Women in combat

This is a discussion on Women in combat within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This is just PC run-a-muck. It's all fun & games until they come for your daughter. Semper Fi...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 69

Thread: Women in combat

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array JAT40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ma
    Posts
    2,366
    This is just PC run-a-muck.

    It's all fun & games until they come for your daughter.

    Semper Fi
    While people are saying "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, ... and they will not escape. 1Th 5:3

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    While I will make no claim of being anywhere close to the combat (communications tech) i just got back from 20 months in Iraq and I worked with guys that were recently retired and had contact with a large number of troops both Army and Marine.

    They all told of when women were integrated closer to combat units and started going out on field exercises, areas like communications. At the same time port-a-pots started showing up labeled "FEMALE ONLY", men still had to cop-a-squat in the bushes, then the "hygiene buses" started coming around every 2 days to take the women back to base for showers and if a female hit "that time" she was taken back to base for the duration. If the women don't learn how to live in the field in training how can they be expected to function in the real situation. I can just see a column of MRAPs coming to a halt for a Tampax change, and remember the danger of Toxic Shock if they aren't changed regularly.

    Also on the base where I was we had a female soldier show up with the "wire dogs" whose job it was to install the wire/cable around the base. It was only a week before she was reassigned to to office work because she couldn't hack the work, a bunch of hand digging trench sections because there was no good map of the infrastructure (comm & electrical) and the trencher couldn't be used where other cable might be located. If she couldn't take a couple hours of digging how could she take a couple days of humping a full field pack.


    Just another PC idea run amuck!!!!!
    Last edited by rstickle; January 18th, 2011 at 06:36 AM. Reason: Language

  4. #48
    Member Array Vladimirx01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    26
    Physical limitations are a concern, for sure. What worries me is the gender based protection issues that so many have commented on (men are more likely to put themselves in harms way due to injured/endangered women, psychological effects of women dying in combat, etc).

    That said, I do believe that women should be allowed to serve based off pure capability. I know there are women out there stronger/tougher and more capable than I.

    On that note, my wife just deployed to the desert (her first trip). While not a hard, in the mix combat role, there are stresses inherent with her job and position (young NCO and weapons loader). I fully believe that she is capable of doing just as fine of a job as I ever could.

    F350, yep, I see em like that all the time. My wife says those are the ones that make it rougher on the REAL women in the military. The SARC queens and Desert Princesses. But there are guys out there just as bad.
    The will to win is meaningless without the will to prepare! -- Joe Gibbs
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live. -- Douglas Adams
    What's the best gun to have in a gun fight? The one you have on you!

    P90DC, LCP, PT145, PT140, LCP, Rem 870 and so on and so on...

  5. #49
    Member Array Cornelius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    140
    In before the lock.. :)

    It doesn't take a genius to realize that mens' and womens' bodies are different. The differences are a product of thousands of years of hunting and battle, and the conditioning that comes with hormones to support those activities. Having much higher amounts of testosterone tends to produce larger muscle and frames to support it. Mere decades of modern feminism won't undo thousands, if not millions, of years of evolution.

    Not trying to be un-PC, but biologically men are beasts. And psychologically, men are far, far more capable of violence- anyone know the % of murders committed by women?

    If this were a nation of giant Amazonian women filled with bloodlust, then maybe I'd feel differently. Probably more afraid :)

    That said, I'm all for women serving in combat. Just not infantry.
    Ek = 1/2 (m*v^2)

  6. #50
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,966
    I've been in both all-male and mixed-gender units.

    In the mixed gender units, I saw that the physical fitness of the men suffered because the women could not keep up. I saw men carrying two rucksacks, because the women couldn't cut it. Combat is physical - period. And the differences in strength and endurance between males and females is obvious.

    IMHO, I don't think there should be females in the military, period. Nor in police, fire, or EMS. The standards are the standards for a reason, and most women cannot meet the same standards as the men. Lowering the standards so the women can "pass" does a disservice to all. And even if some can pass, you still have all the other issues to deal with.

    Traditionally, societies have regarded women as having more value than men, because they do most of the child rearing - which is what keeps the society going. Men, if you will, are more "expendable." Women were not forced into the "warrior" roles unless things were really desperate. I think we do society and women a great injustice by subjecting them to the dangers of combat - be that on the streets or on the battlefield. Call me old-fashioned, but that's what I feel.

