Ray

Bluesman,

Sniper has a point.

Women are good at certain jobs and of that there is no doubt. However, soldiering is a diffrent kettle of fish.

Yet, in their job, the women are doing a great job! God Bless them.

Remember Florence Nightingale 8in Crimea?

Bluesman

And it goes all the way to the bottom.

Okay, let me see if I have this right:
You want all soldiers to be trained in combat skills, and at one time it was your job to do that. When some poorly-trained soldiers came to you to be trained, you bawled 'em out for not being trained, and then refused to train 'em.

Sounds like you did dam' little to be part of the solution, Cpl. Problem. I mean, it's a great piece of bravado for you to show how you're not about to be intimidated by authority - and good for you - but it's not 'your' range. It's THEIR range, and your duty to make sure they get out of it what they need. Otherwise, YOU have contributed more to their being tagged and bagged than their conscientious officer did, as he was attempting to address their definciencies. You were merely having a tantrum.

I'm marking that as a failure to complete training, and whatever the untrained unit's part was in that sorry state of affairs - and I have no doubt that you'll have good reasons why the training didn't get accomplished, and NONE of it was your fault, of course - the story I'm getting from you is that when they left, they still couldn't shoot well. As a range instructor, you failed in your duty.

Your view is warped on this subject by prejudice. It is simply not realistic that every single soldier is going to be expert infantry - even the males. Even the Marine ethos of "Every Marine a rifleman" is tempered by acknowledging that some units are 'soft', and some units are 'line'. Should every soldier be competent at defending themselves? Sure. Should every unit be pulling their own security? If necessary. Should every unit be expected to defeat an equivalent echelon of an enemy combat unit? NO, as that's not realistic, and you're kidding yourself if that's what you expect.

Some women will whine; some will seek extra priveleges; some are not up to the job. You say 'most'. That's not accurate.

Females have a superior record of accomplishments in certain military fields over their male counterparts. You don't have to accept that, but it's true. Now, I know you've staked out a public position on the inadvisability of having women in the military and anybody as obviously obstinate as you will never swallow pride and admit you're wrong. But you are. Females are vital to the success of the United States military's mission, and they are worth what little extra trouble they may be. That's the bottom line. We need 'em.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Bluesman

I think women can soldier just fine, sir; I see 'em do it every day.

FIGHTING, on the other hand, is a different matter, and I hope you don't think it's just a semantic difference. I acknowledge that sometimes you're going to get the fighting while you're doing the soldiering, even if that wasn't the intent for a given unit. OF COURSE the support units will find themselves in harm's way, sometimes. The enemy aims for our 'soft' units, just like we aim for theirs. Nobody likes the force-on-force attrition battles; they're wasteful and doubtful of outcome. BUT if you get the opportunity to send your tank battalion into an enemy maintenance depot...oh, BABY! Decisive defeat for the enemy.

Everybody knows this, and I acknowledge that sometimes the enemy will be able to pull it off against us, too. At that time, we're going to see female casualties. Alright, everybody accepts this, and that unit will be no worse off for the female's presence. But the Army, as a whole, will feel their absence if females were NOT in the maintenance outfit at all other times than when they were not attacked, which is ALL the time, except for the rarest of circumstances.

Do you follow me? I want to FIGHT alongside males; I want to SERVE alongside BOTH. Our forces are better - not worse - for the presence of females.

Officer of Engineers

Sorry, having served in a military where integration and a small force is a fact of life, I can assure you that it is not true. In ALL my field CPs, men outnumbered the women no matter what the field.

__________________
Chimo

Bluesman

Har-de-har, sir.

-{SpoonmaN}-

It's my belief that women should be allowed to serve in any position in the military, as long as they can meet the same requirements as men in those positions. For example in the Australian Army women have lower fitness requirements than the men. I believe that this practive should be abolished and women in the military should have to ran as far with as much gear etc. as the men. As for their combat capabilities, women have served with great distinction in the Soviet Army and Air Force in the Second World War, often in some of the most dangerous and violent combat zones (Like Stalingrad). Women also saw combat with the Viet Cong, and proved themselves to be as capable and brave as men. It must be remembered that many men are not able to stand up to the stress of combat either. I can understand that women cannot serve on the current generation of submarines because they cannot provide the facilities for them, but this could be addressed in future boats. As for the concern of relationships etc. the solution can be found in the Dutch military's example of banning all sexual acts on duty. In doing so a solution to the question of homosexuals in the military can be found, as this would allow homosexuals in the service to keep their private lives private. Ultimatley an equal opportunity society should have an equal opportunity military defending it. Of course it will take some time to make the changes.

-{SpoonmaN}-

I should also make the point that I never actually expect women to serve in equal numbers, as most women would not be able to meet the same physical standards as men, but they should have an even chance to try.

