Women in Combat
Good
58.2% (39)
58.2% (39)
Bad
19.4% (13)
19.4% (13)
Not relevent
22.4% (15)
22.4% (15)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Women in Combat: good idea, bad, not relevant? Is this happening or alarmist?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

National Review is in a tizzy this morning. From them:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338613/wrong-women-warriors-heather-mac-donald

"We have apparently arrived at the Golden Age, free from strife and the threat of foreign enemies. Little else can explain so gratuitous a decision as to place women in combat units. The downsides to such a policy are legion and obvious; the only reason to pursue it is to placate feminism's insatiable and narcissistic drive for absolute official equality between the sexes."

Is this really happening? Is it a good idea? A bad idea? Not relevant?

My own opinion: It is a bad idea but the powers that be will get away with it. Many will suffer dreadfully, but the elite will have won a battle in the radical egalitarian wars. The outcome for the USA as a whole will be negligible. The outcome of our overall military adventures will be largely unchanged by this. I do have to wonder if this will cause women voters to care about this nation getting into needless foreign adventures (Libya, Kosovo).

It is bad for individuals for pretty much the reasons stated in NRO. But that writer does not get to the point that matters to the elite that I mentioned above.

Your thoughts?

Use one of the other two threads dedicated to this issue. There's one in the OT and one in the R&P. They might even have merged them.

Realitycrash:
Use one of the other two threads dedicated to this issue. There's one in the OT and one in the R&P. They might even have merged them.

Thanks. Missed the one in R&P. Will try to close this.

Women do not need to be "protected" by men.

End of story.

Preventing women from fighting is purely sexist, and has no place in modern society.

I don't really see the problem. If the women in question fulfill the same criteria, what's the issue? I see that this is about women being physically weaker or something, but you have to remember that that's on average. A lot of women are much more combat-ready than a lot of men. So just keep the criteria the same and disregard the sex. If they perform, they're in, simple as that. Anyway, the NRO (as well as Ann Coulter whom you also like to refer to quite often) I don't consider valid sources, so you'll have to excuse my not caring what they think. But at least I now know where you got your "women tame/socialize men"-talking point from, Gorfias. Anyway, them saying that the fitness standards will "inevitably be lowered" is baseless and irrelevant.

Skeleon:
I see that this is about women being physically weaker or something,

That's a rationalisation. A lot of people harbour deep prejudices, and/or don't like change. They only recently let openly gay people serve, they used to have racial segregation, this is more of the same.

If it was merely a matter of average size, they wouldn't let men serve in certain roles. There are positions where people are excluded for being too big, not too small. The inside of tanks and cockpits aren't very roomy, for example.

As long as they don't start toning down the qualifications for such positions, then I see no problems with it. The qualifications are harsh for a reason: Because those people put their lives on the line and others are relying on them. Letting people join that would have previously not been able to pass the test would be bad as it would make the military weaker as a whole.

sanquin:
As long as they don't start toning down the qualifications for such positions, then I see no problems with it. The qualifications are harsh for a reason: Because those people put their lives on the line and others are relying on them. Letting people join that would have previously not been able to pass the test would be bad as it would make the military weaker as a whole.

I fully agree with this, same standards for everyone because it's the same job. Doesn't affect me though but I generally like seeing changes that result in equality.

People don't realize this is a PR move by the Pentagon to take the focus off of military rapes and sexual assaults, which have become epic. Two weeks ago the commission on civil rights held a hearing to look into military investigations regarding sexual assault. And at the same time the documentary "the invisible war" about military rape was nominated for an Oscar.

Women have been in combat for years, this is just putting it on paper. Dempsey commented that because women aren't in combat, that's why there is such a problem with rape in the military. One in three women is sexually assaulted in the military. And they are saying it's because they aren't in combat?

There is a great site that shows how the marines not only ignored a rape but also how a victim was treated.
I think we need to focus on this problem before we worry about women in combat.

But you should take a look at this story, it's frightening.

http://www.theusmarinesrape.com/MarshmallowHead.html

People don't realize this is a PR move by the Pentagon to take the focus off of military rapes and sexual assaults, which have become epic. Two weeks ago the commission on civil rights held a hearing to look into military investigations regarding sexual assault. And at the same time the documentary "the invisible war" about military rape was nominated for an Oscar.