    OK - now for a funny story:

    While in Somalia, I came down with a very high fever. I was evacuated to a field hospital, where I was hooked to an IV. In the middle of the night, on an unfamiliar base, I had to go relieve myself. I found a port-a-potty, and did my business. When I came out, a sergeant started yelling at me, because I had apparently just used a "female" latrine. I politely informed the sergeant that: I was an officer; that I was a patient at the hospital and was just about delirious with fever; that I was from an all-male combat unit; and that I had never seen nor heard about a "female" field latrine. The sergeant immediately changed his tune, and helped me back to the hospital area.
    Last edited by 10thmtn; January 17th, 2011 at 11:08 PM. Reason: story added
    The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
    Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger SP101, LCR, LCP (2), Mini 14; Marlin 336 .30-30; Mossberg 500
    CT Lasers

  7. #51
    Senior Member Array Luis50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    508
    I think it will happen eventually. Women are and have been fighting for some time now...once they get outside the wire they are in the fight if one happens to start...they just haven't been allowed to sign up for combat arms MOS'S. This is where the sticking point is.

    In my opinion, women that choose to volunteer for a combat arms mos must meet the same physical and mental standards that men do...no exceptions. The training should not be altered or modified to accomodate females. This alone will make the numbers small but significant.

    The most important part of this is that once those very few females report to their commands, the field commanders have the final say on how, when and where to the assign them. THIS IS A MUST!

    With a careful and selective approach like this example, I think it can work. The numbers will always be small in terms of volunteers and even smaller after training and deployment but at least they will be given the opportunity to serve in the combat arms career fields.
    Luis

    "Everybody's got a plan, 'til they get hit".

    Mike Tyson

  8. #52
    Senior Member Array sigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by JAT40 View Post
    This is just PC run-a-muck.

    It's all fun & games until they come for your daughter.

    Semper Fi
    Amen! Saw first hand what happened when they put females on warships. Not pretty. I haven't seen any of these PC types screaming to register with the Selective Service.

  9. #53
    Distinguished Member Array Agave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    1,464
    Women have no place in line units, including support staff for line units.
    The preceding post may contain sarcasm; it's just better that way. However, it is still intended with construction and with the Love of my L-rd Y'shua.

    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Tennessee Certified Instructor

  10. #54
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    I'm reposting Luis50's link, because it is a worthwhile read: http://www.pbs.org/pov/regardingwar/...oot-point.php#

    The problem is not the women, specifically. It is the lowering of standards. As has already been mentioned, there currently are two sets of physical standards in the Army - one for males and one for females. A female may do fewer push-ups and run slower than her male counterpart to pass their physical fitness test. This is blatantly NOT equal, but it doesn't matter all that much when we keep females out of the most physically demanding positions. If we change that, and allow them into the Infantry and Special Forces (and, to a lesser extent, Armor and Field Artillery), then we MUST hold them to the same physical standards. Unfortunately, I will bet a month’s (heck, a year’s) pay that this is not what will happen...

    Being a career infantryman, I didn't spend any real time around female soldiers until OCS. There, I saw first hand what SOME women will do in order to succeed (i.e. get men to carry their weight, both literally and figuratively). Again, when that candidate is going on to a support job somewhere, it doesn't really matter, but if she is going to go to a combat unit and require someone else to carry her IN COMBAT, it's an entirely different story.

    As to "female only" latrines and such...an anecdote. On my FOB in Afghanistan, we had about 5 females out of 400 or so troops. We had very limited latrine facilities, and even less hot water. The men were lucky to get a hot shower every third or fourth day. The women got one every day. The block of "indoor" latrines (a wet trailer with an almost real, flush toilet) were locked down for two hours in the morning and two in the evening so the women could use them without men inside; during those times every man on the FOB had to use either "piss tubes" or the ol' "plywood box on top of half of a 55 gallon drum" that made up most of our latrine facilities. And remember, this was the BEST that we had it... The field is an entirely different matter altogether. Another anecdote; I led my platoon on one patrol that lasted 43 days. We did not shower, sleep indoors, or have any creature comforts during that period. We did get resupplied food and water, but that was it. And while we had vehicle, we spent a LOT of time humping up and down mountains in full kit. Are there SOME women that could do that - physically, emotionally, intellectually? Sure. But considering how few MEN are capable of such a lifestyle...

