Thread: For Female GIs, Combat Is A Fact

Spoon,

Let me clarify a few things for you. I've had both women officers and NCMs under my command and I've served with some fine women. I'm NOT against women in the combat arms but what I am against is this political correct bullcrap that you and your ilk are forcing us through. The CF is integrated and we've gone through a BIG learning curve and through a hell of alot of heartaches and headaches to set up the structures that would allow the few women who do qualify to go into the combat arms.

It's done. We've paid the price. A big price and the return is less than satisfying. The few women we've gain did not and cannot replace the men we've lost. The men we've lost were combat veterans with decades of service and left before they trained replacements; an irrecoverable lost of knowledge and experience.

Currently, 12% of the combat arms (engrs, inf, guns, and arm'd) are women but NONE in the line forces. Most are tasked at the CP and HQ simply because they learned where their best chance for advancements are. Unless they want to stay a private and at a private's pay, the chances of them staying in the combat arms for their entire careers are practically nil.

Most would leave the regforce. The rest might make it to Sgt or Capt before their smarts tell them to leave the cbt arms for better promotion and paid. It's as simple as their bodies are no longer capable of keeping up with the demands of the job. I don't freaking care how good you are, women slow down alot faster with age than men. Given our military cultures of leading by example, there is no way a woman can lead by example when her charges are surpassing her.

Simply put, the CF has levelled the playing field. It's up to the women to suceed and they're not suceeding by whatever measure you want to give it. Now, there's talk of imposing a quota of no less than 25% of women in the combat arms (fat chance we'll obey that) simply to make jerks like you and bonehead feel good about how far civilization has come.

I've got news for you. Combat isn't about being civilized. Combat is brutal. We're there to kill with complete and utter brutallity. Yes, some women can be brutal but for every one you can find, I can find you 10,000 brutal men (I ain't joking about the ratio) and for the effort, I rather have 10 brutal men than one brutal woman.

In my experience i can't argue at all with what the Colonel says above.

I know for my part, being 5'7" and 150lbs, that while i was able to perform in the infantry to a very high level in my youth, it resulted in my body taking a tremendous pounding. And pound for pound, i was one of the strongest soldiers in my entire Bn when i served.

As i stated in another thread the other day, my days of being able to perform to a high level in the infantry are 5 or 6 years behind me...at least.

Now we are getting somewhere. The recent answers to my question cited some examples. I take examples over "because I said so" any day of the week. Unfortunately I asked the wrong question.( My fault)
Israel has little bearing on the security of the U.S. If I am not mistaken, the Officer of Engineers is Canadian. The security of the U.S. is not the prime concern of the CF. Though we share many similarities (U.S. and Canada) we are still not comparing apples to apples as our societies and armed forces are different. I could not care less how other countries man their armed forces. They should do so as they see fit. I am only concerned with the U.S. armed forces.(My secutity.My tax dollars.) The question I should have asked is .."Where in the U.S. armed forces have women served in combat and failed?"

Offficer of Engineers:
1) Why did you lose the combat veterans?
2) I'm guessing you wanted to use something stronger than "jerk" so I will let it slide.
3) I am a firm non believer in quotas or any other affirmative action nonsense. I do believe that if you are good enough to play the game you should not be denied the field.

Women have never been allowed into a primary ground combat role in the US, so there are obviously zero examples of women failing in combat in US service to point to. I could point to the overrun of the 505th Maintenance company i suppose, since the only soldier that mounted any effective resistance whatsoever was a male, but it's a pretty weak example.

Beyond that, all we can do is look to the examples of other nations that've tried it. In the modern era, only two have.

Israel, and Canada.

In Israel it didn't work out well at all(as in not even a little bit), and the women were subsequently removed from combat units poste haste.

In Canada, they lowered the standards significantly(and still only 3% of female applicants could 'qualify' for service in Mech units, none in light or Abn units), and it caused so much resentment that many senior and junior NCOs and officers left. In fact, they left in droves.