Anon

"Okay, let me see if I have this right:
You want all soldiers to be trained in combat skills, and at one time it was your job to do that. When some poorly-trained soldiers came to you to be trained, you bawled 'em out for not being trained, and then refused to train 'em."

No, i tossed her off the range for crying. The rest of them i trained to the best of my ability. Just so you have a scope of what i'm talking about here, my problem was that even after proper instruction by myself and the senior range NCOIC(who was 10x the screamer i ever was), the soldiers could not properly mount an M-14 from an off-hand position. Forget about fire with accuracy, they couldn't even properly mount it. They recieved inadequate upper body conditioning(ie PT), and as a result they were physically challenged when it came time to manage the weight of the M-14 from the off-hand position. I showed them how to use their off-hand as a brace to support the weapon, i showed them how to properly position their feet and crouch into a deeper stance to manage the recoil, i showed them how to lean forward into the weapon to minimize the effects of recoil, i showed them how to achieve a proper-cheek to stock meld.
I showed them the same things i showed any other soldier i ever instructed. They were simply physically incapable- or, i suspect- lacked the mental toughness to ignore the burning(pain) in their off-hand forearm to maintain a proper shooting stance. Those troops needed LOTS more PT, and they weren't recieving it.

Now you can question the logic or utility of having females train on the heavier M-14, but my job was to instruct them nevertheless. Further, if they can't handle a weapon around 10lbs loaded, they certainly cannot be expected to effectively fire an M-60 or M-203 or M-249 or M-240 from a standing position.

"Sounds like you did dam' little to be part of the solution, Cpl. Problem. I mean, it's a great piece of bravado for you to show how you're not about to be intimidated by authority - and good for you - but it's not 'your' range. It's THEIR range, and your duty to make sure they get out of it what they need. Otherwise, YOU have contributed more to their being tagged and bagged than their conscientious officer did, as he was attempting to address their definciencies. You were merely having a tantrum."

Any time an officer bucks my chain of command after his soldier bucks his/her chain of command to go over my head it's going to be an issue with me. If it's an O-3 or better you've got little wiggle room(not that that matters because O-3 and up don't usurp the unified chain of command in any but the rarest of examples), but when a wet behind the ears 2 ElTee did it i was going to have a piece of his butt. When the conversation was over he thanked me for my candor, and asked me to not mention it to the NCOIC...so you tell me who was in the wrong.

And when a drill sgt screams at you for failure to perform is he having a 'tantrum', or is he MOTIVATING your slacking asss in the hope that it will save your life?

That officer brought a group of bad soldiers to me and expected me to make them profiecient riflemen while at the same time passing out a warm fuzzy feeling. That was not my job. Training them was my job, and if required, motivating them via any means consistent with the UCMJ and US Army policy was my EXPECTED duty.

"I'm marking that as a failure to complete training, and whatever the untrained unit's part was in that sorry state of affairs - and I have no doubt that you'll have good reasons why the training didn't get accomplished, and NONE of it was your fault, of course - the story I'm getting from you is that when they left, they still couldn't shoot well. As a range instructor, you failed in your duty."

Only one soldier was tossed from the range, and i'm sure she had a chance for remedial instruction. The Army just LOVES remedial instruction. And you can bring me a lump of coal and guess what...that coal will never become plutonium. I can make it a diamond eventually(though it takes a lot more time than we usually had)...but not when the unit's officer interferes with my duties. There is a chain of command for a reason. If i were that soldiers ElTee i'd have dressed that soldier down just as i was dressed down on numerous occasions for any of the failings i had.
This is the 'tough love' attitude that has apparently been lost in the US military. Certainly you don't seem to subscribe to it.

"Your view is warped on this subject by prejudice. It is simply not realistic that every single soldier is going to be expert infantry - even the males."

I was not EIB qualified, so i can hardly expect it of every person that comes through a range that i'm instructing at. EIBs are extremely hard to earn.

"Even the Marine ethos of "Every Marine a rifleman" is tempered by acknowledging that some units are 'soft', and some units are 'line'. Should every soldier be competent at defending themselves? Sure. Should every unit be pulling their own security? If necessary. Should every unit be expected to defeat an equivalent echelon of an enemy combat unit? NO, as that's not realistic, and you're kidding yourself if that's what you expect."

I think they should. Certainly at the battle of the bulge we found out that what is really required for REMFs to peform effectively is motivation, weapons, and training. The motivated REMFs fought well, the unmotivated ones did not.

"More sweat in training, less blood in combat", Motto of the USAITC, circa 1987.

"Some women will whine; some will seek extra priveleges; some are not up to the job. You say 'most'. That's not accurate."

Actually, i said i couldn't give an accurate guess, but pulled the 40% figure out as a WAG. 40% is not 'most'- even if it is accurate.