    The issues of shirking and sexual tension are real, but IMO are of relatively minor significance. Women who would intentionally (or through negligence) get pregnant when in a unit as tightly knit as an infantry platoon would likely not make it that far (assuming standards aren't changed), because the selfish and slackard are already weeded out from these units as quickly as possible.

    As to the "women dying is worse than men, men will sacrifice themselves and their mission to save a woman, etc..." This may be true, in some instances. I, for one, have no use for ANY soldier that is so emotionally immature that they would sacrifice themselves AND their mission just because a fellow soldier has different reproductive equipment...

    The military has the opportunity to do this right. However, I am extremely wary that this will, indeed, be a broad lowering of standards rather than an opportunity for women to excel.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  11. #55
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,199
    "As to the "women dying is worse than men, men will sacrifice themselves and their mission to save a woman, etc..." This may be true, in some instances. I, for one, have no use for ANY soldier that is so emotionally immature that they would sacrifice themselves AND their mission just because a fellow soldier has different reproductive equipment..."

    Macho or not, phycologically, I think it would be much harder to deal with killed/wounded men than women. Emotional maturity has nothing to do with it. I don't think it's a question of anyone "sacrificing" themselves for the opposite sex, just the impact of seeing the results of combat. The guys have enough issues already with losing their male buddies.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  12. #56
    Senior Member Array Luis50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    I'm reposting Luis50's link, because it is a worthwhile read: http://www.pbs.org/pov/regardingwar/...oot-point.php#

    The problem is not the women, specifically. It is the lowering of standards. As has already been mentioned, there currently are two sets of physical standards in the Army - one for males and one for females. A female may do fewer push-ups and run slower than her male counterpart to pass their physical fitness test. This is blatantly NOT equal, but it doesn't matter all that much when we keep females out of the most physically demanding positions. If we change that, and allow them into the Infantry and Special Forces (and, to a lesser extent, Armor and Field Artillery), then we MUST hold them to the same physical standards. Unfortunately, I will bet a month’s (heck, a year’s) pay that this is not what will happen...

    Being a career infantryman, I didn't spend any real time around female soldiers until OCS. There, I saw first hand what SOME women will do in order to succeed (i.e. get men to carry their weight, both literally and figuratively). Again, when that candidate is going on to a support job somewhere, it doesn't really matter, but if she is going to go to a combat unit and require someone else to carry her IN COMBAT, it's an entirely different story.

    As to "female only" latrines and such...an anecdote. On my FOB in Afghanistan, we had about 5 females out of 400 or so troops. We had very limited latrine facilities, and even less hot water. The men were lucky to get a hot shower every third or fourth day. The women got one every day. The block of "indoor" latrines (a wet trailer with an almost real, flush toilet) were locked down for two hours in the morning and two in the evening so the women could use them without men inside; during those times every man on the FOB had to use either "piss tubes" or the ol' "plywood box on top of half of a 55 gallon drum" that made up most of our latrine facilities. And remember, this was the BEST that we had it... The field is an entirely different matter altogether. Another anecdote; I led my platoon on one patrol that lasted 43 days. We did not shower, sleep indoors, or have any creature comforts during that period. We did get resupplied food and water, but that was it. And while we had vehicle, we spent a LOT of time humping up and down mountains in full kit. Are there SOME women that could do that - physically, emotionally, intellectually? Sure. But considering how few MEN are capable of such a lifestyle...

    The issues of shirking and sexual tension are real, but IMO are of relatively minor significance. Women who would intentionally (or through negligence) get pregnant when in a unit as tightly knit as an infantry platoon would likely not make it that far (assuming standards aren't changed), because the selfish and slackard are already weeded out from these units as quickly as possible.

    As to the "women dying is worse than men, men will sacrifice themselves and their mission to save a woman, etc..." This may be true, in some instances. I, for one, have no use for ANY soldier that is so emotionally immature that they would sacrifice themselves AND their mission just because a fellow soldier has different reproductive equipment...
    The military has the opportunity to do this right. However, I am extremely wary that this will, indeed, be a broad lowering of standards rather than an opportunity for women to excel.
    Excellent post sir. I bolded this paragragh because in my opinion a greiving parent will not feel any different if their son was found beheaded or their daughter was found raped and shot. Also, when that uniform goes on, we are one team. The gender difference cannot interfere with the mission.

