Women In the Infantry (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


Titanwarrior89 -> Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 4:12:06 PM)

Looks like their going to do it by 2015. First of all...women belong in the military, I have no problem with that. But the changes their making may not be for the better, or a stronger force. Myself I was in the Regular Army for 20 plus years(Retired First Sargeant)(Infantry 11B-11H). Most of my posting were Line Infantry-Light,Air mobile and Mech Infantry. Let me give you a example......back in the 90s women had lower physical fitness standards. Case in point a male soldier could fail push ups or the two mile run if he did not meet his required numbers to PASS. Female soldier's numbers to PASS were lower than the fail numbers of the male soldier.....but the male still exceded the Pass numbers of the famale soldier's but did not meet the male lower standards for his age group. Yet they both would draw the same pay for the same rank, except if the male could not pass his test over a period of time....he could be and would be chaptered out of the Army.

So the standards were not the same, even though the Green Machine says it was. There probley will be mobile lines-positions-in any major action against another nation that has a well trained professional force....even now the Infantry are humping in the mountains of Alfghanistan(probley miss spelled) and no telling the combat load that is required on each individual trooper who are in the field for more than a few days. Trust me you don't see half of what it is truly like on the news.....they push their agenda...I know this...Ive dealt with BBC, Time Magazine and other reporters. They always have agenda and it is not the real story sometimes.

Last but not least: THE ONLY REASON THE U.S. MILITARY EXIST .....IS FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA......EVERYTHING, I MEAN EVERYTHING ELSE IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE.....Its not a training ground for political agendas.






parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 4:18:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Looks like their going to do it by 2015. First of all...women belong in the military, I have no problem with that. But the changes their making may not be for the better, or a stronger force. Myself I was in the Regular Army for 20 plus years(Retired First Sargeant)(Infantry 11B-11H). Most of my posting were Line Infantry-Light,Air mobile and Mech Infantry. Let me give you a example......back in the 90s women had lower physical fitness standards. Case in point a male soldier could fail push ups or the two mile run if he did not meet his required numbers to PASS. Female soldier's numbers to PASS were lower than the fail numbers of the male soldier.....but the male still exceded the Pass numbers of the famale soldier's but did not meet the male lower standards for his age group. Yet they both would draw the same pay for the same rank, except if the male could not pass his test over a period of time....he could be and would be chaptered out of the Army.

So the standards were not the same, even though the Green Machine says it was. There probley will be mobile lines-positions-in any major action against another nation that has a well trained professional force....even now the Infantry are humping in the mountains of Alfghanistan(probley miss spelled) and no telling the combat load that is required on each individual trooper who are in the field for more than a few days. Trust me you don't see half of what it is truly like on the news.....they push their agenda...I know this...Ive dealt with BBC, Time Magazine and other reporters. They always have agenda and it is not the real story sometimes.

Last but not least: THE ONLY REASON THE U.S. MILITARY EXIST .....IS FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA......EVERYTHING, I MEAN EVERYTHING ELSE IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE.....Its not a training ground for political agendas.





I have 8 friends who have made their career's in the U.S. military. Two of these friends are women. All eight do oppose women in combat positions. Study after study show that women can't meet the same physical standard as men. All that matters in the 21st century is political correctness.




Terminus -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 4:32:05 PM)

And the fact that the military is not meeting recruitment goals. Welcome to the 21st century; it sucks here.




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 4:34:29 PM)

I would have to agree with you on that. Changing times....some times...new is not better. But to give them their due...I seen two female soldier's break down and replace the inside tire of a Armor hauler and it was at least 102 that afternoon. They did it all by them selfs. That was their job and they did it. But Ive seen alot of other failures and the Command just cover it up. Because if your a career soldier and the Army says your hair is red...but its truly blond.....you better say red if you want to advance and finish your career. This is not always the case but it is the case way to often
quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Looks like their going to do it by 2015. First of all...women belong in the military, I have no problem with that. But the changes their making may not be for the better, or a stronger force. Myself I was in the Regular Army for 20 plus years(Retired First Sargeant)(Infantry 11B-11H). Most of my posting were Line Infantry-Light,Air mobile and Mech Infantry. Let me give you a example......back in the 90s women had lower physical fitness standards. Case in point a male soldier could fail push ups or the two mile run if he did not meet his required numbers to PASS. Female soldier's numbers to PASS were lower than the fail numbers of the male soldier.....but the male still exceded the Pass numbers of the famale soldier's but did not meet the male lower standards for his age group. Yet they both would draw the same pay for the same rank, except if the male could not pass his test over a period of time....he could be and would be chaptered out of the Army.