Women have been in combat for years, this is just putting it on paper. Dempsey commented that because women aren't in combat, that's why there is such a problem with rape in the military. One in three women is sexually assaulted in the military. And they are saying it's because they aren't in combat?

There is a great site that shows how the marines not only ignored a rape but also how a victim was treated.
I think we need to focus on this problem before we worry about women in combat.

But you should take a look at this story, it's frightening.

http://www.theusmarinesrape.com/MarshmallowHead.html

thaluikhain:

Skeleon:
I see that this is about women being physically weaker or something,

That's a rationalisation. A lot of people harbour deep prejudices, and/or don't like change. They only recently let openly gay people serve, they used to have racial segregation, this is more of the same.

If it was merely a matter of average size, they wouldn't let men serve in certain roles. There are positions where people are excluded for being too big, not too small. The inside of tanks and cockpits aren't very roomy, for example.

Are you saying that women are just as strong as men on average and that we've been making things up for.....ever?

Shock and Awe:

thaluikhain:

Skeleon:
I see that this is about women being physically weaker or something,

That's a rationalisation. A lot of people harbour deep prejudices, and/or don't like change. They only recently let openly gay people serve, they used to have racial segregation, this is more of the same.

If it was merely a matter of average size, they wouldn't let men serve in certain roles. There are positions where people are excluded for being too big, not too small. The inside of tanks and cockpits aren't very roomy, for example.

Are you saying that women are just as strong as men on average and that we've been making things up for.....ever?

You'll note that that's completely different to what I said, which sorta means the answer is "no".

Shock and Awe:

thaluikhain:

Skeleon:
I see that this is about women being physically weaker or something,

That's a rationalisation. A lot of people harbour deep prejudices, and/or don't like change. They only recently let openly gay people serve, they used to have racial segregation, this is more of the same.

If it was merely a matter of average size, they wouldn't let men serve in certain roles. There are positions where people are excluded for being too big, not too small. The inside of tanks and cockpits aren't very roomy, for example.

Are you saying that women are just as strong as men on average and that we've been making things up for.....ever?

No, it's like saying "we don't want gays/blacks in the military because they'll make our troops uncomfortable", in this case it's just people finding any excuse not to let women serve.

Yes the average woman is weaker than the average man, but I know plenty of girls that can kick my arse. Saying 'women are weaker' is just an excuse so they don't have to say "I want my army to be a guys only club".

Karma168:

Shock and Awe:

thaluikhain:

That's a rationalisation. A lot of people harbour deep prejudices, and/or don't like change. They only recently let openly gay people serve, they used to have racial segregation, this is more of the same.

If it was merely a matter of average size, they wouldn't let men serve in certain roles. There are positions where people are excluded for being too big, not too small. The inside of tanks and cockpits aren't very roomy, for example.

Are you saying that women are just as strong as men on average and that we've been making things up for.....ever?

No, it's like saying "we don't want gays/blacks in the military because they'll make our troops uncomfortable", in this case it's just people finding any excuse not to let women serve.

Yes the average woman is weaker than the average man, but I know plenty of girls that can kick my arse. Saying 'women are weaker' is just an excuse so they don't have to say "I want my army to be a guys only club".

Actually I don't have much of a problem with women in the combat arms as long as they don't rig up the standards. The way he worded that comment just sounded like he was saying that women aren't on average weaker then men. (which he cleared up in an earlier comment). If a woman can handle the physical and emotional stress that are involved in the combat branches I wont raise a hand to stop her. But I'm going in an entirely different job from infantry so I really wouldn't know.

I'm an infantryman in the United States Army.

It's a bad idea. A very bad idea.

Combat roles should be highly restricted. That the whole world is considering opening the role to more people instead of less is a sign that the world has gone insane. Someone seriously sat down and thought, "Yeah, that's what we need. More meat for the grinder." There's something seriously perverse with the men who made this decision.

