# One giant step Backwards?



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

"Republicans in the US Congress are trying to pass legislation which would keep female soldiers out of combat."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

I believe that it really has to be judged on an individual basis, but I also believe that the majority of the time men are better suited to serve on the front lines in a war.

  I can't agree with this proposed legislation though.


----------



## BrandiJo (May 19, 2005)

i think its wrong for them to try and make laws about it. If ladys want to go off to war and the front line why not, what makes our life more valuable then that of a mans life? to me the law is BS


----------



## Ping898 (May 19, 2005)

I think it is a bad law. It to seems like they are saying women are too weak or delicate to handle front line combat. It denies women the opportunity at better jobs too cause the unit might be front line. Actually with the current war more women are seeing combat because the front lines are so blurred and last time I checked they handled themselves with as much professionalism and honor as their male counterparts.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2005)

I do think that this is going the wrong way. It's unfair, and it's the wrong time for it to boot. Let them compete fairly for what are, after all, still jobs. If they can do it, they can do it.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

For clarification, this is not about "front line combat", women aren't allowed to do that alread.  This is about service and Support personal that aid those on the Front Line.

 It got dumped btw, the army wouldn't be able to do it as that would men restaffing 22,000 jobs when they are already having recruitment issues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm

 But it does sound like it got put into law that women can't serve as front line combatants.


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

I am still torn on the issue really.  I don't think it is fair to all out deny women the right to fight on the front lines.  All I know is that if I get into a high stress, life and death situation, I can think of a lot more guys that I know that I would want with me that I can think of women.  I am trying to not sound sexist here, and I am sure there are plenty of women who can handle those types of situations just fine, and I am also sure that there are plenty of men who would freak out.  It just that in general women tend to be more emotional and physically weaker than men.  I know these are stereotypes, but as general rules, I have never seen anything to contradict them.  If I am in a tough situation I would want the physically and mentally strongest people behind me.  Whether that is a man or a woman makes no difference, thats why I think people (soldiers) have to be judged on an individual basis.  

 I don't know, maybe I am way off here. Whatever.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 19, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I am still torn on the issue really.  I don't think it is fair to all out deny women the right to fight on the front lines.  All I know is that if I get into a high stress, life and death situation, I can think of a lot more guys that I know that I would want with me that I can think of women.  I am trying to not sound sexist here, and I am sure there are plenty of women who can handle those types of situations just fine, and I am also sure that there are plenty of men who would freak out.  It just that in general women tend to be more emotional and physically weaker than men.  I know these are stereotypes, but as general rules, I have never seen anything to contradict them.  If I am in a tough situation I would want the physically and mentally strongest people behind me.  Whether that is a man or a woman makes no difference, thats why I think people (soldiers) have to be judged on an individual basis.
> 
> I don't know, maybe I am way off here. Whatever.


Well, anyone can be trained to handle extreme stress. This is what basic training is for. Funny thing is no-one knows exactly what they will do when they get into a for-real combat situation. Live fire excercises on the training course not-withstanding it's a different situation when there is someone who is actually trying to kill you and not just firing live bullets to teach you to keep your head down. 
In WWII; Russian women proved themselves on the front lines at Stalingrad, Moscow and other places the Germans pushed themselves to. It is being male stereotyping to apply the weaker-more emotional sex moniker these days. 
Still society dictates the norm. Eventually wars and battlefront lines will cross into our own home territory again and it is probably then that the mettle of combat trained women will be shown.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

But all soldiers are required to complete training courses for their jobs.  These courses are pass / fail.  So if someone can't pass the course, they can't get the job. 

 Military courses are designed to test the thing you need to have for the job, including working under high stress conditions, I'm sure anyone that has been through any course has seen someone "loose it" as a result of the pressure put on by the course and instructors.


----------



## Sapper6 (May 19, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> But all soldiers are required to complete training courses for their jobs.  These courses are pass / fail.  So if someone can't pass the course, they can't get the job.
> 
> Military courses are designed to test the thing you need to have for the job, including working under high stress conditions, I'm sure anyone that has been through any course has seen someone "loose it" as a result of the pressure put on by the course and instructors.



i agree with that.  

pick any 100 female soldiers you want, put them in sapper school, jump school, air assault, and pathfinder school.  see how many make it out with all GOs.

i don't like the legislation either.  if the female soldier can pass the standard, let them be whatever they'd like.

i'm sorry but there are just some things the female soldier is not up for.

as for combat service and support.  females will excel in that area.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

Same here....as long as the same standards are met, let them at it. Fair is fair.