Common sense alone ought to tell you that putting an 18yo boy and girl together in a foxhole will result in nothing but bad things happening. Common sense should also clearly demonstrate to anyone that putting a man and a women in a HTH fight to the death is going to work out extremely poorly for the female as well... but hey, i guess you got shortchanged in the common sense dep't.

There is a reason that there are no women in men's professional sports. The reason?

They can't compete. Not even a little. They're simply not physically capable of matching a man in speed, quickness, strength, or endurance. They're not designed to.

If that pisses you off, i suggest you talk to God about it, because there is no level of empathy or compassion that is ever going to change those basic physiological facts.

Originally Posted by bonehead

The security of the U.S. is not the prime concern of the CF.

I don't believe this. An American who does not believe Canada relies on the US to be protected. Get a hint, pal. I've said that Canada relied on 3 oceans to protect her more than she relies on the US. But get a freaking clue, whatever can threaten the US can also threaten Canada with impunity.

Canadian airspace (and soon Maritime Command and LandForce Command) are defended by NORAD (translation - American assets with Canadians at some of the controls).

Originally Posted by bonehead

Though we share many similarities (U.S. and Canada) we are still not comparing apples to apples as our societies and armed forces are different.

Ignorant a-hole speaking. Canada and the US are practically the same societies and our armed forces are the most integrated on earth. I was (past-tense) qualified to command an American battalion and act as an OpsO in an American Brigade.

Originally Posted by bonehead

I could not care less how other countries man their armed forces. They should do so as they see fit. I am only concerned with the U.S. armed forces.(My secutity.My tax dollars.) The question I should have asked is .."Where in the U.S. armed forces have women served in combat and failed?"

Easy enough to counter. How many women died during the British-French Wars (Americans call it the French Indian Wars)? How many women died during the Apache Wars? How many women died during the American Civil Wars? In all the incidents I've mentioned, women has taken up arms (and many not by choice) and the results were less than impressive.

Originally Posted by bonehead

Offficer of Engineers:
1) Why did you lose the combat veterans?

Are you really that stupid?

Originally Posted by bonehead

2) I'm guessing you wanted to use something stronger than "jerk" so I will let it slide.

Jerk is exactly the term I want to use. If I wanted to use something stronger, I would have used something stronger.

Originally Posted by bonehead

3) I am a firm non believer in quotas or any other affirmative action nonsense. I do believe that if you are good enough to play the game you should not be denied the field.

YOU ARE EXACTLY AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION NONSENCE! You've did not read what I wrote. We've LOST combat veterans so that a few women could qualify in the combat arms. You're stating exactly the same thing you want for your army.

Thanks boys. I got exactly what I wanted. I knew I could count on you.

Eh...no problem???

Don't ever accuse me of believing in affirmative action again, because it's merely descrimination by another name. I don't believe women should have it easier in the armed forces, indeed i don't believe women should have it easier than men in any way, because I believe in equality. That's the point, you guys seem to think it's good thing that men get to go into combat, like it's some sort of privilige. I don't know if any of you have been in combat or not, but everyone who I've ever known that HAS been in combat would disagree with you. I simply don't see why men's lives should be easier to throw away. And I also believe in an individual being judged on their merits, so if a woman can perform well enough to serve in the infantry, cavalry or artillery she should be given the same chance as a man who could perform. And quotas are ridiculous, I agree.
And as for the hand to hand combat thing, I can't give you any example of a woman beating a man in a fight to the DEATH, but a friend of mine, who happens to be a serious rugby player who's hospitalised people in the past, got beaten senseless by a lady cop who wasn't using any weapons or receiving any help. I think you'll find that women who are armed and trained are capable of more than you might suspect, and you've got to remember it wouldn't be the AVERAGE western woman who would be serving in a combat unit anyway.
And if you're concerned that too many women who are obviously incapable of serving in the infantry are applying and wasting time, which I'm sure happens with men too, the simple solution would be to widely advertise the lofty physical requirements. In my experience people tend to have at least some idea what their capablilties are in life. For example when I join the Army reserves over here next year I'd LIKE to serve in the reserve commando regiment, but I KNOW I wouldn't be able to meet the physical requirements, so I'm not going to waste time trying. Surely other people would be able to make the same measure of themselves.
To put it simply, I don't believe women should be pushed into combat, much like I don't believe men should be pushed into combat, and I don't believe that women should be given special treatment in the armed forces, I just believe that any individual in the military should be able to fill any vacancy they are capable of filling.
And Bonehead, wtf?

