Woman Millitary Combat Ban Lifeted (U.S.A)

[Lord Cameron]

Spierred

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong...

What are you talking about? How could you so gleefully accept women into combat arms while listing every false generalization about female soldiers?

Women have no advantage over men in combat. Your size has nothing to do with your abilities as a soldier. Modern armor, vehicles, and aircraft can accommodate people of any size. This isn't WW2, you don't need people to be 5ft. to fit into a ball turret. The cockpit of a helicopter, and compartment of a tank are plenty cozy for anyone.

you have valid points and all. Nice read. But....

I'm looking at year 2020-25.

Steroid and SSRI inhibitor use will be manditory. Women will safely have their periods posponed. Guns will be lighter. Tanks will be smaller. Gender lines will be further crossed.

why not just be ahead of the curve for once instead of behind it? is a more talented and dynamic military really not worth 10-20 additional casualties a year?

[Lord Cameron]

HMS Thunder Child

Lord Cameron

Tactical Leg Sweep

Why a disadvantage in hand to hand? Raw strength helps, but can be circumvented by skill and ferocity. Ask Pacman.

weight is like the only thing that matters in a fight, you can't be serious

[Informative]

Pressure points and dirty fighting isn't exclusive to size ranges.

Unless they've trained to ignore the pain, repeated testicle, kidney, and solar plexus shots will generally down someone. Once they're writhing, anyone with any sort of leg strength can collapse the trachea.

I don't want to distroy your false sense of security or anything but I feel obligated so here goes:

generally speaking, if you were to try and apply some sort of pressure point technique to someone 2-3 weight classes above you... your fingers will be broken. If you were to try to gaurd that someone's punch, your arms will be broken. If you were to try and run away you'd be out paced 2 to 1.

Most middle weights can dead lift 250 pounds with a single arm. That's probably more than you weigh.

[Spierred]

Lord Cameron

Spierred

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong...

What are you talking about? How could you so gleefully accept women into combat arms while listing every false generalization about female soldiers?

Women have no advantage over men in combat. Your size has nothing to do with your abilities as a soldier. Modern armor, vehicles, and aircraft can accommodate people of any size. This isn't WW2, you don't need people to be 5ft. to fit into a ball turret. The cockpit of a helicopter, and compartment of a tank are plenty cozy for anyone.

you have valid points and all. Nice read. But....

I'm looking at year 2020-25.

Steroid and SSRI inhibitor use will be manditory. Women will safely have their periods posponed. Guns will be lighter. Tanks will be smaller. Gender lines will be further crossed.

why not just be ahead of the curve for once instead of behind it? is a more talented and dynamic military really not worth 10-20 additional casualties a year?

It's an interesting theory, but a bit too far ahead. This has already gotten out of hand once, and it's one of the reasons our military spending was unnecessarily high.

In 2009, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates looked at the bureaucracy and funding issues of the DoD and said (paraphrase) "How can the DoD chew gum and walk at the same time?" He was referring to trying to fight a currently ongoing war at the same time as planning for a future, theoretical war. He looked at the F-22 Raptor, the AH-6 Commanche, the Future Warrior program, and a lot of other technology and methods geared towards fighting a war that probably would not happen and cut them. We don't need a stealth helicopter to kill under-equipped, untrained militia armed with forty year old guns. People still die in Afghanistan and we were looking past it. Gates closed the lid on the whole thing and said "Focus on this war. Once this is over, then we can look into possible wars." Our technology and techniques do continue to develop, and most of it is a result of the current conflict... But if we step too far ahead, we'll stretch ourselves too thin. Baby steps. Baby steps.

This trial period of women in combat arms positions (still don't know exactly what that means), is a baby step. Maybe we'll get to what you're talking about in the future, but that cannot be the sole reason for this shift. We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives, for something theoretical. As I said before, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

[Cloud_Cookie]

I'm glad too.

But I also wouldn't say that they are still in for a "big disadvantage." They are many normal women who can lift more than many men. Women can have the same amount of upper body strength as men, but they just have to work a little harder to keep it. Most indigenous cultures have women doing most of the farming, mining, traveling long distances, making huts and carrying food, clay and other products. If women had a disadvantage in these areas, I highly doubt they would be doing them at all. The idea that women are "defenseless" is ridiculous, as shown by the many women who already fight in the military around the world. I do not think women should have lower standards in the military, and the only reason they do is because men still think women can't be as strong as men.

[Cloud_Cookie]

Spierred

Lord Cameron

Spierred

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong...

What are you talking about? How could you so gleefully accept women into combat arms while listing every false generalization about female soldiers?

Women have no advantage over men in combat. Your size has nothing to do with your abilities as a soldier. Modern armor, vehicles, and aircraft can accommodate people of any size. This isn't WW2, you don't need people to be 5ft. to fit into a ball turret. The cockpit of a helicopter, and compartment of a tank are plenty cozy for anyone.

you have valid points and all. Nice read. But....

I'm looking at year 2020-25.

Steroid and SSRI inhibitor use will be manditory. Women will safely have their periods posponed. Guns will be lighter. Tanks will be smaller. Gender lines will be further crossed.

why not just be ahead of the curve for once instead of behind it? is a more talented and dynamic military really not worth 10-20 additional casualties a year?

It's an interesting theory, but a bit too far ahead. This has already gotten out of hand once, and it's one of the reasons our military spending was unnecessarily high.

In 2009, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates looked at the bureaucracy and funding issues of the DoD and said (paraphrase) "How can the DoD chew gum and walk at the same time?" He was referring to trying to fight a currently ongoing war at the same time as planning for a future, theoretical war. He looked at the F-22 Raptor, the AH-6 Commanche, the Future Warrior program, and a lot of other technology and methods geared towards fighting a war that probably would not happen and cut them. We don't need a stealth helicopter to kill under-equipped, untrained militia armed with forty year old guns. People still die in Afghanistan and we were looking past it. Gates closed the lid on the whole thing and said "Focus on this war. Once this is over, then we can look into possible wars." Our technology and techniques do continue to develop, and most of it is a result of the current conflict... But if we step too far ahead, we'll stretch ourselves too thin. Baby steps. Baby steps.

This trial period of women in combat arms positions (still don't know exactly what that means), is a baby step. Maybe we'll get to what you're talking about in the future, but that cannot be the sole reason for this shift. We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives, for something theoretical. As I said before, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

To your last post, women have no disadvantage either. Many people said the same thing about black men when they were first in the military: "We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives." They were seen as very unintelligent without practical judgment or common sense. They came out with several "scientific" reports showing this. And now look. That idea is absolutely idiotic in our culture now, but before that was the popular belief. The same thing about women. Women have been chastised longer than black men in European culture, and that is why we are slowly getting out of the same ideas about women.

Women were looked at as stupid before, not being able to work or do anything productive. We have seen that shift once women were allowed to work and take care of themselves and their family. Saying that women might "cost" lives because of assumptions is horrible. I read one article that said there will be an up-cry from the American public once more body bags come home from dead women soldiers. Yea, that's nice to say about the women who are willing to fight (just as equally as men) to defend their country. If women want to die just as fairly as men do, let them. This is America after all.