So the standards were not the same, even though the Green Machine says it was. There probley will be mobile lines-positions-in any major action against another nation that has a well trained professional force....even now the Infantry are humping in the mountains of Alfghanistan(probley miss spelled) and no telling the combat load that is required on each individual trooper who are in the field for more than a few days. Trust me you don't see half of what it is truly like on the news.....they push their agenda...I know this...Ive dealt with BBC, Time Magazine and other reporters. They always have agenda and it is not the real story sometimes.

Last but not least: THE ONLY REASON THE U.S. MILITARY EXIST .....IS FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA......EVERYTHING, I MEAN EVERYTHING ELSE IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE.....Its not a training ground for political agendas.





I have 8 friends who have made their career's in the U.S. military. Two of these friends are women. All eight do oppose women in combat positions. Study after study show that women can't meet the same physical standard as men. All that matters in the 21st century is political correctness.





Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 4:35:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Welcome to the 21st century; it sucks here.

[:D]




parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 4:42:10 PM)

Read the article from the Wall Street Journal in the link below, it is written by a U.S. Marine squad leader who saw action in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. His description of the blitz is an eye-opener.

Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 4:52:09 PM)

Parusski that is a interesting article. A must read, from some one that was there.
quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

Read the article from the Wall Street Journal in the link below, it is written by a U.S. Marine squad leader who saw action in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. His description of the blitz is an eye-opener.

Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat





parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 4:55:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Parusski that is a interesting article. A must read, from some one that was there.
quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

Read the article from the Wall Street Journal in the link below, it is written by a U.S. Marine squad leader who saw action in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. His description of the blitz is an eye-opener.

Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat




Yeah. Most of us never think of Marine's sitting in each others laps in those carriers. Or defecating in a bag just inches from the faces of others. He painted a realistic picture in a very short article.




carnifex -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 5:21:19 PM)

Ryan Smith sounds like a dolt.

"The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms."

Yeah, really Ryan? You mean societal norms like segregation? Because you know, unit cohesion will suffer if we allow those uppity Negroes to serve alongside the whites. I mean how can unit morale not suffer if we have to look at naked black people and vice versa?

According to Ryan Smith, our Marines are so fragile that they couldn't possible adapt to this new reality. Not only is he dead wrong, he insults all the members of our armed forces.

Not everyone gets all freaked out at the sight of a dirty smelly woman. Maybe it's just you, Ryan.





parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 7:06:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Ryan Smith sounds like a dolt.

"The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms."

Yeah, really Ryan? You mean societal norms like segregation? Because you know, unit cohesion will suffer if we allow those uppity Negroes to serve alongside the whites. I mean how can unit morale not suffer if we have to look at naked black people and vice versa?

According to Ryan Smith, our Marines are so fragile that they couldn't possible adapt to this new reality. Not only is he dead wrong, he insults all the members of our armed forces.

Not everyone gets all freaked out at the sight of a dirty smelly woman. Maybe it's just you, Ryan.




Dude, calm down. Most men I know, including those in the military, know that it is humiliating to do the things he mentions. But throw women into the mix and the dynamic changes. Ah, what's the point. One brick wall to another.




warspite1 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 7:50:38 PM)

It's actually very simple:

Women in the Armed Forces? Absolutely, and a great contribution they make.

Women in the frontline combat zone? No, absolutely not, no way. A womans role is to bring babies into the world, and to nurture children - not to kill and maim and torture*.

Frankly, that job is the most important one in the world - more important than anything men do (although we do provide some assistance [;)]). I have two beautiful, well adjusted, polite little warspites and 80% of the work in bringing them up has been down Mrs W [&o].


* That said, living with my wife can be torture sometimes [:(].