Next comes the inevitable drop in quality. People often say that if a woman can meet the standards, they should be able to fight. Those people don't understand what the standards are and how they're applied in the military, let alone a combat unit. Currently, for a woman to meet the standards a man has to reach in terms of physical endurance, she would have to max her PT test. That's saying that a woman at her best meets a soldier barely meeting the standard, and that's the wrong way to look at a combat unit. We're expected to exceed that standard and perform at the best of our ability. At best, they'll be put into administration or a driver's hold. No NCO is going to want them when it's his soldiers on the line. I don't blame them. People will die because of this.

Midnight Crossroads:

Currently, for a woman to meet the standards a man has to reach in terms of physical endurance, she would have to max her PT test.

You never considered the idea that a different PT test for men and women is a bad idea in and off itself?

I answered good just because I could picture the tic in Gorf's eye. Honestly, I don't really care. The only real bad I can see coming of this is the issue of same side rape. Which I think solutions other than 'keep the women out' need to be applied.

Lowered standards may be an issue as well, but if they simply homogenized the PT tests, and didn't sacrifice quality for the sake of getting women in for PC reasons, I don't see the problem. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but 'combat units' extends beyond infantry yes? Were women previously allowed to serve as combatants on submarines, or as fighter/heli pilots?

Midnight Crossroads:
I'm an infantryman in the United States Army.

It's a bad idea. A very bad idea.

Combat roles should be highly restricted. That the whole world is considering opening the role to more people instead of less is a sign that the world has gone insane. Someone seriously sat down and thought, "Yeah, that's what we need. More meat for the grinder." There's something seriously perverse with the men who made this decision.

Surely if that was the case they wouldn't let women in with the same qualifiers, they would just lower the bar on men? What's the point in letting more people apply if you don't change what you need to get in? (assuming your goal is increasing the number of people passing)

If a woman can pass the same tests men can (there are ~150million women in America, at least 1 is bound to) then why shouldn't they be let in?

This is what everyone here who supports it is saying; if they can do it, let them but don't give excuses for them if they can't and don't give them special treatment. If they start pissing about and giving women a lower entrance bar then yes, it's a horrible idea but not because they are women, because the guys in charge are letting standard slip.

Jux:
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but 'combat units' extends beyond infantry yes? Were women previously allowed to serve as combatants on submarines, or as fighter/heli pilots?

I don't think submarines, but on aircraft and helicopters, yes (that's how Tammy Duckworth lost her legs, being shot down). That's not counted as combat, though.

Reminds me of the bit in lord of the rings where Eowyn says she has just as much reason to go to war as anyone else, and its true dammit.

That article is such a lot of trash that I don't even know where to start with it. How about here?

Because the number of women who will meet the military's already debased physical-fitness standard will not satisfy the feminists' demand for representation, the fitness standard will inevitably be lowered across the board or for women alone, as we have seen in civilian uniformed forces.

Watch where you're standing; the footing's a bit uneven on that slippery slope.

Feminists routinely deny Eros - except when it suits them to exploit their sexual power.

Sure. Because one of the basic tenets of feminism is denying sexuality. Uh huh. Carry on.

Only someone deliberately blind to human reality could maintain that putting men and women in close quarters 24 hours a day will not produce a proliferation of sex, thus introducing all the irrational passions (and resulting favoritism) of physical attraction into an organization that should be exclusively devoted to the mission of combat preparedness. Reported "sexual assaults" will skyrocket, and of course it will only be the men who are at fault. Any consensual behavior leading up to the "assault" - getting in bed with your fellow grunt drunk and taking off your clothes, for example - will be ignored, since in the realm of sexual responsibility, women remain perpetual victims, at the mercy of all-powerful men.

So she starts off with the basic assumption that sexual attraction will only over occur when members of the opposite sex are present (homosexuality is a myth, yo), and then goes on to blab the usual boring old "women seduce men so that they can later accuse them of rape, it doesn't count as rape if you kiss them first, did you notice the massive quotations marks I put around the words sexual assault yet?" dogma.

Chivalry is one of the great civilizing forces, taming men and introducing social graces and nuance to what would otherwise be a brutish social world.

Was this written in 1876 as a guide to being a proper Victorian gentleman? Apparently Heather MacDonald felt she'd been too misogynistic up to this point and needed to balance it out with a little bit of misandry. Cue the usual nonsense about how all men are naturally brutish and uncivilised. Anything else? There's still room in the word count for a bit of racism.

