to do a minimum of 40 push ups, then why does a woman only need to do 20? Does the enemy care if women have lower upper body strength to be at the same cardio vascular fitness? Will we continue to adjust and accomodate for PC reasons? I hope not. If the weapon weighs 23lbs less ammo, then it dosn't matter who carries it, it still weighs the same.

NightLandNav

28 April 2007, 10:17

Unless my memory fails me, the UZI was developed as a short barreled weapon for tank crews and was later adopted by the paras and other units for it's ease of maneuverability in CQB.

For the time, the UZI was an amazing SMP. Built in safety like the 1911, fast rate of fire, accurate, dependable hell, and one could carry a hell of a load of ammo. Until HK stepped up, the UZI was the Doozi.

As to women in combat in the IDF... there are no women in infantry or related combat arms units in the IDF. That's not to say Israeli women haven't seen combat. The misconception regarding women in the combat arms in the IDF stems from the equal policy of mandatory service for women and men alike in Israel.

True, this was no small issue in the IDF of the mid ‘80’s. Much has been written, so I will leave it that. But, if one is interested research the psychological effects of massive female combat casualties as defined by the IDF, and the subsequent combat placement of women in IDF units. Hide them? NO, not at all. Like US female soldiers and sailors, they kick ass…but there are other considerations besides ability regarding “genderless” selection for combat units. I’ll leave it that.

…
…It is all about defining the suitable combat roles for females as opposed to men.

You know today's IDF better than I, no argument there. Even with my 20yo perspective, I must agree you on this point 100%.

Type-82

28 April 2007, 10:26

True, this was no small issue in the IDF of the mid ‘80’s. Much has been written, so I will leave it that. But, if one is interested research the psychological effects of massive female combat casualties as defined by the IDF, and the subsequent combat placement of women in IDF units. Hide them? NO, not at all. Like US female soldiers and sailors, they kick ass…but there are other considerations besides ability regarding “genderless” selection for combat units. I’ll leave it that.

I perfer this description of combat units:

The concern here is with regular combat soldiers in uniform, not resistance fighters or guerrillas. "Combat" means an organized lethal attack on an organized enemy (and does not include self- defense in emergency situations.)

I think IDF would be considered a Defense force. They have limited resources and have mandatory service as their pool of soldiers is much smaller than that the US has to draw from. We also have an entirely volunteer service. No conscripts.

NightLandNav

28 April 2007, 10:47

I perfer this description of combat units:

The concern here is with regular combat soldiers in uniform, not resistance fighters or guerrillas. "Combat" means an organized lethal attack on an organized enemy (and does not include self- defense in emergency situations.)

I think IDF would be considered a Defense force. They have limited resources and have mandatory service as their pool of soldiers is much smaller than that the US has to draw from. We also have an entirely volunteer service. No conscripts.

We both argue the same point, the IDF as you say is a Defense force (Lebanon is arguable), so my post agrees with yours regarding female conscription and unit deployment.

Yes there are female IDF and IAF everywhere wearing 3 different kinds of assault rifles, and yes they will kick your ass if the situation calls for it. (Me, probably because I'm in a lust trace and useless in such a hypothetical fight).

So, T-82, and BZS, no point to argue from me with what I know of the IDF 20yrs ago. I agree.

AND...Hoepoe, help me out...If I understand you correctly, other than the one coed unit, the IDF is still definitively defining the suitable combat roles for women as opposed to men. Lessons learned in the 60's and 70's as I was told then, and no doubt still true enough to be considered IDF standard.

If not, please correct me, but be warned...I have my sources. ;)

"It shall never fall again!"
משדה של נבר פל אגיין

Bailaviborita

28 April 2007, 16:41

I'm not sure the Caracal BN has been "very successful". What measures are you using?

Just a quick read on the Internet:

- they have mainly been assigned patrols along the Israel-Jordan border.

- The three companies that have been
established, in which the proportion of women
is about two-thirds, are considered infantry
units of the second rank. The level of fitness
and combat abilities expected of the fighters
is lower than in the Nahal brigades, the
Paratroops, Golani and Givati.

- For fighting women, special lightweight boots have
been designed, as well as a light flak jacket
suited to a woman's body structure, smaller
helmets and other equipment tailored to their
size.

- The publication of the findings of a new study
done by the Israel Defense Forces Medical
Corps, at the initiative of the commander of
the ground forces, that determined that the
physical demands posed by most combat tasks in
the army are too tough for female soldiers. In the language of the study, women have "a very low likelihood of surviving" in a role such as
infantry fighter, operator of heavy machinery
in the Engineering Corps, tank crew member or
fighter in a commando or special force.

- Today, he (IDF commander) adds, "we know that the stress that
can be placed on a female soldier's muscle is
lower than the stress that can be placed on a
man's muscle. But the results of the study are
still under discussion. In all the fields we
have opened, there are no restrictions on
girls, and no additional field will be opened
that could cause damage to women. We are not
taking any risk with the health of female
soldiers only in order to be nice."

- Later, when no Caracal is in earshot, he (the Caracal unit cook) says
that they don't shower often enough. "Sometimes
I send them to take a shower. They sweat,
they're not well-groomed. Sometimes they come
crying to me that they've gained weight. All
told - girls. But a woman in a combat unit
loses some of her femininity. They become like men: They see a girl
in civvies and they say, `Wow, that one's a
looker.'