[Spierred]

Cloud_Cookie

Spierred

Lord Cameron

Spierred

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong...

What are you talking about? How could you so gleefully accept women into combat arms while listing every false generalization about female soldiers?

Women have no advantage over men in combat. Your size has nothing to do with your abilities as a soldier. Modern armor, vehicles, and aircraft can accommodate people of any size. This isn't WW2, you don't need people to be 5ft. to fit into a ball turret. The cockpit of a helicopter, and compartment of a tank are plenty cozy for anyone.

you have valid points and all. Nice read. But....

I'm looking at year 2020-25.

Steroid and SSRI inhibitor use will be manditory. Women will safely have their periods posponed. Guns will be lighter. Tanks will be smaller. Gender lines will be further crossed.

why not just be ahead of the curve for once instead of behind it? is a more talented and dynamic military really not worth 10-20 additional casualties a year?

It's an interesting theory, but a bit too far ahead. This has already gotten out of hand once, and it's one of the reasons our military spending was unnecessarily high.

In 2009, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates looked at the bureaucracy and funding issues of the DoD and said (paraphrase) "How can the DoD chew gum and walk at the same time?" He was referring to trying to fight a currently ongoing war at the same time as planning for a future, theoretical war. He looked at the F-22 Raptor, the AH-6 Commanche, the Future Warrior program, and a lot of other technology and methods geared towards fighting a war that probably would not happen and cut them. We don't need a stealth helicopter to kill under-equipped, untrained militia armed with forty year old guns. People still die in Afghanistan and we were looking past it. Gates closed the lid on the whole thing and said "Focus on this war. Once this is over, then we can look into possible wars." Our technology and techniques do continue to develop, and most of it is a result of the current conflict... But if we step too far ahead, we'll stretch ourselves too thin. Baby steps. Baby steps.

This trial period of women in combat arms positions (still don't know exactly what that means), is a baby step. Maybe we'll get to what you're talking about in the future, but that cannot be the sole reason for this shift. We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives, for something theoretical. As I said before, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

To your last post, women have no disadvantage either. Many people said the same thing about black men when they were first in the military: "We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives." They were seen as very unintelligent without practical judgment or common sense. They came out with several "scientific" reports showing this. And now look. That idea is absolutely idiotic in our culture now, but before that was the popular belief. The same thing about women. Women have been chastised longer than black men in European culture, and that is why we are slowly getting out of the same ideas about women.

Women were looked at as stupid before, not being able to work or do anything productive. We have seen that shift once women were allowed to work and take care of themselves and their family. Saying that women might "cost" lives because of assumptions is horrible. I read one article that said there will be an up-cry from the American public once more body bags come home from dead women soldiers. Yea, that's nice to say about the women who are willing to fight (just as equally as men) to defend their country. If women want to die just as fairly as men do, let them. This is America after all.

It's not whether or not their lives are in danger. This is Army, we don't give a s**t if your life is in danger, that comes with the job. If we cared whether or not they were at risk of physical harm, we wouldn't let them join the military at all. It's all about the mission. ******** everything else. If we have to be prejudice, if soldiers will die, if an entire platoon is wiped out, but the mission calls for it, and the mission is deemed important enough that these are acceptable losses, fine. Great. As long as we accomplish that mission, that's all that matters. We'll be as prejudice as we want if it means accomplishing the mission. We take every possible advantage to accomplishing the mission.

If there's even the slightest possibility that any particular ethnicity, gender, body type, whatever, would make it at all harder to accomplish the mission, we will say sorry, we're going with what we know will work. If it turns out that having O+ blood makes it so that you're aim is off by one meter with your rifle, the infantry will say "Nope, no more O+ blood types." Because it is not worth the risk. In war, it is never worth the risk. If a few hundred years ago people legitimately believed that being of African decent made you less intelligent, then they would have been justified by not letting them in the Army. We know now that all that was false, bogus, biased, so now you can join the military if you're black... But it is just too much of a risk if we do not know for sure whether or not someone will hamper our capability in carrying out the mission. Every soldier needs to be absolutely capable of doing whatever the Army asks them to do. The consequences of failure in war are far too devastating and far too dire to worry about whether or not it's fair.

If you're too short, too overweight, or too physically inept, you will not be allowed into the Army. If the recruiter somehow gets you in, because those people don't give a ********, you won't be staying long. We have a way of measuring your estimated capability of carrying out the mission. It's called the Army Physical Fitness Test. It measure the strength and endurance of certain muscle groups and physical activities to determine whether or not, on average, you can carry out your assigned task. This test is the same Army-wide. Infantry must pass the exact same test as an HVAC installer or a UAV pilot. The only difference is in age and gender. Men within the ages 17-21 must do 45 push-ups and 56 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 14:45. Men within 22-26 must do 40 push-ups and 50 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 16:36. Women 17-21 must do 24 push-ups and 50 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 18:50.

So, the first stipulation is that the double-standard APFT must be done away with. Women must score the same as males on the APFT. Second stipulation, women must have the operational range men do. They must be able to survive in wilderness for at least a month with minimal supplies. Eating once a day, no sanitation systems, sleeping outdoors, and still working that whole time. Third stipulation, women must be able to handle combat. Now, the third one can't be judged. You cannot create a standard for handling combat that you can judge soldiers against because there's no way to simulate actual combat. You can simulate a high-stress situation, but you will never be able to put the fear of death into someone like what conflict with an enemy force does. Men who have done excellent in training scenarios will suddenly become useless once shooting starts. Well-prepared professionals become dead weight. This is an individual deal. If you, individually cannot handle combat, you will not stay in the Army. The other two, things I listed, however, can be judged across a single demographic. So if the vast majority of females can't meet those first two conditions, I will not support females joining combat arms. Fairness isn't going to stop an advancing enemy, or hold a hard point, or dislodge a defender. Fairness isn't going to hold another units flank, ensuring that that unit doesn't get surrounded and wiped out. It goes far and beyond your willingness to fight. It's your ability to fight. If you fail, you could cost the lives of so many others, or worse yet, you could cost the success of the mission.

There will always, of course, be those individuals who will fall outside the normal ranges. The ones who throw the statistics off. Those who will be weaker or stronger than expected. The Army does not have the time, personnel, or money to seek these people out, but perhaps these people can seek the Army out. That's why I think, if it turns out that the female gender as a whole cannot perform to the set standard, they should implement a program that allows individuals to test to become infantry. Maybe, especially since the Army is seriously cutting back in numbers now, they should make a whole different standard for combat arms MOS's. I'd propose making it so that any soldier who wants to be combat arms, any combat arms, they must first pass the Expert Infantry Test. It's a test we have now where if you pass it, you are awarded the Expert Infantry Badge. The test includes having to march over 15km with about 80lbs in three hours, qualifying expert with the rifle, scoring 80 points in the 17-21 male APFT (the scores listed above are for 60 points, which is the passing minimum), and being able to carry out a number of other combat related, basic and somewhat advanced tasks, such as employing, disassembling, and reassembling certain weapons, land navigation, night time operations, first aid, combat maneuvers, etc. I think that if we want to be fair, and still be a professional, mission oriented Army, this is what would have to happen.

