Women Open To Combat Roles

steingar said:
And I never said the IDF was any better than our local boys. But claiming there was something wrong with Jewish civilians because they didn't overthrow their lawful government in Nazi Germany smells of it. Lots to that story, though I doubt much is known to you.



And that just isn't true. Just because the UN mandates something doesn't make it happen. In the case of Israel, it was Jewish fighters with their boots on the ground, and not the useless UN.



Soldiering in the Revolutionary war was not what it is today. And if you look at what our folks do in these conflicts, the larger part is training. No, civilians and soldiers are not directly comparable. And saying women shouldn't be in the military because the Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany were victimized borders on patent nonsense.



Seems like both invaded, had potshots taken at them by locals, and left under internal pressure. I don't see that big a difference, to be honest. Then again, no one had really been able to conquer that country since Alexander the Great, so I don't think we should feel that badly.
Click to expand...

I never said that anything was wrong with those who were victims of the Holocaust. It was an argumentive point meant for discussion. I know the history of Israel, especially the fight against British rule. The UN did legitimize the land that was occupied by Israelites. You can't ignore that. I never said that women don't belong in the military because of Nazis and Jews. That was you turning my words around. And for Afghanistan, that place isn't worth the fight. I'm not trying to bash anybody, but I do love a good discussion/debate and may push things a little.
 
Alexb2000 said:
My scenario was supposed to add a tint of levity, but if you have to say it...

My point was simply that while the women that volunteer for it know what they're getting into. Maybe we as a nation or at least those with a more traditional background might find it hard to see or hear about women, mothers, and daughters being killed, beaten, and/or raped in a war zone.

When we can look at the news of a lost solider and truly feel the same level of remorse or concern over a 18 year old 200 lb. single man as we do a 30 year old single mother that leaves three children orphaned. Then I agree it will be a non-issue.
Click to expand...
Why didn't you compare our feelings about an 18 year old single woman and a 30 year old single father who leaves three children orphaned?
 
TMetzinger said:
No opposition to women in combat roles.

However, for certain things, there will be physical requirements, and those requirements need to be gender-blind. I know that the USCG rescue swimmer program operates that way - if you can meet the physical fitness requirements, you're ok. If not, you're not. And there's no difference in the requirements between male and female.

From what I know about Army Armor operations, there are probably some roles like a Tank crewman (where you have to crack and change track) that few females would be able to perform. But there are quite a few males that can't perform them too. I expect all the services have jobs that are similar.

The final issue to be dealt with is pregnancy - If a woman is captured, she's likely to be raped. This can happen to males too but it doesn't result in pregnancy. Pregnancy as part of "normal" peacetime operations is an issue too. Taking on a service role, especially a combat service role, is a commitment that is incompatible with pregnancy. So I think that women will have to choose. But it should be THEIR choice, not a choice withheld from them.
Click to expand...

That is true
 
EdFred said:
Equal rights means equal everything - not just what you pick and choose.
Click to expand...

That's right, and now the girls can comply with all the physical requirements too, the NAVY has eliminate the different standards for the physical fitness. If you do not qualify the first time there are no re-takes, it goes down in your record and the next time you try to re-enlist you will not get recommended.

That's just in from my stop at the chief's club.
 
Tom-D said:
That's right, and now the girls can comply with all the physical requirements too, the NAVY has eliminate the different standards for the physical fitness. If you do not qualify the first time there are no re-takes, it goes down in your record and the next time you try to re-enlist you will not get recommended.
Click to expand...
But if the Navy did that, they would not be able to maintain anywhere close to the current number of women in the service.
 
Henning said:
Men are every bit as fragile mentally as women if not more so in many cases.
Click to expand...
Ain't that the truth.

My first job in the Navy was as First Lietenant on a co-ed Destroyer. My Deck division was 50/50 male-female. For those unfamiliar, Deck division is one of the more physically demanding jobs in the mainstream fleet (not counting Specwar/EOD..etc). Most of the job is busting rust and painting and when they aren't doing that, they are manning the boats, handling the anchor, mooring lines and manning the flight deck. The may not have had the same sheer physical strength, but as far as attitudes and overall endurance, my females were every bit as tough as their male counterparts.

My next tour was on a Coastal Patrol craft - ALL male crew and during that tour, I literally saw more tears rolling down cheeks from the guys than I ever did on the Destroyer.
 
