Women In the Infantry

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
no one is saying that every woman can be a combat soldier,

You don't understand that's not how it works, this isn't some gym that you join and only the toughest ones go into the advanced class while everyone else runs treadmill. In the infantry you are a number on a page, period. Women are going to be treated just like the men and will be moved wholesale into the infantry units. You have no choice in the matter in the military, you go where you are assigned. That's why I and others said this is going to have a devastating effect on our military effectiveness and readiness.

The vast majority of the women are going to have to be coddled and hidden away somewhere safe when the real work needs getting done and the men who have to carry their water for them like the ones in the image above are going to get pissed and will probably shun them after time.

I saw it every day on the police force and it is obviously already happening now in the infantry. Were I the squad leader of the above unit in Afghanistan, I'd find something for these two women to do on base and would only take the men on that hump up the mountain I mentioned up thread, so right out of the gate the unit is down 2 bodies and all the firepower they could have brought to a fight because of this PC bulls**t.

Jim

[Zap]

I used light humor previously, about the soldiers being attracted to each other. Besides the strength issue opposite sex attraction in units is another concern. Can you imagine 2 being lovers in a unit what problems that will cause?!!

[Jagdtiger14]

I'm not sure if its been mentioned before (I'm not going to read every post), but I don't think it is hard to imagine what would happen if a US female combat soldier is captured by the enemy (assuming not rescued within about one day). Best case scenario is death by rape...worst: probably sex slavery. Every woman should be informed of this possibility prior to joining up, and perhaps given a suicide pill.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm not sure if its been mentioned before (I'm not going to read every post), but I don't think it is hard to imagine what would happen if a US female combat soldier is captured by the enemy (assuming not rescued within about one day). Best case scenario is death by rape...worst: probably sex slavery. Every woman should be informed of this possibility prior to joining up, and perhaps given a suicide pill.

You should read up on what happened to the female US soldiers captured in the Kuwait and Iraq wars.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm not sure if its been mentioned before (I'm not going to read every post), but I don't think it is hard to imagine what would happen if a US female combat soldier is captured by the enemy (assuming not rescued within about one day). Best case scenario is death by rape...worst: probably sex slavery. Every woman should be informed of this possibility prior to joining up, and perhaps given a suicide pill.

You should read up on what happened to the female US soldiers captured in the Kuwait and Iraq wars.

Just out of curiosity, I did. Here is one curious quote...

"Soldiers And Sex Abuse
July 07, 1992

When Maj. Rhonda Cornum was taken prisoner during the Persian Gulf war, her Iraqi captors sexually assaulted her. People who believe women should not serve in combat use Ms. Cornum's experience to back up their argument. Female soldiers face special dangers, they say. Ms. Cornum disagrees. She says the abuse suffered by male prisoners was worse than what she endured.

Women in the U.S. armed forces face a greater danger of assault from their own colleagues than from the enemy, judging from testimony given to a Senate committee last week. Several women told stories of rape and other forms of abuse by fellow soldiers. The stories had common threads: disbelief by superiors, suggestions that the women just forget about it, and a lack of understanding or support from Veterans Administration hospitals."


Again, not getting into this discussion, just offering data.

[JWW]

Women in the infantry. No. It has nothing to do with fielding the most effective fighting force to win in combat. It is about a social agenda. And that is all it is about.

[Jagdtiger14]

I'm sure the captive men were treated very badly..."worse" depends on the individual.

I'm also sure that if the US female soldier could be convinced to be more compliant about her rape, the enemy would provide silk sheets, flowers, special meals, kind words, what ever...vs hot branding irons for the captured males. Either way, there will be sexual intercourse with many men (and much of it rough, and transference of sexual diseases...perhaps HIV). She can choose to accept it and live with it...which she very well might, but I'm sure there are others that would rather die.

Any females wishing to engage in front line combat duty should be informed what would very much likely happen if captured. If they want to take the risk, fine. Then we can talk about how they might endanger their fellow soldier by not being capable (and this can happen with men as well...that is why there are standards). I'm 52...and while I think I could meet the basic standards, I would never be accepted (frame of mind might come into play as well as I might not accept certain orders I deem wrong headed due to my life experinces vs an 18 year old).