    All of this is predicated on the military not lowering the standards so that only those women that meet or exceed them are selected.

    The final say will be by the commanders in the field and if done right they will have only the best to choose from.


    As you said, if they don't do this right, they will not only impact the mission but they will also be doing a disservice to the women they look to promote.
    Luis

    "Everybody's got a plan, 'til they get hit".

    Mike Tyson

  13. #57
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    It is emotional immaturity when the mission, and MORE lives, are at stake. If you can suck it up and drive on when a male colleague is killed, but crumble into a heap or run off to "save" the woman while letting more men die, you are worthless to me as a soldier. The time for playing Prince Valiant (or Charming, or whatever) is not in a firefight. As a soldier, especially a combat arms soldier, you had BETTER have your priorities straight. Risking the many (and the mission) to save the one, simply because 'the one' has different genitalia, is NOT having your priorities in order. I understand that it may be a "natural" feeling/reaction, but combat demands that we subsume a whole lot of "natural" feelings, this one most definitely included.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  14. #58
    Moderator
    Array buckeye .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,666
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    It is emotional immaturity when the mission, and MORE lives, are at stake. If you can suck it up and drive on when a male colleague is killed, but crumble into a heap or run off to "save" the woman while letting more men die, you are worthless to me as a soldier. The time for playing Prince Valiant (or Charming, or whatever) is not in a firefight. As a soldier, especially a combat arms soldier, you had BETTER have your priorities straight. Risking the many (and the mission) to save the one, simply because 'the one' has different genitalia, is NOT having your priorities in order. I understand that it may be a "natural" feeling/reaction, but combat demands that we subsume a whole lot of "natural" feelings, this one most definitely included.
    The best medicine is fire superiority, no matter who is hit. When the bad guys can't shoot back, it is a lot easier to move casualties to a secure point and treat them, people who ignore that, shouldn't be grunts.
    Fortes Fortuna Juvat

    Former, USMC 0311, OIF/OEF vet
    NRA Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun/Reloading Instructor, RSO, Ohio CHL Instructor

  15. #59
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Getting OT, but, buckeye, are they teaching you guys "modern" combat casualty care over there? The premise, basically, is that the best care for a casualty - while the fight is going on - is to WIN THE FIGHT. After that, everything else can be done. (Another big change from the old school way of doing things is that we are MUCH quicker to go to a tourniquet; all the studies and research have shown that people (and limbs) can survive being tourniqueted for longer than we thought 20 years ago, but this is getting really, really far OT).

    The point is that stopping whatever you need to do to win the fight because someone has been injured is a disservice to them, and to everyone else. If you can't do that because the injured is a woman, you aren't mentally prepared for the fight.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  16. #60
    VIP Member Array AZ Husker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    4,244
    Used to tick me off when special duty assignments came along. The men would get the grunt work and the women got to be the General's drivers. I say hell yes, stick them in battle. They're getting the same pay.
    Treat me good, I'll treat you better. Treat me bad, I'll treat you worse.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. How do petite women cc?
    By pinklady in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: April 27th, 2010, 01:48 PM
  2. Women in the 50's
    By Pure Kustom in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 30th, 2009, 08:53 AM
  3. Men vs. Women
    By CT-Mike in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 26th, 2008, 02:39 AM
  4. For the Women
    By dukalmighty in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 17th, 2008, 06:26 PM
  5. Semiauto for women
    By rcj5 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: February 26th, 2008, 06:29 PM

Search tags for this page

%22women+have+been+barred+from+combat+in+israel+since 1950%22
,
, but also jeopardize the survival of the entire unit. the study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men
,
for example, it is a common misperception that israel allows women in combat units. in fact, women have been barred from
,

john luddy heritage foundation women in combat

,
john luddy in july 27, 1994,
,
john luddy in july 27, 1994, for the heritage foundation backgrounder
,
john luddy in july 27, 1994, for the heritage foundation backgrounder.
,
john luddy israeli women in combat heritage foundation backgrounder
,
john luddy women combat
,
john luddy women in combat
,
john luddy women in combat israel
,
ohn luddy in july 27, 1994, for the heritage foundation backgrounder.
Click on a term to search for related topics.