[Cloud_Cookie]

Spierred

Cloud_Cookie

Spierred

Lord Cameron

Spierred

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong...

What are you talking about? How could you so gleefully accept women into combat arms while listing every false generalization about female soldiers?

Women have no advantage over men in combat. Your size has nothing to do with your abilities as a soldier. Modern armor, vehicles, and aircraft can accommodate people of any size. This isn't WW2, you don't need people to be 5ft. to fit into a ball turret. The cockpit of a helicopter, and compartment of a tank are plenty cozy for anyone.

you have valid points and all. Nice read. But....

I'm looking at year 2020-25.

Steroid and SSRI inhibitor use will be manditory. Women will safely have their periods posponed. Guns will be lighter. Tanks will be smaller. Gender lines will be further crossed.

why not just be ahead of the curve for once instead of behind it? is a more talented and dynamic military really not worth 10-20 additional casualties a year?

It's an interesting theory, but a bit too far ahead. This has already gotten out of hand once, and it's one of the reasons our military spending was unnecessarily high.

In 2009, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates looked at the bureaucracy and funding issues of the DoD and said (paraphrase) "How can the DoD chew gum and walk at the same time?" He was referring to trying to fight a currently ongoing war at the same time as planning for a future, theoretical war. He looked at the F-22 Raptor, the AH-6 Commanche, the Future Warrior program, and a lot of other technology and methods geared towards fighting a war that probably would not happen and cut them. We don't need a stealth helicopter to kill under-equipped, untrained militia armed with forty year old guns. People still die in Afghanistan and we were looking past it. Gates closed the lid on the whole thing and said "Focus on this war. Once this is over, then we can look into possible wars." Our technology and techniques do continue to develop, and most of it is a result of the current conflict... But if we step too far ahead, we'll stretch ourselves too thin. Baby steps. Baby steps.

This trial period of women in combat arms positions (still don't know exactly what that means), is a baby step. Maybe we'll get to what you're talking about in the future, but that cannot be the sole reason for this shift. We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives, for something theoretical. As I said before, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

To your last post, women have no disadvantage either. Many people said the same thing about black men when they were first in the military: "We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives." They were seen as very unintelligent without practical judgment or common sense. They came out with several "scientific" reports showing this. And now look. That idea is absolutely idiotic in our culture now, but before that was the popular belief. The same thing about women. Women have been chastised longer than black men in European culture, and that is why we are slowly getting out of the same ideas about women.

Women were looked at as stupid before, not being able to work or do anything productive. We have seen that shift once women were allowed to work and take care of themselves and their family. Saying that women might "cost" lives because of assumptions is horrible. I read one article that said there will be an up-cry from the American public once more body bags come home from dead women soldiers. Yea, that's nice to say about the women who are willing to fight (just as equally as men) to defend their country. If women want to die just as fairly as men do, let them. This is America after all.

It's not whether or not their lives are in danger. This is Army, we don't give a s**t if your life is in danger, that comes with the job. If we cared whether or not they were at risk of physical harm, we wouldn't let them join the military at all. It's all about the mission. ******** everything else. If we have to be prejudice, if soldiers will die, if an entire platoon is wiped out, but the mission calls for it, and the mission is deemed important enough that these are acceptable losses, fine. Great. As long as we accomplish that mission, that's all that matters. We'll be as prejudice as we want if it means accomplishing the mission. We take every possible advantage to accomplishing the mission.

If there's even the slightest possibility that any particular ethnicity, gender, body type, whatever, would make it at all harder to accomplish the mission, we will say sorry, we're going with what we know will work. If it turns out that having O+ blood makes it so that you're aim is off by one meter with your rifle, the infantry will say "Nope, no more O+ blood types." Because it is not worth the risk. In war, it is never worth the risk. If a few hundred years ago people legitimately believed that being of African decent made you less intelligent, then they would have been justified by not letting them in the Army. We know now that all that was false, bogus, biased, so now you can join the military if you're black... But it is just too much of a risk if we do not know for sure whether or not someone will hamper our capability in carrying out the mission. Every soldier needs to be absolutely capable of doing whatever the Army asks them to do. The consequences of failure in war are far too devastating and far too dire to worry about whether or not it's fair.

If you're too short, too overweight, or too physically inept, you will not be allowed into the Army. If the recruiter somehow gets you in, because those people don't give a ********, you won't be staying long. We have a way of measuring your estimated capability of carrying out the mission. It's called the Army Physical Fitness Test. It measure the strength and endurance of certain muscle groups and physical activities to determine whether or not, on average, you can carry out your assigned task. This test is the same Army-wide. Infantry must pass the exact same test as an HVAC installer or a UAV pilot. The only difference is in age and gender. Men within the ages 17-21 must do 45 push-ups and 56 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 14:45. Men within 22-26 must do 40 push-ups and 50 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 16:36. Women 17-21 must do 24 push-ups and 50 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 18:50.

So, the first stipulation is that the double-standard APFT must be done away with. Women must score the same as males on the APFT. Second stipulation, women must have the operational range men do. They must be able to survive in wilderness for at least a month with minimal supplies. Eating once a day, no sanitation systems, sleeping outdoors, and still working that whole time. Third stipulation, women must be able to handle combat. Now, the third one can't be judged. You cannot create a standard for handling combat that you can judge soldiers against because there's no way to simulate actual combat. You can simulate a high-stress situation, but you will never be able to put the fear of death into someone like what conflict with an enemy force does. Men who have done excellent in training scenarios will suddenly become useless once shooting starts. Well-prepared professionals become dead weight. This is an individual deal. If you, individually cannot handle combat, you will not stay in the Army. The other two, things I listed, however, can be judged across a single demographic. So if the vast majority of females can't meet those first two conditions, I will not support females joining combat arms. Fairness isn't going to stop an advancing enemy, or hold a hard point, or dislodge a defender. Fairness isn't going to hold another units flank, ensuring that that unit doesn't get surrounded and wiped out. It goes far and beyond your willingness to fight. It's your ability to fight. If you fail, you could cost the lives of so many others, or worse yet, you could cost the success of the mission.

There will always, of course, be those individuals who will fall outside the normal ranges. The ones who throw the statistics off. Those who will be weaker or stronger than expected. The Army does not have the time, personnel, or money to seek these people out, but perhaps these people can seek the Army out. That's why I think, if it turns out that the female gender as a whole cannot perform to the set standard, they should implement a program that allows individuals to test to become infantry. Maybe, especially since the Army is seriously cutting back in numbers now, they should make a whole different standard for combat arms MOS's. I'd propose making it so that any soldier who wants to be combat arms, any combat arms, they must first pass the Expert Infantry Test. It's a test we have now where if you pass it, you are awarded the Expert Infantry Badge. The test includes having to march over 15km with about 80lbs in three hours, qualifying expert with the rifle, scoring 80 points in the 17-21 male APFT (the scores listed above are for 60 points, which is the passing minimum), and being able to carry out a number of other combat related, basic and somewhat advanced tasks, such as employing, disassembling, and reassembling certain weapons, land navigation, night time operations, first aid, combat maneuvers, etc. I think that if we want to be fair, and still be a professional, mission oriented Army, this is what would have to happen.