Geico266 said:
Old Navy here too. Putting women on ship resulted in 50% pregnancy on some ships, but I'm not the one serving now. Let the service men and women of today decide. :yes:
Click to expand...
Hasn't changed in the new Navy.....the standing joke when the HST deployment was delayed recently due to the pending sequester was 'dang....all those women who got pregnant for nothing...'
 
jtheune said:
I know from my time in the navy the ( late 70-80s) fitness requirements were different for men and women. I don't know if that is still the case or not.
Click to expand...
Hasn't changed. PFA standards for females are lower than for men. But that said, I really don't have a problem with that. As I mentioned with my personal experience in Deck, I have not seen the physical fitness disparity really impact our normal operations. I can see it being an issue in NSW or EOD, however.
 
Tom-D said:
That's right, and now the girls can comply with all the physical requirements too, the NAVY has eliminate the different standards for the physical fitness. If you do not qualify the first time there are no re-takes, it goes down in your record and the next time you try to re-enlist you will not get recommended.

That's just in from my stop at the chief's club.
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
But if the Navy did that, they would not be able to maintain anywhere close to the current number of women in the service.
Click to expand...

AuntPeggy said:
or men?
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
Not following you.....male standards were not lowered in order to get them to join, and I don't know too many males who joined the Navy because it was co-ed.
Click to expand...

OK. That is what I was getting at, if the standards are the same, good.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Hasn't changed. PFA standards for females are lower than for men. But that said, I really don't have a problem with that. As I mentioned with my personal experience in Deck, I have not seen the physical fitness disparity really impact our normal operations. I can see it being an issue in NSW or EOD, however.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with standards for women being the same as for men. However, if that particular standard is not needed for doing a job then I don't think it should be set higher in order to weed out women who ON AVERAGE are less physically strong than men.
 
Everskyward said:
I have no problem with standards for women being the same as for men. However, if that particular standard is not needed for doing a job then I don't think it should be set higher in order to weed out women who ON AVERAGE are less physically strong than men.
Click to expand...

Yep, there are also plenty of tasks that play to women's strengths too.


For the record I am happy not to see a debate on if men and women are different, anyone being honest knows they are. As this is a discussion of the military noting that on the whole men are bigger, stronger and more physically aggressive means that women are going to be at a slight disadvantage in areas where those are key traits.


However the ones likely to actually WANT the job are probably at significantly less of a disadvantage than the average woman. :wink2:
 
Everskyward said:
I have no problem with standards for women being the same as for men. However, if that particular standard is not needed for doing a job then I don't think it should be set higher in order to weed out women who ON AVERAGE are less physically strong than men.
Click to expand...
With limited exceptions, do you know what "the job" is before you enter boot camp? There can be thousands of jobs in each branch of service.
 
nddons said:
With limited exceptions, do you know what "the job" is before you enter boot camp? There can be thousands of jobs in each branch of service.
Click to expand...
We are talking about specific jobs here. AFAIK men and women have been making it though boot camp for a long time.
 
nddons said:
Here's an interesting WSJ article on this topic:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8260132111473150.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Click to expand...

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.

Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?
Click to expand...

I totally agree with that article...people who believe that women can serve in infantry units have never been in a combat situation and are completely clueless...

Combat is NOT what you see on typical Hollywood movies...the article provides an accurate description of what fighters must endure in operations...

Can you picture a woman defecating in a cardboard box inches away from her comrades because they cannot leave their vehicle for days ?

Can you imagine a woman having her period in a situation like this ? No hygiene at all...is she going to insert tampons in front of everybody in the moving APC ?

Get real people and stop this PC nonsense...
 
Last edited:
Hey, if you gotta go you gotta go, and in that moment the physical need will overwhelm all desire for privacy. BTDT, not in a trench but in an airplane. Lots of things like this are just cultural niceties and can be overcome.
 
Everskyward said:
Hey, if you gotta go you gotta go, and in that moment the physical need will overwhelm all desire for privacy. BTDT, not in a trench but in an airplane. Lots of things like this are just cultural niceties and can be overcome.
Click to expand...


A hot shower for a menstruating woman is not what I would call a "cultural nicety"...

Not being able to shower for more than a month would cause more than a bit of discomfort to women....

U.S. Foxhole - Nasiriya.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
The may not have had the same sheer physical strength, but as far as attitudes and overall endurance, my females were every bit as tough as their male counterparts.
Click to expand...

This should not be surprising at all to anyone capable of objective observation of the human condition - or at least studied history in some detail.

Armageddon Aviator said:
Can you picture a woman defecating in a cardboard box inches away from her comrades because they cannot leave their vehicle for days ?
Click to expand...