If a woman is taken prisoner, will special efforts be made to rescue her to save her from the risk of rape? If so, the necessary equality among unit members will be destroyed.

"Special efforts"? As opposed to what they usually do when male soldiers are kidnapped, which is to sit down and have a quick cup of coffee and a game of Monopoly before they get around to the whole rescue thing.

If, however, policy requires that she take her chances along with the male captives, we are requiring men to squelch any last remaining vestige of their impulse towards protection and appreciation of female difference.

Oh no! God forbid that they treat their fellow soldiers like fellow soldiers!

Honestly, she might as well have just vented by writing "I REALLY REALLY HATE FEMINISM" in big block capital letters all over her bedroom wall, rather than trying to squeeze a topical story through her bag of bile and then splashing it onto the NR website.

There actually are legitimate arguments against having women in front line combat (not ones that I'd necessarily agree with, but legitimate arguments nonetheless). But you're not going to find any of them in that National Review article. You're more likely to find them in this discussion thread, which means that a good percentage of Escapists are more competent than the people that the NR pays to write for them.

Karma168:

Midnight Crossroads:
I'm an infantryman in the United States Army.

It's a bad idea. A very bad idea.

Combat roles should be highly restricted. That the whole world is considering opening the role to more people instead of less is a sign that the world has gone insane. Someone seriously sat down and thought, "Yeah, that's what we need. More meat for the grinder." There's something seriously perverse with the men who made this decision.

Surely if that was the case they wouldn't let women in with the same qualifiers, they would just lower the bar on men? What's the point in letting more people apply if you don't change what you need to get in? (assuming your goal is increasing the number of people passing)

If a woman can pass the same tests men can (there are ~150million women in America, at least 1 is bound to) then why shouldn't they be let in?

This is what everyone here who supports it is saying; if they can do it, let them but don't give excuses for them if they can't and don't give them special treatment. If they start pissing about and giving women a lower entrance bar then yes, it's a horrible idea but not because they are women, because the guys in charge are letting standard slip.

An anomaly isn't worth the effort when you realistically gain nothing from it. A woman at the top of her game is going to be physically weaker than a comparable man at the top of his. It's not okay to let the standards slip for this reason as the consequences for such actions are that people will die. It's not old, white men in a room plotting against women like so many people imply by recalling gays and blacks. It's old men who have heard Taps play too many times.

And, as I said before, the notion that we should be equal opportunity in shipping our children off to their deaths is psychotic.

Midnight Crossroads:
Next comes the inevitable drop in quality. People often say that if a woman can meet the standards, they should be able to fight. Those people don't understand what the standards are and how they're applied in the military, let alone a combat unit. Currently, for a woman to meet the standards a man has to reach in terms of physical endurance, she would have to max her PT test. That's saying that a woman at her best meets a soldier barely meeting the standard, and that's the wrong way to look at a combat unit. We're expected to exceed that standard and perform at the best of our ability. At best, they'll be put into administration or a driver's hold. No NCO is going to want them when it's his soldiers on the line. I don't blame them. People will die because of this.

I'm going to call bullshit on this. What you effectively just said, is that every male US soldier is held to a physical standard any woman can barely reach if trained to the best of her abilities.

I strongly doubt that. I've met many a woman who was a lot sharper, faster and stronger than many men. And especially with the average US soldier getting fatter and fatter just like the US population, I'd be amazed if they had some sort of standard that only men can reach. How come we're not seeing 100-1 rejection rates already then? Heck, US generals are sounding the alarm bell over the size of the average recruit, saying they soon won't be able to fill the ranks just because everybody's too fat, and you're saying the standards are too high?

Jux:
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but 'combat units' extends beyond infantry yes? Were women previously allowed to serve as combatants on submarines, or as fighter/heli pilots?

In principle, but some exceptions apply. For the Dutch armed forces, women can't apply to the commandos, nor for being part of the crew of a submarine. Reasons being respectively that even most men don't make it through the standards set for the commandos, and for submarines that they're too cramped and small to support any separate facilities for women.