I completely agree with you. I would also state that if you don't give someone a chance (based on race, sex, etc.), then you will never know if it's a good idea or not. Of course everything that is unfamiliar to the military might cost lives. But if that excuse was still used today, new warfare (the use of dogs, the creation of new weaponry, etc), new people (blacks and women) used in the military would still not exist in the military. Transformation for the military is necessary for the success of a mission. You know a lot, and I am sure I am already repeating your

For fairness, I just want to have the unequal distribution of testing to be stopped. Women should have to do exactly what men have to do so the sexism would further decrease within the military.

There was one part of your post that bothered me. " They must be able to survive in wilderness for at least a month with minimal supplies. Eating once a day, no sanitation systems, sleeping outdoors, and still working that whole time. Third stipulation, women must be able to handle combat." I do not see any other reason you would bring this up for except unless you actually believe women would have a problem with handling these issues. I am currently in archeology, and we have to stay months in the middle of nowhere in deserts, war-torn countries or rainforests without any present day pleasantries. A lot of my colleagues are women as well. Not only in archeology requires such conditions, but many fields in journalism, biology, mountaineering, cave diving, etc. require the same amount of survivalism. There is never a complaint because really, women and men are no different except when it comes to reproduction.

There is no way I can literally compare my career path to yours, (both very different in goals and daily experiences), but I only wish that the men in the military (and political offices) would stop talking like women want or feel the need to eat more than once a day, use "sanitation systems" (whatever that means), sleep indoors and not work the entire time. My boyfriend is in the air force, and I have heard several comments about women and their "inabilities" or "needs" at parties with the rest of his friends and coworkers. It's frustrating because people judge when they don't know. The "third stipulation," you said so yourself that it is unmeasurable and based on individuals. If a lot of women do not make it into the military, that does not mean that a lot of other women cannot either. Every person is different and should be treated with the same amount of respect.

[Spierred]

Cloud_Cookie

Spierred

Cloud_Cookie

Spierred

Lord Cameron

Spierred

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong...

What are you talking about? How could you so gleefully accept women into combat arms while listing every false generalization about female soldiers?

Women have no advantage over men in combat. Your size has nothing to do with your abilities as a soldier. Modern armor, vehicles, and aircraft can accommodate people of any size. This isn't WW2, you don't need people to be 5ft. to fit into a ball turret. The cockpit of a helicopter, and compartment of a tank are plenty cozy for anyone.

you have valid points and all. Nice read. But....

I'm looking at year 2020-25.

Steroid and SSRI inhibitor use will be manditory. Women will safely have their periods posponed. Guns will be lighter. Tanks will be smaller. Gender lines will be further crossed.

why not just be ahead of the curve for once instead of behind it? is a more talented and dynamic military really not worth 10-20 additional casualties a year?

It's an interesting theory, but a bit too far ahead. This has already gotten out of hand once, and it's one of the reasons our military spending was unnecessarily high.

In 2009, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates looked at the bureaucracy and funding issues of the DoD and said (paraphrase) "How can the DoD chew gum and walk at the same time?" He was referring to trying to fight a currently ongoing war at the same time as planning for a future, theoretical war. He looked at the F-22 Raptor, the AH-6 Commanche, the Future Warrior program, and a lot of other technology and methods geared towards fighting a war that probably would not happen and cut them. We don't need a stealth helicopter to kill under-equipped, untrained militia armed with forty year old guns. People still die in Afghanistan and we were looking past it. Gates closed the lid on the whole thing and said "Focus on this war. Once this is over, then we can look into possible wars." Our technology and techniques do continue to develop, and most of it is a result of the current conflict... But if we step too far ahead, we'll stretch ourselves too thin. Baby steps. Baby steps.

This trial period of women in combat arms positions (still don't know exactly what that means), is a baby step. Maybe we'll get to what you're talking about in the future, but that cannot be the sole reason for this shift. We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives, for something theoretical. As I said before, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

To your last post, women have no disadvantage either. Many people said the same thing about black men when they were first in the military: "We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives." They were seen as very unintelligent without practical judgment or common sense. They came out with several "scientific" reports showing this. And now look. That idea is absolutely idiotic in our culture now, but before that was the popular belief. The same thing about women. Women have been chastised longer than black men in European culture, and that is why we are slowly getting out of the same ideas about women.

Women were looked at as stupid before, not being able to work or do anything productive. We have seen that shift once women were allowed to work and take care of themselves and their family. Saying that women might "cost" lives because of assumptions is horrible. I read one article that said there will be an up-cry from the American public once more body bags come home from dead women soldiers. Yea, that's nice to say about the women who are willing to fight (just as equally as men) to defend their country. If women want to die just as fairly as men do, let them. This is America after all.

It's not whether or not their lives are in danger. This is Army, we don't give a s**t if your life is in danger, that comes with the job. If we cared whether or not they were at risk of physical harm, we wouldn't let them join the military at all. It's all about the mission. ******** everything else. If we have to be prejudice, if soldiers will die, if an entire platoon is wiped out, but the mission calls for it, and the mission is deemed important enough that these are acceptable losses, fine. Great. As long as we accomplish that mission, that's all that matters. We'll be as prejudice as we want if it means accomplishing the mission. We take every possible advantage to accomplishing the mission.

If there's even the slightest possibility that any particular ethnicity, gender, body type, whatever, would make it at all harder to accomplish the mission, we will say sorry, we're going with what we know will work. If it turns out that having O+ blood makes it so that you're aim is off by one meter with your rifle, the infantry will say "Nope, no more O+ blood types." Because it is not worth the risk. In war, it is never worth the risk. If a few hundred years ago people legitimately believed that being of African decent made you less intelligent, then they would have been justified by not letting them in the Army. We know now that all that was false, bogus, biased, so now you can join the military if you're black... But it is just too much of a risk if we do not know for sure whether or not someone will hamper our capability in carrying out the mission. Every soldier needs to be absolutely capable of doing whatever the Army asks them to do. The consequences of failure in war are far too devastating and far too dire to worry about whether or not it's fair.

If you're too short, too overweight, or too physically inept, you will not be allowed into the Army. If the recruiter somehow gets you in, because those people don't give a ********, you won't be staying long. We have a way of measuring your estimated capability of carrying out the mission. It's called the Army Physical Fitness Test. It measure the strength and endurance of certain muscle groups and physical activities to determine whether or not, on average, you can carry out your assigned task. This test is the same Army-wide. Infantry must pass the exact same test as an HVAC installer or a UAV pilot. The only difference is in age and gender. Men within the ages 17-21 must do 45 push-ups and 56 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 14:45. Men within 22-26 must do 40 push-ups and 50 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 16:36. Women 17-21 must do 24 push-ups and 50 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 18:50.

