Females in Combat Units

-- Dusty said:
Well, women feel they are supposed to have equal "everything", I suppose that might as well include the same horrors and nightmares. I wonder if they can handle PTSD the same way.
Click to expand...

Dusty, men, I'm really surprised at the way yous guys are talkin'. You know that I personally did not serve. You'd be a lucky son of a gun if lieutenant tatas ( absolutely no offense!) plucked you out of a situation! Who cares? As long as you and your bros are alright! PTSD? ALL due respect Gentleman !
 
Women don't belong in offensive ground combat...PERIOD.

Unless it is a fight for the survival of the nation or civilization, they simply should not be there. In a volunteer military, it is isn't cost efficient, fair to the women, or fair to the men that would have to deal with all the complications that would ensue from it, or fair to the service whos job is to ensure the most capable fighting force is put on the battlefield to break things and kill people.

How many men could you have been trained simply to find the very few that might be able to make it?

How long would their bodies endure the brutal punishment that they aren't designed to endure?

How would they deal with the lack of testosterone that greatly aids in not only aggression and focus, but muscle recovery that is absolutely crucial when you're burning more calories than you're consuming?

What happens after 4 weeks into an operation where everyone has lost 20% of their body mass because of miserable conditions and lack of supplies where even the most fit women in the world start to greatly break down because their bodies simply can't take carrying 100 or more lbs of equipment every day, on almost no sleep, likely with malaria or dysentery, and their body fat is consumed to the point that their body literally starts to eat itself because they can't physically recover as quickly as men can?(again testosterone)

What happens to a units camaraderie and brotherhood(one of the most important aspects to effective combat units) when sexual hormones are added to the mixture?

However, if this is to be done. Then it needs to be completely equal across the board. One standard for everyone. No more double standards, and no more lowering of standards to accommodate the fairer sex. One standard...PERIOD.
 
brinktk said:
Women don't belong in offensive ground combat...PERIOD.

Unless it is a fight for the survival of the nation or civilization, they simply should not be there. In a volunteer military, it is isn't cost efficient, fair to the women, or fair to the men that would have to deal with all the complications that would ensue from it, or fair to the service whos job is to ensure the most capable fighting force is put on the battlefield to break things and kill people.
Click to expand...


Well put, agreed!
 
brinktk said:
Women don't belong in offensive ground combat...PERIOD.

Unless it is a fight for the survival of the nation or civilization, they simply should not be there. In a volunteer military, it is isn't cost efficient, fair to the women, or fair to the men that would have to deal with all the complications that would ensue from it, or fair to the service whos job is to ensure the most capable fighting force is put on the battlefield to break things and kill people.

However, if this is to be done. Then it needs to be completely equal across the board. One standard for everyone. No more double standards, and no more lowering of standards to accommodate the fairer sex. One standard...PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
I don't know about that, BA. Women complain about how much they want equal this and equal that. Well, maybe it's time we gave them the equality they want. Can they handle it? Who knows.
 
Is this really what we should be doing as a military force? Although this is one example, it demonstrates the aggression difference. The male actually toned it down on his next two hits because she simply didn't have a chance...something the males didn't afford each other and something the enemy certainly won't afford either.

How are feminists going to take men hitting women with their full force during training...leading to injuries, because professional armies train like they fight? Or women for that matter? How are men going to resist the temptation to protect the women the same way four men jumped in to protect this female when she got obliterated in one shot?

I had one patrol while I was platoon leader where a good looking Air force intelligence NCO joined my platoon in an operation where were conducting a joint raid with Special Forces to secure the most prominent bomb maker in Northern Iraq at the time...along with several hundred lbs of home made explosive. Our staging position was in a nearby towns soccer field in the middle of the night. This should have been a time where we were diligently pulling security and going over last minute details before moving to our attack position...A time for deadly seriousness. And under any other circumstances that is precisely what would have happened. However, while in our staging area, as I'm walking the perimeter I find an entire squad of my soldier surrounding the female, protecting her, seeking her approval, telling jokes, offering cigarettes...total discipline break down. She was smitten with all the attention, laughingly interacting with my soldiers and taking whatever they offered her. I ended up having to quarantine her inside one of my vehicles with my personal Radio operator sitting at the door of the vehicle to wave off suiters if they came while myself and platoon sergeant walked the line to make sure our soldiers were properly motivated to do their damn jobs.