One stain on the record however is that female flag officers only got to where they are thanks to discrimination. They set standards for overpromoting women by a certain year, so any woman currently in a rank of NATO OF-6 or more (or colonels in case of the army, airforce and marechaussee), you just can't know if it was due to their service, or that they just got promoted for being a woman.

Skeleon:
I don't really see the problem. If the women in question fulfill the same criteria, what's the issue?

The issue is that they aren't. Look up the US Army Fitness standards.

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-physical-fitness-test-score-chart

The left column is the number of push-ups done by a soldier. The second column is the score men get. The third column is the score women get. Now start scrolling down until you get female scores. You see the block at a score of 60 (42 push-ups)? That is the minimum score for men. They get kicked out if they fail this three times. Also notice that this is the maximum score for women. So the absolute best score for a woman is one push-up away from being expelled from the military for being physically unfit were she a man. Now, there are outstanding women, but the Army has this separate PT standard for a reason. Women as a sex can't hack the male standard. They'd have to kick out the vast, overwhelming majority of female soldiers if they were held to the same standard. Now tell me they "fulfill the same criteria". A note here, those guidelines are the minimums, units, especially infantry units, regularly exceed those requirements. All of my units required a perfect "300" score or better for all their men. This would basically require women to double their maximum.

I see that this is about women being physically weaker or something, but you have to remember that that's on average. A lot of women are much more combat-ready than a lot of men.

Before or after training? The issue is that training is tuned to the "average" amount of shit the "average" young, healthy, in shape male can accomplish. Not your couch potato, the product of Army Basic Training. Think ruck marches, carrying eighty or a hundred pounds of gear for ten or twenty miles, and that's a short one. Once again, sure, there are a few women who can hack this. I look to France for guidance here, they opened all military jobs to women in the '90s. The one service they kept the male standards for, their marines, twelve women have made it into in almost twenty years. We aren't talking a large number here, we're talking maybe one or two women per year. And this assumes they are held to the standard, what is more likely is that the standard is dropped, women have to carry less gear, and all the men in their units have to pick up the slack. Either the number of women affected by this is negligible, or the standards are trashed, no two ways about that. And in this case, standards dropping mean people die.

I am confused by the argument that because some women in the Army are sexually assaulted or raped, this is an argument to let them into the even more testosterone laded, isolated and angry world of combat arms. That just makes no sense at all. Take it from me, the sex life of an infantryman is a strange thing. I doubt women want to live in our barracks. It just opens the door for even more cries of harassment, warranted or otherwise.

I take this line. I agree that if women are absolutely the equal of men, then they should be allowed to be in any job at all, military included. But we are not equal, and the military is not a "right". No one has the "right" to be blue. When women petition the DoD to make the PT standards identical. When the WNBA and all other female sports are abolished and women compete against men in every arena (they are just as capable, right? Don't be sexist). When half of all children of divorce are placed with their fathers, and when women are asked to stay on a sinking ship to let half the men off, then I will march my happy ass down to Ft. Benning and pin a blue cord on the first woman to pass OSUT myself. Until that day, they can damned well stay the fuck out of my Infantry.

11B-20.B4

Hey Midnight, what outfit you with?

Midnight Crossroads:
An anomaly isn't worth the effort when you realistically gain nothing from it. A woman at the top of her game is going to be physically weaker than a comparable man at the top of his.

But a man doesn't have to be top of his game to be in a combat role, he just has to pass the requirements. Whether or not he could do better than that doesn't really matter if he is good enough.

I should note that this entire thing as far as I can tell is being pushed only by civilians and officers. I haven't seen a single female enlisted declare her interest in being a grunt. Female officers are pissed because "combat" leadership makes the short list for promotion. And I agree, that's a shit deal, and I have no problem with female officers, they aren't even soldiers anyway. What I am worried about is lawsuits out the ass trying to get the Infantry to lower physical and mental standards, pregnancies ruining unit readiness and harassment and various sexual interplay trashing morale.

A further note on standards:

Women in combat is not a new idea. There have been many experiments in the past. There is not some chauvinist conspiracy to keep women out. The soviet union and Israel both had women in combat units for years, but it proved so disruptive they stopped. Israel still uses them in close support roles and some combat arms, like armor, but has removed them from the Infantry, SF and airborne components. Russia kicked them out of everything.