So, the first stipulation is that the double-standard APFT must be done away with. Women must score the same as males on the APFT. Second stipulation, women must have the operational range men do. They must be able to survive in wilderness for at least a month with minimal supplies. Eating once a day, no sanitation systems, sleeping outdoors, and still working that whole time. Third stipulation, women must be able to handle combat. Now, the third one can't be judged. You cannot create a standard for handling combat that you can judge soldiers against because there's no way to simulate actual combat. You can simulate a high-stress situation, but you will never be able to put the fear of death into someone like what conflict with an enemy force does. Men who have done excellent in training scenarios will suddenly become useless once shooting starts. Well-prepared professionals become dead weight. This is an individual deal. If you, individually cannot handle combat, you will not stay in the Army. The other two, things I listed, however, can be judged across a single demographic. So if the vast majority of females can't meet those first two conditions, I will not support females joining combat arms. Fairness isn't going to stop an advancing enemy, or hold a hard point, or dislodge a defender. Fairness isn't going to hold another units flank, ensuring that that unit doesn't get surrounded and wiped out. It goes far and beyond your willingness to fight. It's your ability to fight. If you fail, you could cost the lives of so many others, or worse yet, you could cost the success of the mission.

There will always, of course, be those individuals who will fall outside the normal ranges. The ones who throw the statistics off. Those who will be weaker or stronger than expected. The Army does not have the time, personnel, or money to seek these people out, but perhaps these people can seek the Army out. That's why I think, if it turns out that the female gender as a whole cannot perform to the set standard, they should implement a program that allows individuals to test to become infantry. Maybe, especially since the Army is seriously cutting back in numbers now, they should make a whole different standard for combat arms MOS's. I'd propose making it so that any soldier who wants to be combat arms, any combat arms, they must first pass the Expert Infantry Test. It's a test we have now where if you pass it, you are awarded the Expert Infantry Badge. The test includes having to march over 15km with about 80lbs in three hours, qualifying expert with the rifle, scoring 80 points in the 17-21 male APFT (the scores listed above are for 60 points, which is the passing minimum), and being able to carry out a number of other combat related, basic and somewhat advanced tasks, such as employing, disassembling, and reassembling certain weapons, land navigation, night time operations, first aid, combat maneuvers, etc. I think that if we want to be fair, and still be a professional, mission oriented Army, this is what would have to happen.

I completely agree with you. I would also state that if you don't give someone a chance (based on race, sex, etc.), then you will never know if it's a good idea or not. Of course everything that is unfamiliar to the military might cost lives. But if that excuse was still used today, new warfare (the use of dogs, the creation of new weaponry, etc), new people (blacks and women) used in the military would still not exist in the military. Transformation for the military is necessary for the success of a mission. You know a lot, and I am sure I am already repeating your

For fairness, I just want to have the unequal distribution of testing to be stopped. Women should have to do exactly what men have to do so the sexism would further decrease within the military.

There was one part of your post that bothered me. " They must be able to survive in wilderness for at least a month with minimal supplies. Eating once a day, no sanitation systems, sleeping outdoors, and still working that whole time. Third stipulation, women must be able to handle combat." I do not see any other reason you would bring this up for except unless you actually believe women would have a problem with handling these issues. I am currently in archeology, and we have to stay months in the middle of nowhere in deserts, war-torn countries or rainforests without any present day pleasantries. A lot of my colleagues are women as well. Not only in archeology requires such conditions, but many fields in journalism, biology, mountaineering, cave diving, etc. require the same amount of survivalism. There is never a complaint because really, women and men are no different except when it comes to reproduction.

There is no way I can literally compare my career path to yours, (both very different in goals and daily experiences), but I only wish that the men in the military (and political offices) would stop talking like women want or feel the need to eat more than once a day, use "sanitation systems" (whatever that means), sleep indoors and not work the entire time. My boyfriend is in the air force, and I have heard several comments about women and their "inabilities" or "needs" at parties with the rest of his friends and coworkers. It's frustrating because people judge when they don't know. The "third stipulation," you said so yourself that it is unmeasurable and based on individuals. If a lot of women do not make it into the military, that does not mean that a lot of other women cannot either. Every person is different and should be treated with the same amount of respect.

Yes, the double standard must be done away with. Of course I believe women should be given the chance. I'm not against this probationary trial the Army is running, I just was emphasizing that people should keep in mind that this goes beyond simple sexism. The Army has gone through numerous trials and countless obstacles. When they approach something new, it has to be carefully thought about, tested, and implemented. I want to make sure people are thinking beyond prejudice and trying to truly understand why someone may be for or against the measure.

The reason I stated that list of stipulations specifically isn't because I think women can't do it. It's because they've never had to within the Army. Since they have never been combat arms before, we've never had to test their abilities to operate outside the wire for extended periods, or run long range operations, or handle that kind of physical and mental stress. Male soldiers do it every day, so we generally know how someone might adapt (still with the exception of the mental aspect), but a female soldier has never been asked to do these things, so the Army has yet to physically see if they can. A female soldier's ability to handle these conditions needs to be tested and tried true before it is safe to say they can handle the field. The Army is still very much different from most other jobs, so seeing a female who goes out and lives with apes for months at a time isn't going to apply the same way.

Again, sexism has nothing to do with this decision or process. The Army cares about one thing overall, achieving the mission. Women do, however, have a bad reputation in the Army. It's already known, factually, that women must work harder than men to achieve the same physical fitness level. This is not only known through biological study, but also by practical study (NATO report MP-HFM-158-13(3)). The Army must run its own, similar tests, putting females in every scenario that their male counterparts in combat arms must endure before any conclusions can be drawn.

To reiterate, that list of stipulations isn't because I think women can't handle that. It's because women have never been asked by the Army to handle it, so we just don't know until it is tested. Male soldiers have had to stay out in the field with minimal facilities, food, and cover. All these things affect your health and combat readiness. You can get staff, illness, or fungal infection from now showering. You can become physically and mentally weak from malnutrition. You can become a casualty of attrition by not having cover or comfort. Male soldiers have been field proven to be able to handle all of this just fine, or to a reasonable degree. Now it's time for females to step up to the pate. If the evidence shows that the majority of females perform just as well as the males who were already there and have already set the standard, then I won't have another single thing to say about females in combat arms.

[Cloud_Cookie]

Spierred

Cloud_Cookie

Spierred

Cloud_Cookie

Spierred

It's an interesting theory, but a bit too far ahead. This has already gotten out of hand once, and it's one of the reasons our military spending was unnecessarily high.

In 2009, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates looked at the bureaucracy and funding issues of the DoD and said (paraphrase) "How can the DoD chew gum and walk at the same time?" He was referring to trying to fight a currently ongoing war at the same time as planning for a future, theoretical war. He looked at the F-22 Raptor, the AH-6 Commanche, the Future Warrior program, and a lot of other technology and methods geared towards fighting a war that probably would not happen and cut them. We don't need a stealth helicopter to kill under-equipped, untrained militia armed with forty year old guns. People still die in Afghanistan and we were looking past it. Gates closed the lid on the whole thing and said "Focus on this war. Once this is over, then we can look into possible wars." Our technology and techniques do continue to develop, and most of it is a result of the current conflict... But if we step too far ahead, we'll stretch ourselves too thin. Baby steps. Baby steps.