We got lucky that night because our staging area wasn't compromised. After that situation I had to reprimand several of my soldiers and admonish myself and my entire platoon because of our lack of judgment. If we would have been attacked on that mission, I'm not sure if some of my junior leaders would have followed my orders...leaders who had days before entered into a building with armed insurgents, at great risk to themselves, to detain them, on my orders...yes, they managed to detain them. Had we been attacked and there was a refusal to follow orders because they wanted to be near or protect this female, it could have been catastrophic.

Again, I understand this is a singular incident and it doesn't represent all women. However, it only takes one woman to take advantage of the status they will receive from the fawning men to destroy an organization. If a male did something to put the unit in jeopardy, they would be harshly disciplined and removed from the unit. It isn't so easy to do that with a female who is willing to game the system in a discrimination charge in order to protect themselves from the consequences of there actions. I have seen it many times.

Call me what you want, but I still think it has no business on the battlefield. Equality or not, it isn't the women who will pay...it is the men who will when they have to pick up the dropped slack because she will never be the one to carry the M240 up a mountain with over a thousand rounds of 7.62-51 linked ammo. Along with 70 other lbs of gear...she will never be the one carrying a soldier on a stretcher for miles to an evacuation site AND carry all her gear...she will never have the upper body strength to pull me out of a burning hatch because with all my gear on in the turret I weigh over 250 Ibs...something the average guy can easily do. It will be the men who have to assume more risk, endure more pain, carry the heaviest loads longer, all for the privilege of having female company in combat...if this all makes me a misogynist...so be it.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMDF1rBixr8"]Engineer Day 2016 Pugil Sticks (Heat 5) - YouTube[/ame]
 
brinktk said:
Is this really what we should be doing as a military force? Although this is one example, it demonstrates the aggression difference. The male actually toned it down on his next two hits because she simply didn't have a chance...something the males didn't afford each other and something the enemy certainly won't afford either.

How are feminists going to take men hitting women with their full force during training...leading to injuries, because professional armies train like they fight? Or women for that matter? How are men going to resist the temptation to protect the women the same way four men jumped in to protect this female when she got obliterated in one shot?
Click to expand...

1) Who cares what feminists think, the military is a voluntary career what you are describing is an individual unsuited to the role they are trying to fill and no different to someone wanting to be a butcher but wont handle meat.

2) Dusty is correct, we have been nagged into accepting equality between the sexes and now that they have equality (and I am all for it) there is no reason why they can not be soldiers and serve in combat units as long as they meet the training requirements.

I also think you are understimating women as there are a lot out there that are just as tough as their male counterparts and will pass training, hell I live in a country full of the angriest females in the known universe who if you bolted a 120mm smoothbore to their arses could pass as an MBT (roughly similar size, weight and shape) and are just as hard to stop.

As to whether there should be mixed units I am not as convinced but with time and exposure I believe a professional force can over come that as well.
 
It was feminists who lobbied for preferential treatment and have insisted on separate standards since this all began. The Marines have conducted numerous tests to see what effect integration would have on unit combat performance...which to no surprise, integrated units in competition with their all males counterparts were not just beaten by a little....they were beaten by a lot...in almost every category tested. They were ignored and told to carry on. The women who passed ranger school were not only afforded a several months long train up prior to attendance, they were also allowed to recycle EVERY SINGLE phase of the training. Something that is NEVER afforded to their male counterparts. That's why I care about feminists, because their lobbying dictates substandard performance as acceptable and if you protest it you're silenced and are briskly dealt with by a chain of command unwilling to risk their necks, careers, and livlihoods because even if they did stand up to it...the results would still be ignored.

Also, it isn't a question of toughness, it is a question of sustainability. We are a sexually dimorphic species and women are simply not built to endure sustained combat conditions without a lot of extra help. Even the fittest who pass training...the minumum to even go to combat...will still only perform physically as well as the bottom third of males. Once in the austere conditions that sustained combat operations tend to happen in, they will be the first to deteriorate because THEY DON'T HAVE NEAR ENOUGH TESTOSTERONE. The hormone that allows men to recover from exertion much faster with minimal food. This has been tested time and time again. Why are we sitting here pretending that men and women are the same...they aren't and that is ok. GI Jane does not exist. This is about winning, not simply participating. Simply participating in combat will get you killed. If you want the strongest teams, with the best sustainability, best fitness, best unit cohesion, it is going to be aggressive, testosterone filled men who will WIN when you need to assault a trench or fight to the death in a small building.