I'm sure that politics, much like here, are playing a part from hearing the real truth. If you ask a general about our academies' coed success you'll get an earful- but ask some cadets or grads and you'll get the real story.

I'd also submit that Israeli society is different than America's. I don't think it's a big deal over there for politicians to publicly display their mistresses- here you can't even get away with a "cigar roll".

Regardless of how some women might be able to serve in a combat unit, the real issue is will the negatives outweigh the positives? In a regular unit I'd argue the atmosphere would be too political, truth would be supressed, and sexual tension would hurt the unit. If the unit's mission is to stay focused on combat- then that should be the priority- not accomodating a few women who's daddies didn't have sons. (little humor there...)

SOTB

28 April 2007, 22:43

They become like men: They see a girl in civvies and they say, `Wow, that one's a looker.'....Well shit. That is reason enough alone, to have the unit -- IMO....:D

Spot379th

29 April 2007, 03:04

Looon

29 April 2007, 12:02

NightLandNav

29 April 2007, 12:55

Women have no business in forward operating combat units or missions. Support MOS's only.

Ive always had the ass for the Army letting them go through BAC. Watching the double standard/PC bullshit in airborne school, made me fucking sick.:rolleyes:

:)

The "Female" PT bullshit in BAC did more to lessen mutual respect than foster it. But there were two soldiers, type female one each, that from the first PT test on day one, until final formation, PT'd with us, event the male pre-Chow pull ups.

Some of us polished our own boots in BAC. And I noticed that both of them did too. It seems out of determined principle, those two were always aware that they didn't want a seconds repose beyond what was expected of any male.

Those two worked hard to be more than "just as hard".

Which had an effect almost like Ranger Luna's, except that watching them do that bullshit in Airborne school made me want to fuck them sick.

Which was distracting.

Even dripping with sweat (sometimes especially), girls smell better than we do.

And the better they do their job, the perkier their tits seem to be. And if you take this as misogynistic objectification...I disagree.

I am always able to keep my thoughts to myself in the moment, but dammit, I am attracted to women I find sexy.

I can deal with it. - I'm just saying.

HOLLiS

29 April 2007, 13:59

NightLandNav, Of all the articles that I have read on this topic. The one that made sense to me was: The problem is not so much with women being able to do the task it is the way men are culturally treat and respond to women.

I think the more I read on this issue, the more I realize there is no simple answer to a very complex issue. From basic human interaction, physical development,..... to that unique combination of chromosomes that make us all unique individuals.

I agree, lowing standards are a mistake. Even with standards being the same, that would just be a start of a long list of other issues that need to be resolved.

NightLandNav

29 April 2007, 14:25

HOLLiS,

Exactly.

ccorgr175

29 April 2007, 16:11

guns

29 April 2007, 16:16

I just saw this on the Yahoo news headlines.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_women_soldiers

NightLandNav

30 April 2007, 00:26

For crying out loud...what's all the fuss?

I could have really used a woman in Mountain Phase. Hot chocolate and warm blankets...kiss my ass!!!! ME AND MY RANGER BUDDY ARE NAKED!!!!!!!!!!!:D

RLTW!!!!!!!!

2%

In the "Upper" it would be "tad" tougher to roll out from under the liner to "get it on" with a soft warm vanilla scented female Ranger buddy that somehow seemed oblivious to my BO stench.

"5 more minutes..."

NightLandNav

30 April 2007, 13:48

Equality, is that really it at all?

It is an issue, but it is THE issue?

That SHE can as well as HE is not the real concern.

Even IF she were capable of every equal physical requirement and standard, official or de facto as ...even IF by such genderless selection there are women who could, would, qualify and graduate any given Hooah school or course...

Even IF she gets a high N tight, has a flat chest and sings baritone...

It would still occur to me to swap spit with her if I got chance, just like it occurred to me that I'd swap spit with Vasquez from Aliens if got the chance.

It's a proximity weakness from both genders, and a point of breakdown, and when it breaks down, we break down, and the Green Machine starts to grind gears.

As long as there is sex between the sexes, nothing has convinced me that any of the benefits gained from female combat soldiers would offset the inherent and complicated dynamic risks.

Women kick ass...no argument there.

But that is not the debate, issue, or point at all. Nor does it have any relevance in the naive argument for the effective integration of females into ground combat units.

Let women fly jets and drop ordnance all they want, and every other possible position in every branch of service that doesn’t have the same dynamic as ground line combat units do.

A c**k is a c**k and a p***y's a p***y and always the twain shall (eventually) try to meet.

So even IF she can do everything else her male counterpart can do...there is still just as big, I argue bigger, deal breaker.

Without time and grade in a combat unit(s), no other service experience will give someone sufficient insight to comment on or about the dynamics involved for such units.

Like I sated earlier in this thread, it's not a chauvinistic narrow minded "Mars vs. Venus" issue...not at all.

It’s simple "Win or Lose, Live or Die". So if it's not a situation where we must integrate to wage war, then the fewer complications there are the better.

K.I.S.S is hard enough as it is, Murphy makes sure as shit things get complicated enough as it is without any help.

The Russians and the IDF, the Siamese in the 16th cent (countless others no doubt) were in a must integrate to survive and wage a defense situation...once the crisis passed, they segregated again, for some reason.