Canada has allowed women in the Infantry since the '80s. Until this day, a grand total of one woman has passed their basic training. Fifteen have made it into Artillery, and three into armor units. Once more, the women do exist, but it may not be worth the other problems, and doesn't bring any additional skills to the unit. The numbers just aren't there.

thaluikhain:

Midnight Crossroads:
An anomaly isn't worth the effort when you realistically gain nothing from it. A woman at the top of her game is going to be physically weaker than a comparable man at the top of his.

But a man doesn't have to be top of his game to be in a combat role, he just has to pass the requirements. Whether or not he could do better than that doesn't really matter if he is good enough.

Son, you come on out and try your "game". It's not the top of what you think people can do. We walk a hundred miles, no sleep, no stop and fight at the end. We stay awake for weeks on end. We don't shower for months. We fight every day. If not the enemy, we fight our rival units or each other. We run until the muscles in our legs literally pull our kneecaps off. I didn't even know that was possible until I did it. "Good enough"? Son, we operate on this whole other plane that civilians can't even fathom. Don't tell me about "good enough" unless you've got the CIB to show for it. There is no "good enough", this is survival. And if you can't carry the heaviest guy in your unit at a dead run, you can't play. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but unless you know what is actually involved in being a grunt, don't talk about our standards.

Tarrou:

11B-20.B4

Hey Midnight, what outfit you with?

I'm currently with the 2nd Styker Cav Regiment in Europe.

Blablahb:
I'm going to call bullshit on this. What you effectively just said, is that every male US soldier is held to a physical standard any woman can barely reach if trained to the best of her abilities.

That's correct. Shocking, I know, that men should do better in a physically demanding profession.

thaluikhain:

Skeleon:
I see that this is about women being physically weaker or something,

That's a rationalisation. A lot of people harbour deep prejudices, and/or don't like change. They only recently let openly gay people serve, they used to have racial segregation, this is more of the same.

If it was merely a matter of average size, they wouldn't let men serve in certain roles. There are positions where people are excluded for being too big, not too small. The inside of tanks and cockpits aren't very roomy, for example.

Fixed-wing aircraft pilot is an example of a job having a minimum height. Ironically, women can already fly fixed-wing. Not sure if in all cases, but I wouldn't be surprised since I've known of female AC-130 pilots.

thaluikhain:

Jux:
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but 'combat units' extends beyond infantry yes? Were women previously allowed to serve as combatants on submarines, or as fighter/heli pilots?

I don't think submarines, but on aircraft and helicopters, yes (that's how Tammy Duckworth lost her legs, being shot down). That's not counted as combat, though.

Depends on the service and type of helicopter. Army considers their helicopters as a maneuver unit, not support, so I imagine some types of helicopters are open to women(ie a medevac blackhawk) and some wouldn't be(apache).

I'm fine with women entering combat roles. As long as any soldier is an asset to the unit instead of a burden, go nuts.

Coming from a woman here.

I believe if the woman meets the same requirements as the men, there's no issue. I don't believe in lowering the bar for 'equality'. This isn't about equality. If she can't do what the requirements are, then she doesn't cut it and she's out. This is about the military. If you can't do the job, you can't do the job.

I don't believe gender should be a part of it. It should be the most able bodied person. It just so happens that would mean, most likely, more men. But, if a woman is fully capable, then what's the issue? She can clearly do the job. Her genitals have nothing to do with that.

bleys2487:
Coming from a woman here.

I believe if the woman meets the same requirements as the men, there's no issue. I don't believe in lowering the bar for 'equality'. This isn't about equality. If she can't do what the requirements are, then she doesn't cut it and she's out. This is about the military. If you can't do the job, you can't do the job.

I don't believe gender should be a part of it. It should be the most able bodied person. It just so happens that would mean, most likely, more men. But, if a woman is fully capable, then what's the issue? She can clearly do the job. Her genitals have nothing to do with that.