[Karri]

Once read that the most important ability of a soldier is how much he can endure. And women have certainly endured more than men throughout history.

When you're talking about "capabilities" not everyone will be a seal or a ranger. I served in Finnish army, we still have conscription, and there were some women there as well. I have to admit that they certainly had a disadvantage in raw strength, and that decidedly had an effect since we were supposed to carry 30-60 kilos of equipment(reconnaissance; radios, tents, food, the whole deal). But then again our combat load was a fraction of that and the women had no disadvantage there. All in all these strength requirements mean nothing, unless you purposely lower them for women...but that is a political or a social decision not a military one. And there most certainly are women who can easily serve in infantry even with current requirements...as I said, Finland has conscription and I can tell you that most men are in such a sorry shape they can't do it any better than the women...that's why the army trains you first.

[Jim D Burns]

There is a reason the US military is considered to be such an elite force in the world today. Equipment plays a big part sure, but the real quality modifier is the fact it is an all volunteer force and less than 2% of the total available manpower actually serves, which means only the best recruits get in.

By filling out the ranks with women you are going to drastically reduce that quality modifier on a force wide level. A conscript army like we had during WWII and Korea would preform at a level far less than the force we have today.

Good equipment helps, but the people is what makes your army and we saw how badly low quality troops preformed during the Iraq war. When the actual bullets start to fly nothing is as important as the quality of troops assigned a mission task. It's one thing to want to do well, but actually doing well requires stamina and strength.

Here are some numbers:

USA

Total Population: 320,202,220
Available Manpower: 145,212,012
Fit for Service: 120,022,084
Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,217,412
Active Frontline Personnel: 1,400,000
Active Reserve Personnel: 1,100,000

Finland

Total Population: 5,268,799
Available Manpower: 2,261,561
Fit for Service: 1,868,134
Reaching Military Age Annually: 64,015
Active Frontline Personnel: 36,500
Active Reserve Personnel: 357,000

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country- ... of-America

Jim

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

There is a reason the US military is considered to be such an elite force in the world today. Equipment plays a big part sure, but the real quality modifier is the fact it is an all volunteer force and less than 2% of the total available manpower actually serves, which means only the best recruits get in.

By filling out the ranks with women you are going to drastically reduce that quality modifier on a force wide level. A conscript army like we had during WWII and Korea would preform at a level far less than the force we have today.

Sorry, but your argument works against itself. If the army only allows volunteers and only chooses the best, then clearly only the best women who can serve get in. On the other hand if you are suggesting that no woman is fit to serve then you are simply wrong. Or maybe you think they are going to draft all women and that will decrease the quality? But that is not the case...the army knows what it needs. I dunno what the numbers you posted are supposed to mean, Finland has pretty much always had a conscript army and it has performed rather well. Cases like Iraq rather prove the effectiveness of the air arm and morale(as does the Iraq-Iran war).

[danlongman]

We have gone through this same dinosaur dance every time women
have attempted to move into a traditionally male role. From
physicians to trash collectors there has always been a strong,
conservative male reaction stating seriously and "knowledgeably"
all the common sense reasons why "women just can't do this."
Just as god is running out of places to hide, men are running
out of private club houses to hang out in. There are a lot of
women who do a better job at being men than most men do. The
only downside to integrating women into any role is the negatively
stupid reaction of the men already there. Woman have successfully
moved into every field of endeavour so far and there is no reason
to expect this will be any different. The Neanderthals did not
go extinct. They are right here with us.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: Karri

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

There is a reason the US military is considered to be such an elite force in the world today. Equipment plays a big part sure, but the real quality modifier is the fact it is an all volunteer force and less than 2% of the total available manpower actually serves, which means only the best recruits get in.

By filling out the ranks with women you are going to drastically reduce that quality modifier on a force wide level. A conscript army like we had during WWII and Korea would preform at a level far less than the force we have today.