Yes I can (not that I'm all that fond of picturing anyone defecating!)

You need to do more studying of history to understand the limits of the possible. For example, at the dawn of the industrial age, women (and children) worked in coal mines with men.[1][2][3] Because of the heat, men would sometimes work nearly or entirely naked and women would wear trousers and some young girls would be naked from the waist up. In Britain, it wasn't until after an accident in 1841 in which 26 children died that a law was passed making it illegal for all females and boys under ten to work in mines.[4]

But even before then, since the beginning of agriculture, women have had no choice but to labor in the fields with men. Currently their labor contributions account for half the effort (i.e. they aren't disproportionately idle in such labor intensive work).[5]

It appears that the lessons from history (which I have barely touched) show much more variation is possible with respect to cultural norms than most people (including myself of course) have experience with or would believe is possible. It is impossible to tell what is possible - or collectively or individually desirable - without first trying. Expanding opportunities, even to unhealthy activities, is in my opinion never a bad idea.

(While I think women should be allowed to be armed cannon fodder like men are, rather than unarmed victims as they were in atrocities like the Rape of Nanking, I agree that they have no business being allowed to buy sugary drinks of more than 16 oz. Such large drinks are a moral outrage. (Do I really need a rolling eyes emoticon here?))

[1] http://writingwomenshistory.blogspot.com/2012/06/pit-lasses-truth-about-britains-female.html
[2] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1842womenminers.asp
[3] http://www.worktolivedaily.com/2012/08/the-history-of-womens-work-coal-mining/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_and_Collieries_Act_1842
[5] http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am307e/am307e00.pdf
 
Seanaldinho said:
Good article.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately she uses one data point, her own medical history, to make her case re "longevity." That is the entire thesis of her objection - nothing else. I found it odd that she managed to write these two sentences so close together:

"I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations."

The second sentence admits to a shortage of data, but that doesn't stop her from making a confident claim in the first sentence. She points to differing training attrition rates, which should, if the screening is gender neutral, not really tell us anything about medical ailment attrition in combat operations.

"It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marine...."

Her above statement is one of several that points up an interesting observation but doesn't really argue against combat roles for women. Without women then some subset of men would be in the "higher rate of deterioration" group; even if you prove that most women will enter that group does not argue against combat roles for them.

By the way, it is clear she has paid a heavy price in the service of her country - those are some serious ailments.
 
To be clear, she is NOT saying no women in combat roles; just not in the infantry.
 
Interesting article but it only shows her experience. I think her problems were not the norm. Deterioration of muscle and other injuries? Usually when people deploy they come back in much better physical condition when they left. Plenty of gyms over there even at the smallest FOBs so some of her comments just don't make sense. Seems she has localized problems that only would happen to someone with pre-existing or specialized medical issues. This could be a male or female problem.

Once again, this decision to integrate women in further combat roles should be made by generals and not politicians.

Women aren't exactly knocking down the door to go to these combat roles so they'll be very few that would accept the challenge anyway.

The women who do try out for these positions aren't going to have different training standards. Yes, they have different PT standards but that's always been the case and that won't change.

If a woman is able to endure what these guys go through and make it, good for them. The ones who try and fail, oh well, we have nothing to lose. Wash them out just like any other applicant.

As far as women being captured by the enemy in these new roles? Who cares? Women have a far better chance of being captured flying in combat aircraft or ground convoy (Jessica Lynch) than some infantry or spec ops unit. Women have been flying combat aircraft in the "front lines" for almost 20 ys now. Nothing new.
 
Velocity173 said:
As far as women being captured by the enemy in these new roles? Who cares? Women have a far better chance of being captured flying in combat aircraft or ground convoy (Jessica Lynch) than some infantry or spec ops unit. Women have been flying combat aircraft in the "front lines" for almost 20 ys now. Nothing new.
Click to expand...
Exactly...not much to see here.

The issue that bothers me with the current administration is the effort to force equality where it does not really make sense. Women on submarines for example.
 
Women on submarines? Average woman is 5'4", average man is 5'10". Submariners used to be the shorter males. Seems like adding women to the draw helps.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly...not much to see here.

The issue that bothers me with the current administration is the effort to force equality where it does not really make sense. Women on submarines for example.
Click to expand...

Yeah I've read stuff online about the integration of women on carriers. Doesn't seem like it's worked out that well for the Navy. Women getting pregnant, fraternization, preferential treatment. Not sure how if it's affected readiness but it's at the very least a distraction from doing one's job.