I agree. This isn't about trying to force more women into combat roles so that units are more diverse, it's about getting rid of requirements that are irrelevant to the job, such as the requirement for a minimum amount of penis. Of course the percentage of women in combat is going to be very low, because the minimum physical requirements are easier for men to reach than women.

There's nothing wrong with excluding people based on their physical fitness. Excluding people because they have a vagina between their legs? That's bullshit.

Oh, and if I see one person saying "but soldiering can get very dirty and women can't handle places with poor hygiene!" I will send you a photo of my old university dorm room and the ensuing trauma will be yours to cope with.

Tarrou:

Women in combat is not a new idea. There have been many experiments in the past. There is not some chauvinist conspiracy to keep women out. The soviet union and Israel both had women in combat units for years, but it proved so disruptive they stopped. Israel still uses them in close support roles and some combat arms, like armor, but has removed them from the Infantry, SF and airborne components. Russia kicked them out of everything.

Only, the experience from female participation in the USSR during World War II was that women were just as capable as men of performing their duties. The reason they were all mostly kicked out after the war was due to the massive de-mobilization (most men were let go too) and the simple fact that many men simply weren't comfortable with women doing "their job". The same is true for Israel, the deal wasn't that women couldn't get he job done but rather that men had huge issues with working alongside women in combat situations.

Really, as far as arguments go this one is basically in the same corner as DADT. It is casual sexism getting out into the open and not being shy about it. "Because men might take offense" is a really shit reason for not going for equality.

Tarrou:

thaluikhain:

Midnight Crossroads:
An anomaly isn't worth the effort when you realistically gain nothing from it. A woman at the top of her game is going to be physically weaker than a comparable man at the top of his.

But a man doesn't have to be top of his game to be in a combat role, he just has to pass the requirements. Whether or not he could do better than that doesn't really matter if he is good enough.

Son, you come on out and try your "game". It's not the top of what you think people can do. We walk a hundred miles, no sleep, no stop and fight at the end. We stay awake for weeks on end. We don't shower for months. We fight every day. If not the enemy, we fight our rival units or each other. We run until the muscles in our legs literally pull our kneecaps off. I didn't even know that was possible until I did it. "Good enough"? Son, we operate on this whole other plane that civilians can't even fathom. Don't tell me about "good enough" unless you've got the CIB to show for it. There is no "good enough", this is survival. And if you can't carry the heaviest guy in your unit at a dead run, you can't play. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but unless you know what is actually involved in being a grunt, don't talk about our standards.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Servicemen get made out to be demigods and ubermensch above us mere pissant civilians, and they WONDER why women would want to join.

We get it, alright, King Kong ain't got shit on you grunts, and us women need to get back to the kitchen. Understood. Just want people to quit wondering why we want a slice of that pie you got in the first place.

If you read the fitness requirements for entry in U.S military they have separate ones for male and female. The female requirements being lower. So......................... fitness requirements aren't going to be lowered just because females join whatever, its separate.

GunsmithKitten:

Tarrou:

thaluikhain:

But a man doesn't have to be top of his game to be in a combat role, he just has to pass the requirements. Whether or not he could do better than that doesn't really matter if he is good enough.

Son, you come on out and try your "game". It's not the top of what you think people can do. We walk a hundred miles, no sleep, no stop and fight at the end. We stay awake for weeks on end. We don't shower for months. We fight every day. If not the enemy, we fight our rival units or each other. We run until the muscles in our legs literally pull our kneecaps off. I didn't even know that was possible until I did it. "Good enough"? Son, we operate on this whole other plane that civilians can't even fathom. Don't tell me about "good enough" unless you've got the CIB to show for it. There is no "good enough", this is survival. And if you can't carry the heaviest guy in your unit at a dead run, you can't play. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but unless you know what is actually involved in being a grunt, don't talk about our standards.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Servicemen get made out to be demigods and ubermensch above us mere pissant civilians, and they WONDER why women would want to join.

We get it, alright, King Kong ain't got shit on you grunts, and us women need to get back to the kitchen. Understood. Just want people to quit wondering why we want a slice of that pie you got in the first place.

Maybe one day I could be a stay at home husband without my mother, father, and female boss thinking I am a scum and/or loser+ piece of shit. It still seems to be a female only role

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here