Thread: Band Of Sisters - Army "Lionesses" Hit Streets With marines In Combat

Originally Posted by Julie

you guys gave him a good run....he just didn't make it.

I thought he would too... Oh well...

Originally Posted by PaulG

You reckon miitary service is ticket to godliness?...

Yes it is a ticket to godliness for us in uniform. Below are the words inscribed on an Indian war memorial (of the 1962 Indo-China war)

"How can a Man die Better than facing Fearful Odds,
For the Ashes of His Fathers and the Temples of His Gods,"
To the sacred memory of the Heroes of Rezang La,
114 Martyrs of 13 Kumaon who fought to the Last Man,
Last Round, Against Hordes of Chinese on 18 November 1962.

PaulG, when men are ready to risk their life for people back home, then they get that ticket to godliness. No other profession asks men to fight to the last man, last round.

Gosh the guy has already been kicked out I joined the fun a bit late.

"I'm not trying to talk cocky smack."

Whether you were or you weren't, it sure sounded that way.(explanation below).

"I'm just trying to get you to realize that not all women are pitiful beings who need the big and powerful men to protect us."

Not only do i realize that, but i said the same thing earlier in the thread....not ALL women are helpless. Just the vast majority of them(and helpless is the wrong word. Severely disadvantadged in a physical confrontation is a lot more accurate).

The facts are the facts, women are not as strong or as fast(hand speed wise) as men, nor can they withstand the same physical punishment as men, as a generalrule.

Every rule has exceptions, and you MAY be one for all i know.

"I want you to stop over generalizing and understand that not all women are unable to perform in combat and that not all women are burdens on their police force/military."

Forget the police issue, cause i really have about zero problems with that.

But the fact is women are more of a burden on their unit even if they are 100% hi-speed lo-drag types, just because of the specialized medical care and separate housing they need. That's just a fact.

As far as women in combat, i've already allowed that there are some women that are highly capable- but with the caveat that they have a greater level of training(as far as HTH) and physical condtioning than a man of comparable size.

"I really don't know where your getting the whole "cocky smack" idea. I don't beleive that I have said anything other then my opinion, of yours I have certainly been made aware without criticizm on my part."

COCKY PART BELOW:

"half the people I arrest are either desperate and fighting for their lives to get away or on some sort of drug and cannot feel pain and are in an almost animal state."

Half? Right....

Subduing drugged out violent felons alone as a matter of course? Right....

I've been in such struggles myself. Usually it takes about four guys(or more) to subdue such a perp. Anything less is an exception rather than a rule. And i know 1st hand just how hard men in such a state hit. Can't honestly see any but the RAREST of women getting smashed across the face by a drugged out 220lb perp and not going nappy bye. Same holds true for 90% of most men.

I saw an angel dusted fool get hit by a car(hard)once, and pull the driver out after punching out the window and then proceed to beat the man stupid. Took about 10 of us(all just bystanders) to pin the nut until the cops got there. We beat the living daylights out of him and no matter what we did he kept fighting till we literally all just laid on top of him.

Got into a fight in my 76' cadillac many years ago with a 250ish lb drunken nit wit i was giving a ride home from the bar once(i was the barkeep). Drove him home, and he failed to produce the $10 bucks he promised me for the ride, so being the young irrational moron that i was i hit the power locks and told him 'no money i take you back to the bar and leave you there'.

Of course he took a swing at me.

I then proceeded to bludgeon him over the head with a solid iron bar about 8" long. We rolled into the back seat, i had him pinned to the headliner with my legs, and we just literally beat the hell out of eachother for the next three minutes(i had the bar, he was unarmed).
Finally after 3 minutes when we were too tired to swing at each other anymore we declared a 'truce', and i let him out of the car.
I am not exxagerating when i say that poor bastard must've needed 100 stitches the next day, and the entire interior of my Caddy looked like a murder scene. I even had blood in the cassete deck of my radio. I don't even know how he managed to stumble to his house.

I never did get my $10.