Angry women can be a badass as long as men won't fight them. We put up with stuff from women we simply wouldn't put up with in a man...or I do at least. Men go their whole lives with the understanding that if you cross another mans line you may well have to deal with that man in a fight...women have no concept of that and they KNOW it. They know they aren't to be hit and if they ever are they know other men will come crawling out of the wood work to defend them. If you're about equality, then hold them to the same standard as men when they are disrespectful or become violent.

It is no different than having middle school boys playing football compete with professionals and pretending that they even have a shot. Some of those boys will inevitably be tough, but it would be unthinkable to even consider them able to contribute in a meanigful way to a professional team. Those same boys would on average have a much better shot of passing real combat training then the average woman...PERIOD!
 
But what I am trying to say is that the fight is not about what sexes can and cant do as equality has made that redundant, it has to about maintaining a single standard as it should not matter whether the person is man or woman as long as they can meet the standard required to do the job.

Now if the requirements to fill a role mean that only one woman (or man) get through out of 100 applicants then so be it, as long as it is a fair standard then there can be no argument.

Trust me I understand the sense of entitlement that women have in the work place, the number of times I have had to hear "I'm not doing that, it is a mans job" is to numerous to count (Although offering to bring the laundry in to give them "womens work" is apparently an insult) but the reality is we do live in a world pushing equality and if someone is capable of filling a role then they should be able to fill it and not be held back by gender.
 
2016 USA is not 1940's USSR or early Israel where they were in danger of extinction. Only in such extreme examples should the military turn to supplementing there ranks with women in combat roles.
 
Okay, I will attempt to comment intelligently on this without throwing my iPad through the wall... I spent two decades in the US Army, specifically armor- one of the combat MOS's that are suppose to have females integrated. I also worked with female soldiers many times, and so my opinions are colored by those experiences. Just a heads up- that ain't good! Specifically, back in 1999 I was gunning for the then commander of 1-8 Cav, 2nd BDE, 1st Cavalry Division (mechanized) on the then brand new M1A2 SEP Abrams main battle tank (MBT). That was an experience in and of itself, as I was gunning for then LTC Robert Abrams. Now the commanding general at FORSCOM. I got a call one day at lunch from Abe telling me that I needed to get my guys down to the motor pool asap, and link up with the division PAO. Evidently, there was a young lady who was suing the government to be a tanker. 20/20 had gotten hold of the story, and wanted to get some video of her doing tanker stuff. Well, we were in the middle of services, and had just started changing track pads on the S-3 major's tank. We were also changing a comp idler arm seal, and two shock housing seals on my tank. Anyone familiar with tank maintenance knows- that's all heavy stuff. Real heavy.
She was a pretty stout girl, athletic and strong. It didn't matter though, once she had to start hauling road wheels and track sections, let alone try to pick up the comp idler arm (along with one of my guys), she was done. Never aired the story, and never heard anything else about the lawsuit. Now, aside from that, I really don't think that females on tank crews will work for numerous other reasons. Early in the invasion of Iraq, we lived IN our tanks for weeks. Literally lived in them: eat, sleep, crap and fight. Well, not much sleep... I remember when I got my first shower- it was about 3 1/2, 4 months into the deployment. Even then, those "showers" were on the back deck of the tank, with one of the guys pouring water over me from water jug. Oh yeah, did I mention that I was standing on the tank naked? In the middle of an assembly area? Now, tankers probably have it better than most other combat arms MOS's. At least we have something to get inside of. Infantry? Ha! Those guys love having us around, just so they can heat water up on the exhaust grills from our turbine (read "jet") engine. Especially if it's cold. Well, there's just some of my experiences. I'm sure there are one or two female soldiers out there who could do it. I just don't think that it would work out in the long run. Maybe if the psyche of the American male changes, and they don't jump at the chance to do the pretty girl's work. You know, because that's the gentlemanly thing to do. And there might be a chance.... You guys know how soldiers are. Hell, even most of the females I've known in the Army were dirty minded horn dogs. Just like all of those young, extremely physically fit men. In the prime of life, and sowing their wild oats. Everywhere they possibly can... LoL, should be fun to see how this plays out! Just hope and pray it doesn't cost us lives. Because that's our most important job: taking care of soldiers. Without them, the mission will never be accomplished.
 