It would be nice when we're in close quarters with women we could remain professional but it just doesn't work out that way in the real world. Any sort of office relationships that emerge in the civilian world is one thing, when it happens on a carrier out at sea is even worse.

Still I believe women should be offered these new combat roles. If there's a breakdown in good order and discipline then a commander needs to quickly nip that problem in the butt. It's an ugly situation (Blue Angels) when that stuff happens, but a commander has got to take charge and set the example.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Women on submarines? Average woman is 5'4", average man is 5'10". Submariners used to be the shorter males. Seems like adding women to the draw helps.
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with size, physical strength, or aptitude.

Has everything to do with the cost to integrate women into subs, the nature of submarine missions and isolation that goes with it.

The Navy is well integrated overall and we have made it work (as descibed in my personal experiences earlier in this thread), but not without problems. In short, when you put men and women on a ship together, it is like putting a male and female rabbitt in a cage. Aside from the pregnancy and other relationaship issues (there is a TON of high school drama that goes with onboard romances and subsequent break-ups when you are dealing with 18-20 year olds working closely together in confined spaces).

With that said, we have made it work in the Fleet, but it comes at a high cost. You cannot safely put men and women in the same berthing compartment using the same showers and heads. That means dedicated berthing for females. Problem with that is the difficulty managing the numbers of females due to transfers - you often end up with a berthing compartment half (or less than half full) and if the detailers don't have a female to send you to fill that rack, you aren't going to get a male instead, because you can't put the male in the female rack. So, you end up undermanned. It is alot easier to mitigate that problem on a surface ship when the crew is larger, but much tougher on a sub where every body counts.

We also have a very large sexual assault problem in the Navy right now that adds to the drama. That is not the women's fault....it is not always the guy's fault....but it does happen frequently and when it does, readiness takes a hit. The problem with that for submarines, is the isolation. Subs don't general travel with other subs or other surface ships. They operate independently and often stay down for very long periods of time, often without much contact with the outside world due to the nature of their ops.

When a sexual assault case comes up on a surface ship, we immediately separate them and can get the victim (or offender depending on the circumstances) off the ship within hours or a day or two at the most. Readiness might take a minor hit, but we don't have to completely pull a ship off its mission to deal with it. That is not possible with a submarine.

POTUS wants it done. CNO has said make it happen and we will do that, but I don't think it will be pretty and predict that we only end up with one or two subs converted to take females.
 
PPC1052 said:
To be clear, she is NOT saying no women in combat roles; just not in the infantry.
Click to expand...

There in shows the big problem...........

Woman and their outspoken leaders scream ( Equal rights ). then when the going get tough they want to cherry pick their missions ,tasks, and their position in the grand scheme of things.....:mad2::mad2:..

Kinda similar to a female getting a mortgage for a home, then when it is time to start paying off the note they claim they make less then men so they will pay less each month on the note they agreed on..... Moving targets are next to impossible to get right..;)

They know full well going into a military that is disclosing up front they have to meet certain criteria.... If they can't cut the mustard, then don't sign up........

Ps................In my personally observation the vast majority of the military have gone soft and are looking to milk the system with PTSD, injuries and other trumped up schemes to get on disability...... Soldiers in WW2 went to war, fought thier a$$es off and came home deal with the situation back at home and fit into society......

Now a days........... Not so much...:no::nonod:.

IMHO..........................


flame suit on..:rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
I think of ground combat in terms of a very physical sport like football. Can women be trained to run, catch, block, kick, etc? Sure. You can get up a coed team and play and it would be fun and have entertainment value. Would that coed team have a chance against the all male varsity?

Now let's raise the stakes and compare football to combat. Combat is like football raised to the professional level. Instead of money and trophies, you're literally playing for your life and the lives of your teammates. How many women play professional football or any intensely physical contact sport in competition with men? Could you put women on a professional football team? What would happen? Can every man play professional football? Hardly, but I have yet to see any woman come close. Do you want an army of varsity soldiers or an army of intramural quality? If you were to go into combat and had to pick your teammates, would you pick the girl or the guy to cover your back? I'm talking extended combat, not a three hour field training exercise target shooting on a range or running a obstacle course in less than fifteen minutes, I'm talking eating, sleeping, defecating, humping sixty pounds of gear for weeks at a time in desolate, harsh terrain.