Sorry, but your argument works against itself. If the army only allows volunteers and only chooses the best, then clearly only the best women who can serve get in. On the other hand if you are suggesting that no woman is fit to serve then you are simply wrong. Or maybe you think they are going to draft all women and that will decrease the quality? But that is not the case...the army knows what it needs. I dunno what the numbers you posted are supposed to mean, Finland has pretty much always had a conscript army and it has performed rather well. Cases like Iraq rather prove the effectiveness of the air arm and morale(as does the Iraq-Iran war).

Maybe what he means is that the top 2% of women are still not capable of being assets to the team when they cannot do what the top 2% of men can do?
We, in the US, try to give our military the best to be able to fight as the best. If women equally in combat are a drag then are we really giving our military the best?

I am just glad that the military is there to give us the freedom, as a society, to think and do the stupidest of things. Let's not go down the wormhole of society dictating what the military should do so that it would then commit suicide?

Who then moves in and takes away their freedom to think stupid things? What a great society that will be?

RR

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: danlongman

We have gone through this same dinosaur dance every time women
have attempted to move into a traditionally male role. From
physicians to trash collectors there has always been a strong,
conservative male reaction stating seriously and "knowledgeably"
all the common sense reasons why "women just can't do this."
Just as god is running out of places to hide, men are running
out of private club houses to hang out in. There are a lot of
women who do a better job at being men than most men do. The
only downside to integrating women into any role is the negatively
stupid reaction of the men already there. Woman have successfully
moved into every field of endeavour so far and there is no reason
to expect this will be any different. The Neanderthals did not
go extinct. They are right here with us.

The great canard, if you ask me.
I have yet to see a "woman trash collector". And, "successfully" is not an all encompassing word, is it?

This argument is shallow, demeaning, and specious at best.

RR

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: Karri

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

There is a reason the US military is considered to be such an elite force in the world today. Equipment plays a big part sure, but the real quality modifier is the fact it is an all volunteer force and less than 2% of the total available manpower actually serves, which means only the best recruits get in.

By filling out the ranks with women you are going to drastically reduce that quality modifier on a force wide level. A conscript army like we had during WWII and Korea would preform at a level far less than the force we have today.

Sorry, but your argument works against itself. If the army only allows volunteers and only chooses the best, then clearly only the best women who can serve get in. On the other hand if you are suggesting that no woman is fit to serve then you are simply wrong. Or maybe you think they are going to draft all women and that will decrease the quality? But that is not the case...the army knows what it needs. I dunno what the numbers you posted are supposed to mean, Finland has pretty much always had a conscript army and it has performed rather well. Cases like Iraq rather prove the effectiveness of the air arm and morale(as does the Iraq-Iran war).

Maybe what he means is that the top 2% of women are still not capable of being assets to the team when they cannot do what the top 2% of men can do?
We, in the US, try to give our military the best to be able to fight as the best. If women equally in combat are a drag then are we really giving our military the best?

I am just glad that the military is there to give us the freedom, as a society, to think and do the stupidest of things. Let's not go down the wormhole of society dictating what the military should do so that it would then commit suicide?

Who then moves in and takes away their freedom to think stupid things? What a great society that will be?

RR

[8|]

Yeah...top 2% in what exactly? And prove then that they cannot be assets. And I mean, unless you've been living under a rock or deliberately missed all news about Syria you should know that while your glorious and extra super good army of manly manliness spends its time flying as high as they can bombing whatever, there are women on the ground doing the actual fighting.

[Jagdtiger14]

Kari: Women fighting in a civil war in the country they belong to, or as in WWII Russian women fighting for their homeland that was occupied by a foreign enemy...then I can understand women, and in fact any human from 13 to 70 being used to repel the invader or civil war. I don't think that is what is at issue here.

We have a volunteer force. You have to meet certain standards. Everyone should abide by these standards regardless of sex...females should not get a pass. If females can pass the test honestly, then they are in. But these standards are not only about physical strength...its also psychology...and the surety as much as can be certain that someone will actually pull the trigger when need be.

But there is another problem, and that is sexual attraction and all the possibly negative issues involved in this (jealousy from one soldier to another, etc...).

[danlongman]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner



The great canard, if you ask me.
I have yet to see a "woman trash collector". And, "successfully" is not an all encompassing word, is it?

This argument is shallow, demeaning, and specious at best.