"Females have a superior record of accomplishments in certain military fields over their male counterparts. You don't have to accept that, but it's true."

Females make better fighter pilots on average because they are stockier and shorter, hence they can handle Gs better. But i did already mention that earlier in the thread. If there is any other military endeavour at which they are inherently more well equipped then comparably trained men i'd sure love to hear you list them.

"Now, I know you've staked out a public position on the inadvisability of having women in the military and anybody as obviously obstinate as you will never swallow pride and admit you're wrong."

Obstinate...i love that word.

"But you are. Females are vital to the success of the United States military's mission, and they are worth what little extra trouble they may be. That's the bottom line. We need 'em."

Unless more men start volunteering, we sure do. We need the females and then some if the tales i've been hearing are true.

lemontree

You are telling me?.. I can hardly stand up in an argument with my wife. Yes they are quite capable of combat..I've had my shoes flung at me for not keeping them in the proper place

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Anon

"I think women can soldier just fine, sir; I see 'em do it every day."

I would submit that what one considers good soldiering is entirely subjective. If you think my standards are harsh, just ask any of the operators at SOCOM what they consider minimum standards to be. I guarantee they're not the same as what a USAF Sgt. considers them. Ever seen an unmotivated slacker in anything but amazing shape in a Special Forces unit or in the Rangers, or the SEALs, or the PJs?

Hell no.

ALL non-hackers are mercillesly and immediately driven out of the those elite units as soon as they're identified.

Compared to those guys my minimum standards are far too lenient i'm sure.

Anon

"Women also saw combat with the Viet Cong, and proved themselves to be as capable and brave as men. "

As brave...absolutely.
As capable...i think not.

You need to consider a few things here.

1) The avg Vietnamese man is little larger than the avg. vietnamese female.

2) Vietnamese women grow up with a LOT more hardship, and with much greater physical duties on a day to day basis.

Therefore, it is not valid to compare MOST US women to women from 3d world nations. MOST US women do not spend 12 hours a day manually plowing a field or rice paddy. MOST US women are not accustomed to the kind of mental and physical hardships women in other locales around the world are. IF the US could recruit hard-ass asian or african women it would be another matter, but we can't...

And for the record, if it came to HTH combat most Vietnamese MEN were at a severe disadvantadge to the larger US troops they faced.

Anon

"I should also make the point that I never actually expect women to serve in equal numbers, as most women would not be able to meet the same physical standards as men, but they should have an even chance to try."

I have no problem with that as long as they're in segregated units, and as long as they meet the EXACT same standards as the all male units(which i honestly believe to be too low anyway).

Bluesman

Okay, okay, this subject has lost it's hold on my attention, and we're never going to get to a consensus, anyway.

But thanks for engaging, Sniper, because I really enjoyed it.

You have good points, and I acknowledge some while disagreeing with your over-all stance on the subject.

But here's where we definitely DO AGREE:

National defense is far too important to be a social laboratory. Anybody that cares a dam' about that subject will resist to the max any attempt to turn the military into something that is an imperfect instrument for defending the defenceless, no matter what other 'good' may come from that attempt. I agree with equal rights for women; but I believe it is self-evident that the sexes are not the same in anything but status before the law; equal, but not equivalent.

I believe that all people should be free to live as they dam' well please, and engage in any activity that causes no harm to anybody else. But not all sexual preferences are compatible with military life, and not all choices of romantic associations need to be countenanced by an organization that has to concern itself with good order and discipline.

So, I suggest we leave the subject here, until we are able to discuss it face-to-face (and I'm really looking forward to that, because Internet message boards are not known for fostering understanding of another's contrary position. I appreciate your outlook and the fact that your concern is mine: that the American military should be at all times the strongest it can be, ready for anything.

Ray

Bluesman,

I think the women can also be combat soldiers.

Provided they are mentally ready to face the deripvation of that all face.

If women can be good and brave insurgents and guerillas (note: while I may dislike,[ and note: not hate my adversary], I also acknowledge valour and bravery of my adversary), I have no reason to believe that they are anyway inferior.

It is when they expect privileges because of the gender, the things turn out otherwise.

Bluesman

Absolutely right about THAT. I treat my female subordinates equally, but they dam' well better not ask for that to which they are not entitled, and perform as well as the males.

Most of the time they don't do the former and if there's any difference in the latter, it's because they're BETTER. But in intel, we don't usually have to do the stuff that you and Sniper are talking about: the things that require strength to excel at.

And that was and is my point: not all of soldiering is hand-to-hand combat. Almost NONE of it is. Most of the time, soldiering is a set of skills that are not brute-strength intensive, or doesn't call for a killer instinct. Most of the time, soldiers serve their country by doing a function that does not, strictly speaking, require a male to do it well.