Qwixt -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 8:14:56 PM)

I don't think they belong on the front lines because men and women are not physically equal. They just aren't. I was in a combat MOS in the army, 12B, and the physical lifting requirements were quite demanding. I think most females would have been a weakness.

Our battalion had a 100 mile march context to see which two companies would represent it in an event. It was between 4 companies that sent about 15-20 people each. Two of them were support companies with females, and the other two were combat (like mine) or just sent men. The two with females couldn't even complete the event.




Capt. Harlock -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 8:18:40 PM)

quote:

Women in the frontline combat zone? No, absolutely not, no way. A womans role is to bring babies into the world, and to nurture children - not to kill and maim and torture*.

Frankly, that job is the most important one in the world


Have to agree. Racially integrated combat units work because "race" is really not that much of a difference. But the urge to protect the child-bearing members of the species is in our DNA, older than homo sapiens itself. I will bet heavily that downed female members of a squad will receive more attention than equivalently wounded males. And the current enemies we fight are not slow both to pick up on these kinds of things, and to exploit them to the full.




Dixie -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 8:55:02 PM)

I'm all for it, I may be in a minority but I don't see any reason why not.




hadberz -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 10:01:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I'm all for it, I may be in a minority but I don't see any reason why not.



Same here, this is long overdue IMO. Yep there will be growing pains. Yep everyone hates change, but everyone always gets over it one way or another.




aspqrz -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 10:31:06 PM)

"God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal"

Consider Audie Murphy, 5'5" and 110 lbs, the most decorated US soldier of WW2. Rejected by the Marines. Rejected by the Paras. His CO tried to have him sent to Cook's School, but he perservered and became a combat infantryman.

I doubt he'd meet the current physical requirements of the US *peacetime* Army, because they can pick and choose (theoretically, anyway, if less so in actuality, which is, of course, *one* of the reasons why they're being forced to allow women into combat roles). Wartime is somewhat different.

Guts and determination are more important than arbitrary physical requirements I would have thought, and neither is exclusive to one sex or the other.

Phil




ASHBERY76 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 10:36:09 PM)

Al qaeda will cash in.War is no place for women and it will end badly..




Sarge -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 10:58:23 PM)

That’s the second “social” experiment imposed on our military, can’t wait to see what’s next………..lol





Sarge -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 11:02:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
military is not meeting recruitment goals


I wonnder why..?




parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 11:17:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

It's actually very simple:

Women in the Armed Forces? Absolutely, and a great contribution they make.

Women in the frontline combat zone? No, absolutely not, no way. A womans role is to bring babies into the world, and to nurture children - not to kill and maim and torture*.

Frankly, that job is the most important one in the world - more important than anything men do (although we do provide some assistance [;)]). I have two beautiful, well adjusted, polite little warspites and 80% of the work in bringing them up has been down Mrs W [&o].


* That said, living with my wife can be torture sometimes [:(].


Well, my wife, daughter, mother, grandmother, two aunts and one crazy female gun nut neighbor all think a woman's role is to "make babies"(my wife is VP of her company, but she did not start her career till she was nearly 30-for the kids). Women civilize men. Left to their own devices men kill people and break things. Oh, that's what war is about. I know that I would be very likely to keep the girl "safe" in combat.

Furthermore, as one reader pointed out on WSJ.com:

"My concern is what this policy will contribute to further breaking down the already-troubled relationships of men and women in our society.

Friedrich von Hayek wrote that profound social knowledge is embedded in tradition that has evolved through the millennia of human experience. In "The Fatal Conceit," he taught that a society breaks these traditions just because someone has a "good idea" of what would be fair. When these notions are enacted through legislation and court decisions, there is a very real risk of wasting this profound knowledge".

For the record, I have ordered men to undertake missions where the entire platoon was at risk. During Operation Dewey Canyon in 1969 (the real one, not the incoming secretary of defense's one), I lost all seven of the Marine casualties I had during my tour. One died five feet from me. We moved on. Others died moments before I got to their position. We moved on. After one firefight, we carried a gut-shot Navy corpsman, who knew how much trouble he was in, for miles up a steep hill out of Laos.

How does a man not give special comfort to a wounded woman? My last Marine died in my arms from a wound I thought he would have survived. Could I have held her in my arms without reservation?