And OOE, enough with the childish name calling. I'm not exactly the most restrained person myself so if I can lay off it so can you.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

That's the point, you guys seem to think it's good thing that men get to go into combat, like it's some sort of privilige. I don't know if any of you have been in combat or not, but everyone who I've ever known that HAS been in combat would disagree with you. I simply don't see why men's lives should be easier to throw away. And I also believe in an individual being judged on their merits, so if a woman can perform well enough to serve in the infantry, cavalry or artillery she should be given the same chance as a man who could perform.

Spoon,
I don't think the tone of the conservation portrays that serving in combat is a male privilege. In fact, myself, OOE and I believe Snipe as well support the current position of the US Army which has women serving and fighting in combat everday in OIF. The issue at hand is whether it is practical and advantageous to allow women to serve in the combat arms, and the position of all three of us (who HAVE ALL served in combat in combat arms positions) is that it is neither practical nor advantageous.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

And if you're concerned that too many women who are obviously incapable of serving in the infantry are applying and wasting time, which I'm sure happens with men too, the simple solution would be to widely advertise the lofty physical requirements. In my experience people tend to have at least some idea what their capablilties are in life. For example when I join the Army reserves over here next year I'd LIKE to serve in the reserve commando regiment, but I KNOW I wouldn't be able to meet the physical requirements, so I'm not going to waste time trying. Surely other people would be able to make the same measure of themselves.

At least within the US, the majority of soldiers have no experience in either team or individual sports prior to enlisting, experiences that would give you the knowledge that you speak of. I apologize, this was from a leader in-briefing I had five years when I first arrived at Fort Lewis and was given by the three star post commander, so I don't have specific stats or a link to source it. He was talking about how important it was to instill the sense of team since most enlistees had not been exposed to team sports. So, most people don't realize their capability or potential until after they have joined and reach their peak fitness levels.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

To put it simply, I don't believe women should be pushed into combat, much like I don't believe men should be pushed into combat, and I don't believe that women should be given special treatment in the armed forces, I just believe that any individual in the military should be able to fill any vacancy they are capable of filling.

FYI, the US Army has different physical standards to grade fitness levels because it recognizes that there are physiological differences between males and females. To make the standards equal would either lower male standards to the point of making them ineffective or raising female standards to the point eliminating many females that are fully capable of performing well in non-combat arms MOSs.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

Don't ever accuse me of believing in affirmative action again, because it's merely descrimination by another name.

What the hell do you think of putting women in at the expense of losing combat veterans is?

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I don't believe women should have it easier in the armed forces, indeed i don't believe women should have it easier than men in any way, because I believe in equality.

The point that you're not getting is that women are NOT our equals. They're different. They have different standards and hence different results.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

That's the point, you guys seem to think it's good thing that men get to go into combat, like it's some sort of privilige.

Privilledge? Son, the only good thing about combat is its ending. The reason why I want to stay a single gender force is that it MAXIMIZES everybody's chances of getting out alive.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I don't know if any of you have been in combat or not,

What do you think?

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

but everyone who I've ever known that HAS been in combat would disagree with you.

What do they disagree with? That they should lose a combat veteran so that a rookie woman could take his place?

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I simply don't see why men's lives should be easier to throw away.