I can remember how aggressive my wife used to be when mother nature made her monthly visit, could you imagine a regiment of women, whose monthly cycle regulates so they are in time with one another. I would hate to go up against a regiment of PMS affected women, I wouldn't stand a chance - could you imagine them telling the enemy to lay down their arms and surrender, and if they asked why, they would be roared at, "BECAUSE I F*****G TOLD YOU TOO, THATS WHY!!!!" :shock: Game over. ;)
 
The Highway Man said:
I can remember how aggressive my wife used to be when mother nature made her monthly visit, could you imagine a regiment of women, whose monthly cycle regulates so they are in time with one another. I would hate to go up against a regiment of PMS affected women, I wouldn't stand a chance - could you imagine them telling the enemy to lay down their arms and surrender, and if they asked why, they would be roared at, "BECAUSE I F*****G TOLD YOU TOO, THATS WHY!!!!" :shock: Game over. ;)
Click to expand...

Hi Boss,
I know absolutely nada regarding combat. I do know just a tad about women's health.
How 'bout AFTER the change of life?. They're more decisive. Also wiser and more respectful of their fellow comrades/ family/ friends.
...PROTECTIVE of their brood.
Will stand up to any confrontation. For them selves or loved/ revered ones.
Just saying.

I should know, I'm fifty two.

DG
 
True

Remington 1858 said:
The United States Marine Corp is doing all that is possible to keep this from happening. They have submitted all sorts of studies and test results to show that gender integration will degrade performance, but if the Marines think they can stop this, they are dreaming.
Click to expand...

I would suggest if they want females in the military (Combat), just put Rosie O'Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg in there. The enemy will immediately retreat.
 
I see nothing wrong with it. Wars might end quicker when half of the body bags returning contain women.Also women, inherently have a few advantages, typically have smaller hands, might be easier to work in hard to get at areas, they have better color perception, and my experience, at least years ago shooting in an archery club, they have what it takes to be better shots. At least when I shot, back in the 1970's, the best shots in my club were women, Same with drag racing, they have inherent advantage over men. Any way, I'd never second guess women, if they can put up with child birth, they are much tougher than me. Don't see why they couldn't serve on a tank crew, they can probably handle stinky men, as they change diapers.....
 
Female may not have the anatomical composition of a man yet I have seen some hefty woman as far as muscle mass. The average woman is short than a man and has less muscle yet thru vigorous train and a proper diet on can increase muscles mass on a high protein diet and exercise. The idea of woman in the military is more of a reliability issue and the fact they would have to segregated from the male population. The idea of lustful intentions has revolved in all man since the time of evolution. The woman would be more of a distraction than rather a motivation tool to become a better military official. Yet the rearrangement of a couple together in the military could provide a moral motivational aspect to prove themselves yet people find stupid things to do just for a quick screw. The idea of both gender is lack of equality and alot of military officers believe the battlefield is no place for a woman based on the ideological development of a older generation, so it is not the modern generation to convince it is more of the superior officers that server for 15+ years. Yet America needs all the people they can get for a world war 3. Every American needs to be incorporated in the proper training and militarization of the civilian populations. Yet we need factory workers and desk jockies and dont forget the nurses. In previous wars the female was in charge of hospital service and medicated response lead by a practitioner that was a ranking officer. Females in the military could be a great idea to increase militarized population. America has incorporated such already their is just less woman wanting to join the military than there are man. This has to do with the constant incorporation of fathers and mothers atleast wanting one of there offspring to stay behind so they have less death in the family and continuation the genetic background of there ancestry. The female goes onto college and mostly seeks intellectual advancement. Yet in history of the USA females are treated as an object to satisfy the lust in man mostly as a toy to place and some one to command and have power over. Female feminist would be the one more likely to join the military and have started riots to ensure equality base on how woman were treated in previous generations. The female always have emotional restrains that show weakness. It is easier for a man to show no emotion that would give away to an interrogative yet some woman has successfully used over powering emotions as a manipulation tool that is bit immature to occur what she desires. So a female with in a interrogation could use her emotional response to hid a truth and make a believable lie. No matter a human being is no different than from a human being. I have witness female police officers and they have intimidating actions without the need of a man to back em up. The female that consist of a less amount of muscle mass should specialize in martial arts and be master marksmanship with a pistol to incorporate excellent close combat skills. The female is she desires for hormone implications than a contact has to be sign and it would have to be semi-classified to incorporate more masculinity form a feminine quality.

Any ideas?
 
I don't doubt a woman's courage, and I have no objection of them joining any branch of the military, BUT they should pass all the same tests as their male counterparts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top