I had to decide how to handle the situation where a new squad leader beat a Marine who fell asleep on watch, the latter punishable by death in time of war. The decision process I went through is captured in a speech I gave to the Valley Forge Military Academy almost a year ago.

My concerns:

What kind of a man is it who can send women off to kill and maim? What kind of society does that?

What kind of men sharing a fire-team foxhole with a woman and two other men don't treat the woman more gently?

What kind of society bemoaning that men don't seem to respect women can't see that part of the respect they demand is predicated on the specialness of the other?

Perhaps it is possible in a firefight to distinguish between how one treats women and men, but I doubt that I could do it. And if I am trained to treat men and women the same throughout my career, can this have no significant effect on how I treat women otherwise?


Now that retired soldier makes some excellent points.




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 11:27:10 PM)

What if you had a 18 year old daughter.....if they go ahead with this, what comes next, the draft if ever needed. That would have to include women...young women.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I'm all for it, I may be in a minority but I don't see any reason why not.





parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 11:30:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

What if you had a 18 year old daughter.....if they go ahead with this, what comes next, the draft if ever needed. That would have to include women...young women.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I'm all for it, I may be in a minority but I don't see any reason why not.




My wife and I, with our daughter, had that horrifying discussion. Women are different and special. Men are expendable(to some degree) but not mom's and daughters.




Sarge -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 11:31:32 PM)

Wait till Allah Kaboom starts parading 20yr female POW’s in front of cameras




parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 11:37:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Wait till Allah Kaboom starts parading 20yr female POW’s in front of cameras


[sm=sad-1361.gif] God forbid. I hate Kaboom.




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 11:43:23 PM)

Korea, 1979...I know it was a while ago, but I seen this with my own eyes.   Division road march(18 miles).  We in the 38th Inf with the 23rd and the 9th following, started the road march with the rest of the division following.  So what happened!  Troops were spread out for miles, this was with just in  LBE, a helmet and m-16.  What would have been the case with a 90lb. winter ruck or 60lbs for a summer ruck.   Not including the basic combat load for each grunt.  They had vehicles following picking up stragglers...85 percent of them were women in those duce and halfs. 

I love you guys, but some of you....don't have a clue.[:-] 




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 11:48:24 PM)

Oh by the way, don't think I don't respect women....some of the best field recruiters I had when I was on recruiting duty were female.  Plus once, I got the worst A$$ kicking in racket ball from a female, and I had the court reserved.  My partner didn't show and she ask to KNOCK it around awhile until he showed.  Well he never showed[:-] and I got my butt kicked.  She was good....and she wasn't fat but heavy set.  I never forgot that.[:o][X(][:D]




parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 11:55:17 PM)

Titanwarrior89 intoned:

quote:

I love you guys, but some of you....don't have a clue.


But which guys? There are two distinct groups on this issue. The insane group who think women should be used as cannon fodder and the completely logical group who know that is a bad idea.[8D]




ilovestrategy -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/24/2013 11:56:21 PM)

As long as the physical requirements are the same with everyone I don't mind.




EisenHammer -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/25/2013 12:08:08 AM)


Woman warriors seem to do all right in Starship Troopers.
Just saying.
Cool movie.




parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (1/25/2013 12:11:48 AM)

Well, according to the Washington Post:

"To graduate from boot camp, soldiers must perform 35 pushups and 47 situps and run two miles in at least 16 minutes and 36 seconds — but that’s only for male soldiers.
Female troops are required to do 13 pushups and 43 situps and run two miles in 19 minutes and 42 seconds."


And:

"In the 1990s, the British army, under political pressure to put women in traditional male jobs, adopted a “gender-free” policy with identical fitness requirements for both sexes and abandoned its “gender fair” system of separate standards.
A decade later, Dr. Ian Gemmel conducted a study for the British army’s personnel center. He found that the number of women who could qualify for basic training decreased in the “gender-free” system, as more women dropped out of training because of injury, compared with the “gender fair” system of separate fitness requirements.
This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits,” Dr. Gemmel reported."



Why is there a difference? I think it is self explanatory.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/30/army-may-train-women-for-rigor-of-front-lines/?page=all






Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0234375