Claiming to handle perps like that 50% of the time- alone- is talking smack.

It's not credible.

In my entire life i've been in three such fights, and everytime i knew the consequences of losing were a week in intensive care at a minimum, or worse.
If i had lost any of them, there is a pretty good chance i wouldn't be here today typing these words.

Thankfully i inhereted my old mans rock solid skull.

My head hurt for about a week after the Caddy fight though.

Last time i was involved in such a fight was about 4 months ago when me and my partner(6'3" 310lbs) were cruising the ghetto looking for a repo and happened across two philly cops struggling with some big black guy. We jumped out and helped them, still took us 5 minutes to get cuffs on him(the four of us beat his asss pretty good in the process).

Lord only knows what that nutcase was on. We vamoosed before the shift supervisor showed up to avoid any legal 'entanglements' by mutual agreement with the officers on the scene. Never even found out what the guy did to begin with.

So anyway, yes i believe there are tough as nails women, no i don't believe they're at all common, and yes, i truly believe most women totally underestimate just how much physical power a man has.

Even in the military domestic abuse cases almost invariably involve the woman being on the losing side of a physical domestic quarrel, even when the hubby is some untrained slob of a civvie loser.

When i see women trying to dismiss the inherenent physical advantadges of men in HTH fighting it irks me knowing that some other girl somewhere else may read it and think all she's gotta do is kick a guy in the nuts to get him to leave her alone. If only it were so easy....

Sniper,
Let the army/navy do as they please with the women. In our army, the first womans course joined with us but passed out 4 months before us, reason they were given a shorter training period compared to us.

Rules amongst the male cadets was clear, no female senior cadet had the 'authority' to rag a junior male cadet. Reason, she gets posted to a cosy formation head quarter, and the guy would land in Kashmir or some other insugency that we are fighting.

Our army officers were quite confused when they arrived in uniform, about ettiquet. All army men rise from their chairs when a lady enters a room, we had some old fogies, standing up every time one these newbees entered their office. These girls made the old farts dance to their tunes. I even (as a 2nd Lt) ended up doing replacement duty as a cipher curiour officer, 'coz one of the girls was having a bad time of the month, there was no way of determining if the officer was shamming, sending her to a (army) lady doctor, was to complicated as most of these newbess were daughters of former or serving armed forces officers.

veni vidi vici,
No offence to your gender, just giving my end of experience. Actaully women are responsible for this drop in image in the forces, by their self centered actions.

Nice quote lemon tree.

Here's another for you:

"Oh passers by, go tell the Lacedonians that here, faithful to their bidding, we 300 spartans lie".

Burial mound of the 300 spartans, Thermopylae, Greece.

That monument is about 2300 years old- yet who among us has not heard of the 300 spartans?

Not many.

Also, agree with your observations. I've seen women in uniform pull some crazy stunts and get away with them.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Nice quote lemon tree.

It is from the memorial dedicated to 'C' company 13 Kumaon Regt. Only 5 men returned to the rear area, and 4-5 were captured. The company commander Maj. Shaitan Singh, was awarded the 'Param vir Chakra' postemously, the highest gallentry award for valor in the face of the enemy. It was estimated they caused approx 600 PLA casualities, though no PLA records are available, but estimates were made by counting the field dressing found at the battle sight 3 months after the war ended.

Originally Posted by lemontree

estimates were made by counting the field dressing found at the battle sight 3 months after the war ended.

They also could have cleaned up the field after the battle so the number could even be higher, amazing casulty count tho ... 100 men caused 600 casulties, thats a pretty good ratio.

From personal experience, a shot to the groin is not a showstopper. Takes awhile for the swelling to kick in, and that's more than enough time to wreak unrestrained revenge. At least I scored some dates with the techs that checked me out later on, after things had healed a couple of weeks later.