This trial period of women in combat arms positions (still don't know exactly what that means), is a baby step. Maybe we'll get to what you're talking about in the future, but that cannot be the sole reason for this shift. We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives, for something theoretical. As I said before, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

To your last post, women have no disadvantage either. Many people said the same thing about black men when they were first in the military: "We're putting to much at risk in the present to bet this entire program, which may or may not interfere with the mission and cost lives." They were seen as very unintelligent without practical judgment or common sense. They came out with several "scientific" reports showing this. And now look. That idea is absolutely idiotic in our culture now, but before that was the popular belief. The same thing about women. Women have been chastised longer than black men in European culture, and that is why we are slowly getting out of the same ideas about women.

Women were looked at as stupid before, not being able to work or do anything productive. We have seen that shift once women were allowed to work and take care of themselves and their family. Saying that women might "cost" lives because of assumptions is horrible. I read one article that said there will be an up-cry from the American public once more body bags come home from dead women soldiers. Yea, that's nice to say about the women who are willing to fight (just as equally as men) to defend their country. If women want to die just as fairly as men do, let them. This is America after all.

It's not whether or not their lives are in danger. This is Army, we don't give a s**t if your life is in danger, that comes with the job. If we cared whether or not they were at risk of physical harm, we wouldn't let them join the military at all. It's all about the mission. ******** everything else. If we have to be prejudice, if soldiers will die, if an entire platoon is wiped out, but the mission calls for it, and the mission is deemed important enough that these are acceptable losses, fine. Great. As long as we accomplish that mission, that's all that matters. We'll be as prejudice as we want if it means accomplishing the mission. We take every possible advantage to accomplishing the mission.

If there's even the slightest possibility that any particular ethnicity, gender, body type, whatever, would make it at all harder to accomplish the mission, we will say sorry, we're going with what we know will work. If it turns out that having O+ blood makes it so that you're aim is off by one meter with your rifle, the infantry will say "Nope, no more O+ blood types." Because it is not worth the risk. In war, it is never worth the risk. If a few hundred years ago people legitimately believed that being of African decent made you less intelligent, then they would have been justified by not letting them in the Army. We know now that all that was false, bogus, biased, so now you can join the military if you're black... But it is just too much of a risk if we do not know for sure whether or not someone will hamper our capability in carrying out the mission. Every soldier needs to be absolutely capable of doing whatever the Army asks them to do. The consequences of failure in war are far too devastating and far too dire to worry about whether or not it's fair.

If you're too short, too overweight, or too physically inept, you will not be allowed into the Army. If the recruiter somehow gets you in, because those people don't give a ********, you won't be staying long. We have a way of measuring your estimated capability of carrying out the mission. It's called the Army Physical Fitness Test. It measure the strength and endurance of certain muscle groups and physical activities to determine whether or not, on average, you can carry out your assigned task. This test is the same Army-wide. Infantry must pass the exact same test as an HVAC installer or a UAV pilot. The only difference is in age and gender. Men within the ages 17-21 must do 45 push-ups and 56 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 14:45. Men within 22-26 must do 40 push-ups and 50 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 16:36. Women 17-21 must do 24 push-ups and 50 sit-ups in two minutes, and run two miles in under 18:50.

So, the first stipulation is that the double-standard APFT must be done away with. Women must score the same as males on the APFT. Second stipulation, women must have the operational range men do. They must be able to survive in wilderness for at least a month with minimal supplies. Eating once a day, no sanitation systems, sleeping outdoors, and still working that whole time. Third stipulation, women must be able to handle combat. Now, the third one can't be judged. You cannot create a standard for handling combat that you can judge soldiers against because there's no way to simulate actual combat. You can simulate a high-stress situation, but you will never be able to put the fear of death into someone like what conflict with an enemy force does. Men who have done excellent in training scenarios will suddenly become useless once shooting starts. Well-prepared professionals become dead weight. This is an individual deal. If you, individually cannot handle combat, you will not stay in the Army. The other two, things I listed, however, can be judged across a single demographic. So if the vast majority of females can't meet those first two conditions, I will not support females joining combat arms. Fairness isn't going to stop an advancing enemy, or hold a hard point, or dislodge a defender. Fairness isn't going to hold another units flank, ensuring that that unit doesn't get surrounded and wiped out. It goes far and beyond your willingness to fight. It's your ability to fight. If you fail, you could cost the lives of so many others, or worse yet, you could cost the success of the mission.

There will always, of course, be those individuals who will fall outside the normal ranges. The ones who throw the statistics off. Those who will be weaker or stronger than expected. The Army does not have the time, personnel, or money to seek these people out, but perhaps these people can seek the Army out. That's why I think, if it turns out that the female gender as a whole cannot perform to the set standard, they should implement a program that allows individuals to test to become infantry. Maybe, especially since the Army is seriously cutting back in numbers now, they should make a whole different standard for combat arms MOS's. I'd propose making it so that any soldier who wants to be combat arms, any combat arms, they must first pass the Expert Infantry Test. It's a test we have now where if you pass it, you are awarded the Expert Infantry Badge. The test includes having to march over 15km with about 80lbs in three hours, qualifying expert with the rifle, scoring 80 points in the 17-21 male APFT (the scores listed above are for 60 points, which is the passing minimum), and being able to carry out a number of other combat related, basic and somewhat advanced tasks, such as employing, disassembling, and reassembling certain weapons, land navigation, night time operations, first aid, combat maneuvers, etc. I think that if we want to be fair, and still be a professional, mission oriented Army, this is what would have to happen.

I completely agree with you. I would also state that if you don't give someone a chance (based on race, sex, etc.), then you will never know if it's a good idea or not. Of course everything that is unfamiliar to the military might cost lives. But if that excuse was still used today, new warfare (the use of dogs, the creation of new weaponry, etc), new people (blacks and women) used in the military would still not exist in the military. Transformation for the military is necessary for the success of a mission. You know a lot, and I am sure I am already repeating your

For fairness, I just want to have the unequal distribution of testing to be stopped. Women should have to do exactly what men have to do so the sexism would further decrease within the military.

There was one part of your post that bothered me. " They must be able to survive in wilderness for at least a month with minimal supplies. Eating once a day, no sanitation systems, sleeping outdoors, and still working that whole time. Third stipulation, women must be able to handle combat." I do not see any other reason you would bring this up for except unless you actually believe women would have a problem with handling these issues. I am currently in archeology, and we have to stay months in the middle of nowhere in deserts, war-torn countries or rainforests without any present day pleasantries. A lot of my colleagues are women as well. Not only in archeology requires such conditions, but many fields in journalism, biology, mountaineering, cave diving, etc. require the same amount of survivalism. There is never a complaint because really, women and men are no different except when it comes to reproduction.

There is no way I can literally compare my career path to yours, (both very different in goals and daily experiences), but I only wish that the men in the military (and political offices) would stop talking like women want or feel the need to eat more than once a day, use "sanitation systems" (whatever that means), sleep indoors and not work the entire time. My boyfriend is in the air force, and I have heard several comments about women and their "inabilities" or "needs" at parties with the rest of his friends and coworkers. It's frustrating because people judge when they don't know. The "third stipulation," you said so yourself that it is unmeasurable and based on individuals. If a lot of women do not make it into the military, that does not mean that a lot of other women cannot either. Every person is different and should be treated with the same amount of respect.