RR

Somehow I do not see your argument anywhere. What is demeaning or specious about this statement? I do not think it is an argument that you have not seen a female trash collector. You have seen academics and physicians who were female.
A long time ago I was infantry. It is neither here nor there but I do not think much of your discussion style at all. You sound rather high handed, pompous and ignorant, but that is only my opinion. You are not required to share it.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Karri
On the other hand if you are suggesting that no woman is fit to serve then you are simply wrong.

I never said that, I'm sure there are plenty of women who can do the job, the problem is even though it may seem like a lot, statistically it is an insignificant number. When I worked at Oakland PD there might have been one or two women in the entire department who could actually do the job well, the rest were so far out of their league it was dangerous for them on the streets so they ended up getting hidden away somewhere safe in the building for their own protection. That means the vast majority of women in the infantry will also fail utterly to do even mundane things like carrying there own backpack.

The 2% figure doesn't mean that the army picks only the cream of the crop, that would be discriminatory. What it allows is for a very high standard of training to be set and only the best/fittest can then pass. The problem is those standards have to be drastically dropped to allow them to pass in significant numbers if women enter the training and as the image above shows it appears there are no standards at all for them.

Political correctness is forcing the trainers to pass them no matter what. This is the issue and it will cost lives. I would have no issue at all with women in combat roles if the standards were not changed, but that is never the case, the inability of women to do the same job as men in physical and violent jobs always necessitates lowering standards to dangerous levels (but just for the women of course since the men need to be very good in order to pick up their considerable slack).

Jim

[Jagdtiger14]

Danlongman: You should take the criticism and debate the topic. "high handed, pompous and ignorant"...would you say that also applies to what you wrote? ie..."dinosaur dance"...meant to imply backwards thinking?, "trash collectors" (little hyperbole there?). Frankly, the only time I ever heard anything about women having a problem doing anything since I (read "I") was aware of it in the last 35 years was fire fighting and military...both valid. "strong conservative male"...showing your political disposition against this group? "g(small g)od is running out of places to hide...what? "men are running out of private club houses to hang out in"...on public property perhaps?...I don't understand this attack?

I agree with you: "There are a lot of women who do a better job of being men than most men do." Society has worked very hard to make this happen (call it feminization)...I noticed it when I was in grade school in the 70's...and still going on today with increased voracity.

Back to disagreement: "negatively stupid reaction of the men"...according to? "Neanderthals" are people you disagree with?

So you see...some could see your comments as shallow, demeaning, and specious...as well as high handed, pompous, and ignorant. Personally I never get concerned when people think this of me, but you seem to be so with yourself...so maybe if you don't like it, find another writing style.

[PipFromSlitherine]

Calm it down with the interpersonal attacks or the thread will need to be locked.

Cheers

Pip

[MrRoadrunner]

[8|]

Yeah...top 2% in what exactly? And prove then that they cannot be assets. And I mean, unless you've been living under a rock or deliberately missed all news about Syria you should know that while your glorious and extra super good army of manly manliness spends its time flying as high as they can bombing whatever, there are women on the ground doing the actual fighting.
[/quote]

Your broad brush stroke is ridiculous. As an American you think I agree with what the President thinks is a strategy for success?
Wrong of you. Wrong thinking and the wrong way to put me in a negative light.
I'd be boots on the ground and grabbing those terrorists by the throat,inviting anyone who wants to do the same to come along.
At the same time I would cut off the source of their revenue and if it meant pulling "friends" out of the closet I sure would do that too.

Leading from behind and from the shadows is not what is needed. Flying high and leading from behind are concepts I did not care for with Clinton nor do I with Obama.

Obviously my opinion. Not the mainstream view of those politically in control of my country. Too much trying to keep hands clean and develop a spotless legacy (even though history will eventually write otherwise).

And, as for the original argument. No, I do not want to depend on a female to carry my ass out of a combat zone, if I was wounded. When I was of age I could probably carry two of them and their kit. 'Nuff said.

Where could you see any agreement between us. I do. But, I am sure you will not. It would not fit your argument(s).

RR

Sorry Pip. Did not see your post. I am looking for agreement. Even if I'm thought of as a Neanderthal. [:)]