Found this little gem just stumbling around the internet.

http://www.fpri.org/enotes/military....nmilitary.html


The Feminization of the American Military
by Walter A. McDougall

February 4, 2000

Walter McDougall, a Vietnam veteran and Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, is editor of Orbis, the quarterly journal of FPRI. This essay is adapted from his article “Sex, Lies, and Infantry,” which first appeared in Commentary.

In a tender love song from the late 1970’s, Bob Dylan asked, “Can you cook and sew and make flowers grow, do you understand my pain?” To the ensuing barrage of feminist criticism, the somewhat shaken but unrepentant song writer replied: yes, women should be free to do whatever they liked, but “when a man says he’s looking for a good woman, he isn’t looking for an airline pilot.”

Two decades later, all manner of media are laboring to purge Americans of such benighted attitudes, and all manner of American institutions are breathlessly acquiescing. The title of one of my daughter’s favorite bedtime books is Maybe You Should Fly a Jet, and the cover shows a woman— a blonde, glamorous woman— at the controls. Children’s television programs inevitably depict female doctors, police, and mechanics; presidents of women’s colleges deplore the fact that one in eight teenage girls still hopes for a career in modeling; and the United States Army encourages women to “be all that you can be” by trading cosmetics and cars for camouflage and helicopters.

Indeed, one of the central goals of the feminist movement is to establish a fully sexually integrated military, trained, fit, and ready to engage in combat. To the advocates of this cause, it is an outrage that the United States is not moving at a rapid enough pace in their direction; but the truth is that it has moved very swiftly indeed. The United States today is the only serious military power in history to contemplate thorough sexual integration of its armed forces. And thanks to an adamant feminist lobby, a conspiracy of silence in the officer corps, and the anodynestate of debate over the issue, the brave new world of female infantry, bomber pilots, submariners, and drill sergeants may lie just around the corner.

How ought Americans of both sexes to think about their co-educational military and the prospects for women in combat? No doubt many unreconstructed male chauvinists would agree with Nietzsche that “Man shall be framed for War, Woman for the entertainment of the Warrior, and all else is folly.” But one need not be a caveman to argue that objections may be made against women in combat on some basis other than bias, for instance: common sense; the empirical evidence of the past twenty years; and the universal experience of the human race. As former Secretary of the Navy James Webb attests, military institutions must be coercive, hierarchical, and self-sacrificial, and as such they depend on a rigid code of fairness with regard to conduct, performance, and deportment, promotion on merit, and egalitarian treatment that by its nature cannot be gender- neutral. For as soon as the sexes are mixed in close quarters, especially for prolonged and tense intervals, the jealousies, courtships, and favoritism that are bound to erupt must corrode fairness and discipline.

Imagine, writes Webb, a ship at sea for a hundred days during which numerous crew members pair off for sex. That in itself spawns favoritism, duplicity, and pregnancies. But what of the crewmen who don’t “score” with shipmates and must stifle their libido for months? “The inescapable feelings of resentment, competition, and anger that follow create a powder keg of emotions that cannot help but affect morale, discipline, and attention to duty.” To military expert Edward Luttwak, the belief that mixing the sexes need not affect order and discipline is “a grotesque, puritanical hypocrisy. The Army can’t do something that eluded the Franciscans. It can’t run a mixed monastery.”

Everyone knows this--and yet nobody talks, which is what allows the feminists to frame the debate entirely in terms of equal opportunity. Senior male officers habitually prove Napoleon’s dictum to the effect that “He who is full of courage and sang-froid before an enemy battery sometimes trembles before a skirt.” They keep silent because they know that to express caveats about sexual integration is a “career buster.” Civilian officials talk much but say little lest they offend one or another constituency or lobby.



Militarily or Politically Correct?
Since most women in the military would not volunteer for combat even if they could, a few “exceptions”— who do want to storm beaches with an M-60 machine gun or bombBaghdad from a B-2— are what this fevered debate is really about. In essence, we are asked to transform the entire culture of the U.S. military, with all the incalculable effects that entails, on behalf of a small number of tough women who demand the “right” to fight alongside men. But is military service in our democracy really a right or entitlement? Or does it remain the privilege or (in wartime) obligation it used to be? That was a question unasked when the AVF was set up, but chances are the Supreme Court will soon have to answer it unless the Commander-in-Chief answers it first.