Yes, the double standard must be done away with. Of course I believe women should be given the chance. I'm not against this probationary trial the Army is running, I just was emphasizing that people should keep in mind that this goes beyond simple sexism. The Army has gone through numerous trials and countless obstacles. When they approach something new, it has to be carefully thought about, tested, and implemented. I want to make sure people are thinking beyond prejudice and trying to truly understand why someone may be for or against the measure.

The reason I stated that list of stipulations specifically isn't because I think women can't do it. It's because they've never had to within the Army. Since they have never been combat arms before, we've never had to test their abilities to operate outside the wire for extended periods, or run long range operations, or handle that kind of physical and mental stress. Male soldiers do it every day, so we generally know how someone might adapt (still with the exception of the mental aspect), but a female soldier has never been asked to do these things, so the Army has yet to physically see if they can. A female soldier's ability to handle these conditions needs to be tested and tried true before it is safe to say they can handle the field. The Army is still very much different from most other jobs, so seeing a female who goes out and lives with apes for months at a time isn't going to apply the same way.

Again, sexism has nothing to do with this decision or process. The Army cares about one thing overall, achieving the mission. Women do, however, have a bad reputation in the Army. It's already known, factually, that women must work harder than men to achieve the same physical fitness level. This is not only known through biological study, but also by practical study (NATO report MP-HFM-158-13(3)). The Army must run its own, similar tests, putting females in every scenario that their male counterparts in combat arms must endure before any conclusions can be drawn.

To reiterate, that list of stipulations isn't because I think women can't handle that. It's because women have never been asked by the Army to handle it, so we just don't know until it is tested. Male soldiers have had to stay out in the field with minimal facilities, food, and cover. All these things affect your health and combat readiness. You can get staff, illness, or fungal infection from now showering. You can become physically and mentally weak from malnutrition. You can become a casualty of attrition by not having cover or comfort. Male soldiers have been field proven to be able to handle all of this just fine, or to a reasonable degree. Now it's time for females to step up to the pate. If the evidence shows that the majority of females perform just as well as the males who were already there and have already set the standard, then I won't have another single thing to say about females in combat arms.

You must just be talking about the U.S. military then. Many Western, developed countries have women on their front-line forces. South Korea (artillery and armored units), Israel, Eritrea and North Korea even, Denmark, Estonia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania and Sweden all have women fighting in combat units. Are you saying that these women from other countries must not be working as hard as they would be in the U.S.? That their daily activities in those militaries would not compare to America's? I would think if the U.S. was seriously worried about women's capabilities in the Army, that they would look at how they do in other Armies too, correct? That sounds like the most intelligent thing to do instead of making the claim that "they need to be tested to see if they can handle it first [in our Army]." By proclaiming this, you are already starting off with the assumption that women cannot fight in the Army.

I haven't heard any recent news from other countries saying that women are "slowing them down" or "costing lives" which would propagate a want in the U.S. Army to propose a "probationary" period for women. Therefore, there is no reason for this "Oh wait, I don't think it's a good idea..." attitude being shown by so many people. Also, not as many women believe that women should have this testing period. If it was biologically, factually known that women cannot perform the daily duties placed upon them, women, especially in officer positions, would realize this too correct? And further agree with their male counterparts? These issues are based on the controversy of gender roles in our country. There is a lot of controversy on the subject (as there was for gays in the military). The military wants to make sure that they are making the right choice based not on biological differences between men and women, but based primarily on political, economical (funding), and social (the public) systems within the United States. The way women are being discriminated against in the military is how gays have been (and still are in many cases) discriminated against when they join the military. The military is not a very objective environment. The military is very much conservative, with many views that are founded in the early to mid 20th century.

[Hydraulic Fluid]

That decision is going to end in disaster.

[Valkyrja of Heaven]

...being part of the military, I can tell you from the insider point that they're being allowed to actually "fight" so to speak, but being allowed to "apply" essentially, for combat positions. A prime example is combat medic, they aren't actually used as a gunmen, but when and if s**t hits hard enough they have no other choice to drop their ACTUAL MOS and go to the sub-MOS of the entire ground based military which is riflemen.

Every MOS is trained to be riflemen specifically, because of the reason that, in the event, of A Massive massive conflict, in which all available TRUE infantry combatants have either been killed, mortally wounded (and can no longer complete the mission), or taken prisoner, all other MOS's are called upon to bare arms as their replacements. This isn't to say that the other personnel, aren't good enough, it's simply stating that Infantry specialize in the art of killing. It's THEIR trade, calling and job. While everyone else, has support roles to make the infant ties job easier to accomplish.

Now as far as women being put into combative positions, as I touched on earlier; they aren't signifying the opening of infantry roles to women. They are implying that more combat supportive positions will available to make thing more equal. Tank operators, gunners, (women are already pilots to my understanding), drivers for land based troop carriers, they are specifically opening them up to the infantry world as a whole, more or less because its still not sensible to do so.(in my opinion)

I would assume, most people are in a frenzy over this issue, and honesty I can't blame them. I myself am an infantryman, close to deployment as well. I can't tell you all of what the infantry is like, cause I have yet to experience it all myself, but I can tell you, that its not like the rest of the military. Infantry are generally harder on their soldiers, they expect more, because their job isn't the tedium of POG (personnel other than grunt) life. Ours is a very "shitty", if I do say so myself, role. Because we all love watching stuff blow up, go boom, see that spray of pink most, watching bodies fall dead or mangled, but rarely get to do or see those things in actuality.

We as infantry sign up to what we do because we, knowingly are resolved to death, or the idea of it. That or we just don't give a s**t and want to take someone with us because we go (as some actually use as a reason to join the ranks) we all sign up and swear in under oath because we want to use the weapons, want to tote around those hulking guns, (which someone describes as Phallic symbols, completely inaccurate by the way) because we enjoy it. Yes, we both and moan, complain and gripe about our job, but none of us, would trade it for another military job if it meant not being able to go to the front line on the 10% out of 100% of time that we actually get to do what we signed up for.

There's many infantrymen horrified at the idea of women joining our ranks simply because of the term "InfantryMEN". While this institution of "-MEN" being a keyword, there's a deeper less sexist reasoning behind it. One which has its roots from the unfortunate role of European and early colonis-tic values of women being nurturers rather than protectors. While I understand and partially agree with those views, I can't be completely biased with them alone. The biggest concern in the infantry is that of buddy aid in combat, and the roles of leaders being put into awkward positions with women's natural everlasting and ultimate problem.

Lets step into the first of the two issues I just mentioned.