Of course I'm speaking in generalities and realize there are women who are physically stronger than some men. Not all men are able to be combat soldiers and they get eliminated eery day from traing, but the pool of men who are capable is much larger than the pool of capable females. Some would say, if a woman can at least equal the performance of the least capable man on a combat team, she should be given the opportunity. I say unless having women serve in ground combat increases combat effectiveness, which just about everyone has to agree it doesn't, then why are we debating spending more to at most equal our current combat capability but more probably in fact decrease our combat effectiveness? All this debate to give a very few capable women a shot at earning a CIB at more expense and risk to our nations defense. Political correctness taken to extreme.
 
Witmo said:
Some would say, if a woman can at least equal the performance of the least capable man on a combat team, she should be given the opportunity.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I am saying. We should be judging individuals, not groups of people.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Women on submarines? Average woman is 5'4", average man is 5'10". Submariners used to be the shorter males. Seems like adding women to the draw helps.
Click to expand...

If the woman will agree to sleep in the same rack as the men, use the same head, and be subject to prosecution for any pregnancy resulting from a consensual act (not excluding the father either) then I will think about it. However you still have an issue, if you make a woman libel for becoming pregnant you greatly up the chances of a false claim of rape, now what?

How about if you can come up with a 100% female crew? We will have to start out with some male officers until there are women qualified for the jobs however.
 
Everskyward said:
That is exactly what I am saying. We should be judging individuals, not groups of people.
Click to expand...

I agree, my question is given physiological differences can a woman maintain the same level of combat readiness as a man over the long term. My concern has more to do with hygiene than privacy or strength.
 
Everskyward said:
That is exactly what I am saying. We should be judging individuals, not groups of people.
Click to expand...

No, you're not getting my point. Very few women can meet the minimum standards for ground combat. Should we spend an inordinate amount of money and risk the present combat effectiveness of our ground troops so that a very few capable women get to serve in ground combat? Or do we lower standards to enable more to qualify? I say no to both. It's just not worth the problems that will have to be solved in order for some politician to claim a moral victory in the name of "fairness." I don't think it's fair to the average combat soldier to risk his life so that a very few additional women eventually can pin on flag rank because they can say they served in ground combat.

I live in San Antonio where the Air Force has been prosecuting Training Instructors for inappropriate contact with female trainees. The scandal has been playing out for many months and appears to be something that defies an absolute solution to date. If problems such as this are endemic to initial training with mixed gender units when you have a very controlled environment, what problems have yet to be brought to light (or are being kept under wraps) in mixed gender units out in the field? If women serving in ground combat were truly a reasonable option, would you feel an all women ground combat unit would be equal to or better than an all male ground combat unit? The politically correct proponent of women in combat would argue that while an all female unit might not be as effective as an all male combat unit, a mixed gender unit would be better because of a magical synergy obtained from the best qualities of both genders. I'm just sorry for the poor soldier who has to die because the American people put more importance on "fairness" than in mission accomplishment.
 
Witmo said:
No, you're not getting my point. Very few women can meet the minimum standards for ground combat. Should we spend an inordinate amount of money and risk the present combat effectiveness of our ground troops so that a very few capable women get to serve in ground combat? Or do we lower standards to enable more to qualify? I say no to both. It's just not worth the problems that will have to be solved in order for some politician to claim a moral victory in the name of "fairness." I don't think it's fair to the average combat soldier to risk his life so that a very few additional women eventually can pin on flag rank because they can say they served in ground combat.

I live in San Antonio where the Air Force has been prosecuting Training Instructors for inappropriate contact with female trainees. The scandal has been playing out for many months and appears to be something that defies an absolute solution to date. If problems such as this are endemic to initial training with mixed gender units when you have a very controlled environment, what problems have yet to be brought to light (or are being kept under wraps) in mixed gender units out in the field? If women serving in ground combat were truly a reasonable option, would you feel an all women ground combat unit would be equal to or better than an all male ground combat unit? The politically correct proponent of women in combat would argue that while an all female unit might not be as effective as an all male combat unit, a mixed gender unit would be better because of a magical synergy obtained from the best qualities of both genders. I'm just sorry for the poor soldier who has to die because the American people put more importance on "fairness" than in mission accomplishment.
Click to expand...

Why would is cost more money for females to serve in the infantry if no changes are made in standards? Why would combat effectivness be reduced if a woman meets those same standards?

Your Lackland example has nothing to do with women in combat roles. That's an example where instructors are in a position of authority and were taking advantage of that. Same situation with the Air Force Academy in the early 90s when women were sexually assaulted during SERE. Those are clear cases of lack of command leadership. We have a HUGE sexual harassment / assault problem in the military right now. That's not the fault of the women serving though. So what do we do? Should we say women are too much of a distraction for men and not let them serve at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top