The Captain has already answered those points.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

And I also believe in an individual being judged on their merits, so if a woman can perform well enough to serve in the infantry, cavalry or artillery she should be given the same chance as a man who could perform. And quotas are ridiculous, I agree.

We've done it and the results are less than satisfying.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

And as for the hand to hand combat thing, I can't give you any example of a woman beating a man in a fight to the DEATH, but a friend of mine, who happens to be a serious rugby player who's hospitalised people in the past, got beaten senseless by a lady cop who wasn't using any weapons or receiving any help.

Invalid comparison. Should be a trained rugby player against rugby player or cop against cop. In either case, given equal training, I will bet on the man. Wing Chun Kung Fu was developed by a woman for women and it's most famous practioner was Bruce Lee.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I think you'll find that women who are armed and trained are capable of more than you might suspect, and you've got to remember it wouldn't be the AVERAGE western woman who would be serving in a combat unit anyway.

Still will NOT compare to the rest of the men in the unit.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

And if you're concerned that too many women who are obviously incapable of serving in the infantry are applying and wasting time, which I'm sure happens with men too, the simple solution would be to widely advertise the lofty physical requirements. In my experience people tend to have at least some idea what their capablilties are in life.

Not in the army, they don't. I know I didn't.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

For example when I join the Army reserves over here next year I'd LIKE to serve in the reserve commando regiment, but I KNOW I wouldn't be able to meet the physical requirements, so I'm not going to waste time trying. Surely other people would be able to make the same measure of themselves.

You should. Even if you fail, you will know where you're lacking SPECIFICALLY and whether you can achieve that goal or not.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

To put it simply, I don't believe women should be pushed into combat, much like I don't believe men should be pushed into combat, and I don't believe that women should be given special treatment in the armed forces, I just believe that any individual in the military should be able to fill any vacancy they are capable of filling.

The army doesn't send you where you want to go. The army sends you where you're needed and the army does not need to women in the combat arms so that you can have the warm fuzzies.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

And OOE, enough with the childish name calling. I'm not exactly the most restrained person myself so if I can lay off it so can you.

Too old and too arrogant to care and you will have a rude awakening next year if you think I'm not restrained.

Spoon,
Here's a link to the US Army PT standards.

http://basic.armystudyguide.com/pt/

Some quick comparisons:

1. At the 17-21 age group, the female maximum (42) on the PT test is the male minimum (42) and 29 less than the male maximum (71).
2. In the same age group, the female maximum score run time (15:36) is only 18 seconds faster than the male minimum score run time and 2:36 slower than the male maximum (13:00).
3. Situp standards are the same for both sexes.

Here's a paper that discusses the changes to the Army Physical Fitness Test and how the new scoring system is based on "equal effort" scoring standards. The maximum score represents the top tenth percentile cut off while minimum scores represent the bottom eighth percentile cut off. So, using the push-up standards for the 17-21 age group, the conclusion that can be drawn is that the top ten percent of females peform better than the bottom eight percent of males (while a true statement, it doesn't capture the performance of females who do more than 42 pushups but are only scored at 42 pushups since that is the maximum in the events; however, it would be a stretch to try and argue that the majority of these 10% score far above the maximum).

http://www.benning.army.mil/usapfs/d...s/APFTPSTR.DOC

Bottomline, the juice still is not worth the squeeze.

"Don't ever accuse me of believing in affirmative action again,"

Or what, you'll fly in from Australia and beat us up?

"I don't believe women should have it easier in the armed forces,"

How noble, but they do.

"indeed i don't believe women should have it easier than men in any way, because I believe in equality."

Unfortunately, mother nature does not.

"That's the point, you guys seem to think it's good thing that men get to go into combat, like it's some sort of privilige."

Service IS a 'privelidge', it's not a right.

"I don't know if any of you have been in combat or not, but everyone who I've ever known that HAS been in combat would disagree with you."