Buddy aid in combat:
Infantrymen are intrinsically concerned with this concept of women being within their ranks during combat because of the fact of MAN'S evolutionary disposition, to care and protect the female species. Ever more so in a combat environment for matters sake. To point out most infantryman's argument on the matter, the scenario follows as such; "within a combat situation, casualties are incurred, a female combatant, and a couple or more male combatants. Whom would, based on factual history of mans disposition to care and protect women in such instances of danger and possible and imminent death, would be given aid to first? The Woman, who "could be" a single part of a functioning team all with their own positive attributes and skills as combatants, or, the Men who "could be" just as easily, have their own positive attributes and skills to contribute to the functioning team?" ( now keep in mind, granted that yours in an open one to military concepts, that this scenario is disregarding the ideal of the sacrifice of "the death one for the lives of many" and replacing it rather with, "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of one".)

Most infantrymen, regardless of how the question is asked, will generally, see the scenario put in such a way to their own comprehension. And as such most will give an answer such as the following. Ex. "The woman would be the first one attended to."

It's not that we as infantry per say don't see others as equally dependent on each other, far from it. It's that inside the large majority of men there is still an instinctual, and albeit, overpowering urge to protect females first, and forgo the man beside them, allowing them to be further wounded or die, simply because of the biology of the female to make body and hormonal chemistry of our make up. It's how MOST men think, even if they don't say so or agree with it, THAT'S HOW MEN WORK.

..................now, that being said, the otherwise of that is, that while the female becomes top priority, in most minds, what the military is trained for is "self aid and completing the mission". This means that when a casualty is incurred, assuming the wounded soldier isn't dead or mortally wounded, it is advised by the call of the team leaders to insist that soldier perform self aid while the rest of the team moves onward and completes the current objective, leaving that wounded soldier behind momentarily to heal them-self and await the arrival of the medic on scene to get to their position. THIS is how the scenario REALLY happens. So the above scenario is to be mostly proven by actual practice in the military as nothing more that a soldiers nightmare of one soldier being chosen over another. (This doesn't alleviate by any means the position most will take on the matter though, nor does it mean I'm disproving anything, I'm just putting out what we are taught)




Now lets look at the other issue.

Awkward positions leadership roles would be put into:

Now, we all know, it's unfair, albeit, insensitive to judge a woman's actions, emotions and words when they are experiencing their...lets call it monthly problem. (A concern many had with the idea of a female president pushing the big red nuke button whenever that time of the month came around) A woman's period occurs monthly, ....for most. Studies over the years HAVE shown that a woman's anxiety, stress, emotions, and other such reactions to this bodily function of theirs begin to go askew during this time.

Now picture, if you will another scenario as such with a few possibly outcomes, of which I will more than likely only come up with two. As I am neither a woman nor deal with them in a regular basis and have little to base any substantiated facts upon.

Ex. "A squad leader is tasked with taking his squad out on a mission which is likely to meet resistance. As per habits and job description of a squad leader he goes to his team leader(s) and briefs them on the upcoming mission and tells them to get their teams ready. The team leader(s) than go to the joes and let them know what's going to happen and to plan accordingly. A female is in the team. It just so happens its her time of the month. How does the team leader and squad leader go about deciding if it would harmful to the mission to bring that soldier along.
They can't readily pull the female soldier aside and openly or discreetly ask if their period is going to get in the way of the mission, nor can they simply drop a member of their team and run the mission a man short. They are put into the awkward position of having to discuss with that soldier whether or not a biological "inconvenience" is going to inhibit them from performing the duties in a professional and trained manner. They have to inquiry as to whether or not the female soldier is local to lash out and if it would be wise for them to be in possession let alone control of a weapon system."

This being the case is, in and of itself, a massively awkward position. Women in the military already make lives of military men, specifically infantrymen, difficult, as we are prone to strong language (profanity), and excessive use of force, and have an innate way of punishing our own in, less than reasonable manners at times (given the situation deems the punishment), as well as being very assimilated to the concept of thick skinnedness and not being able to be babied or given special treatment. Having women in the mix, throws all this out of sync. Mainly, As many have and will continually point out, because of the masculinity of the nature in or profession. The phallicy of our job is overriding in the aspect. All that you hear about, "the amount of PT infantry does is just so they can look like their hot shots and real men" or "the bigger weapons they use are just to show their dominance as men" or all they do is go to ranges and conduct ruck marches because they think their so tough"....yea, it's all true. So what? We get paid to do that, because its in our job description. It's the "fine print of our contract" if you will. That being said, it's a very masculine role of the military, a very phallic role of the military.


In conclusion to my long winded, example ridden( however poor they may have been made on my behalf), and exensive rant. As I believe I'm starting to he away from the main topic of my reply, I'll end with my own opinion.

I, personally, as a proud member of the 250+year brotherhood of Infantrymen, do not agree with nor wish to have women in the infantry. It's a mans job to kill or be killed on the field of battle not a woman's. I say this purely out of respect and practice to the tradition that mankind has carried over hundreds of years, throughout history. I have no specific other objections to the concept than that. Women in combat supportive positions, is something I would need to think about a little to word and phrase my reply upon, as they have or are well on their way to obtaining. But as for being in the infantry itself. No. In the opinion of this active duty soldier, it will NEVER happen in the organized military of the United States occur within our military lifetime.

[Valkyrja of Heaven]

Forgive any spelling mistakes, my reply was made on an iphone

[Valkyrja of Heaven]

HMS Thunder Child

Touching Hair

HMS Thunder Child

...

I wasn't talking about sexual assault within certain sectors of the armed forces, I was commenting on it being used as a propaganda tool to influence decision making.

Rape is universal it happens to both males and females.

[Annoyed]

Even if it did happen that way, it would still happen less often than it does in the ranks.

Rape in the military is almost invariably done by males

...erm... Yes and no. While the majority of the time it's done by males, the majority of military rape is a overall statistic, is male on make, rather than make on female.

I speak from a military point as I just went through a SHARP class a few weeks back where we received this data. If you want sources look into the film, the silent war. There statistics in it which are useable and ....semi up to date.

[Valkyrja of Heaven]

Lord Cameron

Tactical Leg Sweep

Why a disadvantage in hand to hand? Raw strength helps, but can be circumvented by skill and ferocity. Ask Pacman.

weight is like the only thing that matters in a fight, you can't be serious

Military combatives program disproves your argument. Against a larger opponent, the smaller fighter has a better chance of winning fight on the ground.

That is to say you EVER get close enough to go hand to hand these days.

[Valkyrja of Heaven]

Lord Cameron

HMS Thunder Child

Lord Cameron

Tactical Leg Sweep

Why a disadvantage in hand to hand? Raw strength helps, but can be circumvented by skill and ferocity. Ask Pacman.

weight is like the only thing that matters in a fight, you can't be serious

[Informative]

Pressure points and dirty fighting isn't exclusive to size ranges.

Unless they've trained to ignore the pain, repeated testicle, kidney, and solar plexus shots will generally down someone. Once they're writhing, anyone with any sort of leg strength can collapse the trachea.

I don't want to distroy your false sense of security or anything but I feel obligated so here goes:

generally speaking, if you were to try and apply some sort of pressure point technique to someone 2-3 weight classes above you... your fingers will be broken. If you were to try to gaurd that someone's punch, your arms will be broken. If you were to try and run away you'd be out paced 2 to 1.

Most middle weights can dead lift 250 pounds with a single arm. That's probably more than you weigh.

......your facts on close quarter combat are very misplaced.