One might think that feminists would celebrate the progress made by servicewomen. Instead, as Linda Bird Francke’s book, Ground Zero: The Gender Wars in the Military, indicates, some feminists are furious that any barriers still exist to women in combat. And the reason they do, according to Francke, is clear: a male-dominated military establishment persists, from the top down and bottom up, in repression and even persecution of women, and conspires to protect its last male-only units in the name of atavistic machismo.

Yet despite Francke’s accusations of rampant misogyny, emasculation is the undeniable policy of U.S. military programs today. The pressure on the armed forces to allow homosexuals to serve openly, begun in 1993 and renewed in the context of Hillary Clinton’s run for the Senate, is only the most public manifestation of this. Less known is the fact that the Defense Department’s schools for survival, obliged to deal with the prospect of females in captivity, now simulate sexual exploitation and torture of both sexes in order to “desensitize” men so they will not feel protective toward females. Meanwhile, the Pentagon continues to stoke recruitment of women to the point where one-fifth of all new recruits are now female, DACOWITS continues to pressure the military academies to increase their female enrollments, and the movement to lift restrictions on women in combat is cresting.

One need only retrace the dramatic change of tone in the statements of top military personnel over the last twenty years to discover how much ground has been gained by the feminist camp. In 1976 General William Westmoreland agreed that recruiting women for the AVF would change the ethos of the U.S. armed forces. “Maybe you could find one woman in 10,000 who could lead in combat,” he said, “but she would be a freak and we’re not running the military academy for freaks.” By 1993, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower Barbara Pope was boasting, “We are in the process of weeding out the white male as norm. We're about changing the culture.” And in 1997 Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen promised that the revelations of seduction and rape in training units would not lead to curtailment of opportunities for women: “We are not going to turn back the clock.”

In Jane Austin’s Pride and Prejudice, the seemingly level-headed Caroline Bingley sniffs about an upcoming dance. “I should like balls infinitely better,” she said, “if they were carried on in a different manner. . . . It would be surely be more rational if conversation instead of dancing made the order of the day.” To which her brother replied, “Much more rational, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a ball.”

Writing in the 1940’s in opposition to the ordination of women as priests, C.S. Lewis argued that the issue was not whether females could perform the caring and instructional missions of the clergy as well or better than most men, but rather that the Church was a creature of revelation, not reason, and that the Lord had chosen to place the burden of priesthood on men. But if men had become insufficientlymasculine to perform their appointed duty, the solution was hardly to call upon those who were not masculine at all. We arrived at our current impasse over women in combat for the simple reason that not enough American men could be found to perform a masculine duty. And if our only solution— and it appears that it is— is to call upon those who are not masculine at all, then we may reach the point when— as Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man: “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful.”

In an editorial praising deployment of women on warships, the New York Times chided opponents for acting “as if knighthood were still in flower.” Well, knighthood gave us the words courtesy and chivalry, taught men how to behave toward enemies, comrades, and women alike, and bade them prefer death to dishonor. But the Times was right about one thing. It is certainly not in flower today and will not bloom again in our time . . . unless the women revive it.




Items of Interest
The Demilitarization of the Military, edited by John F. Lehman and Harvey Sicherman (FPRI, 1997). Free for members; $15 for non-members

The Future of American Military Culture, edited by John F. Lehman and Harvey Sicherman (FPRI, 1999). Free for members; $15 for non-members

America at Risk: Five Threats and What to So About Them, edited by John F. Lehman and Harvey Sicherman (FPRI, forthcoming). Free for members; $25 for non-members

You may forward this email as you like provided that you send it in its entirety and attribute it to the Foreign Policy Research Institute. If you post it on a mailing list, please contact FPRI with the name, location, purpose, and number of recipients of the mailing list.

Interesting read.

Very nice article.