Considering that 5 separate combat experienced posters from 3 separate nations on this board have said it was a bad idea...methinx you're quite wrong.
(They would be: Shek- Captain, US Army, OIF- myself, Fmr Corporal, US Army, OJC- Ray, Fmr Brigadier General, Indian Army, Kashmir, Kargil- Lemontree, Fmr Captain, Indian Army, Kashmir- and OOE, Former Lt. Colonel, CAF, Balkans)

Between the five of us you're probably talking about better than 50 years of service in 3 separate nations armed forces, with probably better than 5 years combined combat time.

Not one single combat veteran that posts at WAB has ever stepped forward to support the idea of women in combat in co-ed combat units in any of these threads.

"I simply don't see why men's lives should be easier to throw away."

They're not easier to throw away. Men are just better suited for the role, which results in less lives 'thrown away'.

"And I also believe in an individual being judged on their merits, so if a woman can perform well enough to serve in the infantry, cavalry or artillery she should be given the same chance as a man who could perform."

Unfortunately, the social realities of putting homesick young people of the opposite sex together in highly charged settings far from home is a recipe for disciplinary disaster.

"And as for the hand to hand combat thing, I can't give you any example of a woman beating a man in a fight to the DEATH, but a friend of mine, who happens to be a serious rugby player who's hospitalised people in the past, got beaten senseless by a lady cop who wasn't using any weapons or receiving any help."

Ever think maybe he didn't fight back because perhaps A) He has some respect for cops....or B) he was raised not to hit women?

"I think you'll find that women who are armed and trained are capable of more than you might suspect, and you've got to remember it wouldn't be the AVERAGE western woman who would be serving in a combat unit anyway."

It isn't the AVERAGE western man that serves in a combat unit either.

"And if you're concerned that too many women who are obviously incapable of serving in the infantry are applying and wasting time, which I'm sure happens with men too, the simple solution would be to widely advertise the lofty physical requirements."

No, what's wise is to use the limited defense budget dollars on things we actually DO need...like better weapons systems or personal gear, etc.

"In my experience people tend to have at least some idea what their capablilties are in life. For example when I join the Army reserves over here next year I'd LIKE to serve in the reserve commando regiment, but I KNOW I wouldn't be able to meet the physical requirements, so I'm not going to waste time trying. "

Tell that to the feminist movement.

"Surely other people would be able to make the same measure of themselves."

Like say....Shannon Faulkner, for instance?

"Spoon,
I don't think the tone of the conservation portrays that serving in combat is a male privilege. In fact, myself, OOE and I believe Snipe as well support the current position of the US Army which has women serving and fighting in combat everday in OIF. The issue at hand is whether it is practical and advantageous to allow women to serve in the combat arms, and the position of all three of us (who HAVE ALL served in combat in combat arms positions) is that it is neither practical nor advantageous."

Shek, since you missed a lot of the 'great women in combat debates' held here in the past, here is my position in brief:

I think co-ed units are extremely stupid and am opposed to them entirely. You end up with all the troops more worried about who's fuccking who rather than doing their duty. Pregnancies take away from unit effectiveness, and the last thing one needs in any military unit is the craziness that goes on in co-ed units(love triangles, affairs, and blah, blah, blah). NCOs in mixed gender units end up spending half their time playing the role of marriage counselor...

But i would fully support an all-female combat unit- even infantry.

If they're ALL female, they WILL all be held to the same standards, and they would be able to be used by the Army based on merit as the Army feels they'd best be used. It would also foster a healthy 'girls vs boys' competitive spirit.
A female infantry TO&E could be established based on field trials. Best part....no stupid boy-girl shenanigans.

To me, that is the ONLY way i'd support females in combat arms- in fully segregated units. Suprisingly, i've gotten a lot of support from female posters wrt this idea on this and other boards.

if said unit failed, it would fail on it's own merit. If it succeeded, it would succeed on it's own merit.