----------



## Rick Wade (May 19, 2005)

I see it everyday Women doing a great job.  And don't kid yourselves women are being put in harms way everyday in Iraq and coming through with flying colors.  There is this lady I know we will call her Jessica she is watching me write this (get off of my shoulder) anyway they were in a convoy and hit and IED (Improvised Explosive Device) and then started taking fire.  They pilled out and returned fire (Jessica included) and kicked butt.  In todays modern warfare there is no such thing as clear front line.  I think it should be strictly voluntary for them If they want to go to the front let them but don't pull them back from where they already are it will cause nothing but more strain on an already over-burdened military. 

V/R

Rick

P.S. 

Jessica says Hi


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> "Republicans in the US Congress are trying to pass legislation which would keep female soldiers out of combat."
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm


I'm a bit confused.  Why is it that the very same people who say NO AMERICAN soldier should be in combat in Iraq, are the same one's whining about keep women out of combat in Iraq.  Is it possible that the political left has a bit of a paradox in thinking going on here?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i agree with that.
> 
> pick any 100 female soldiers you want, put them in sapper school, jump school, air assault, and pathfinder school. see how many make it out with all GOs.
> 
> ...


I agree, Sapper, if they can make the physical and mental grade, I can't really make the argument.  However, if politics are allowed to degrade the standard to make a certain quota, someone should be hung for it.  I don't know many women who could pass the sapper course or the ranger course.  Much less, any GI Janes who could, in real life pass UDT/SEAL training.  

That's not the same as saying women should be restricted from any combat roles.  Many women have performed admirably in Iraq by all estimates.  If they continue to do so, I see no reason to remove them.  But each unit should be evaluated individually to determine if it is fit for mixed gender personell.  

Close combat units still require large upper body strength.  If we look at Fallujah, we saw US marines carrying 80 pound packs, plus weapon and ammunition, slogging for hours at a time, kicking in doors, dragging out comrades.  Very few women have the physical structure to perform these duties.  Men are physically designed differently, that is no secret.  They have great lower body strength, but far less upper body.  Men were made for physical combat.  Further, the most aggressive and self-assured men (the ones those kind of units attract) have a level of physical and mental aggression far greater than any woman.  That isn't to say there aren't aggressive women, but the top 5% of women in physical and mental aggression, don't even approach the top 5% of men, which is what they will be compared to.

That isn't the same as driving a tank, a humvee, operating a fixed machine gun or flying combat aircraft, all roles many women are well suited to do.  

So, I guess, as long as they can do the job, keep on doing it.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm a bit confused. Why is it that the very same people who say NO AMERICAN soldier should be in combat in Iraq, are the same one's whining about keep women out of combat in Iraq. Is it possible that the political left has a bit of a paradox in thinking going on here?


 Two completely seperate issues.


----------



## Sapper6 (May 19, 2005)

great post sgtmac...couldn't have said it better.

men=combat killin machines

women=pretty little nurse waiting to give you an IV in the penal vein after a hot breach.  (no pun intended)


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

And yet people laugh at Freud.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2005)

Hmmm, I don't know much about "sapper school"--Marines, right?

Whether we should be in Iraq and what the U.S. Army should look like are separate issues.


----------



## Sapper6 (May 19, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I don't know much about "sapper school"--Marines, right?
> 
> Whether we should be in Iraq and what the U.S. Army should look like are separate issues.



no the Sapper's are not Marines, we are Army.  Sappers are the most highly skilled warfighting combat engineers on the battlefield, but im partial  

Sappers are the most underrated asset in the warfighter's toolbox.  check out the Sapper Leader's Course website for more info. :asian:

from the website:



> The Sapper Leader Course trains selected combat engineer unit leaders in leadership skills, combat engineer and infantry battle drills, and the specialized engineer and infantry techniques required to perform as members of a Sapper Battalion.  The course is also designed to build  cohesion and esprit de corps by training soldiers in troop leading procedures, demolitions (conventional and expedient), mountaineering operations, aerial operations, airborne operations, foreign weapons, land navigation, waterborne operations and contingency threat.  The course culminates in an intense field training exercise that reinforces the use of the battle drills and specialized engineer techniques learned throughout the course


.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2005)

Ah, OK. That was something I thought of also, but I was thinking of this sense of the term:
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/d9233b3aa0ce7f2585256b1f00325ec7/f4e7c0ce1114c5d585256fea0064c063/$FILE/sapper.txt



> "Sapper school's purpose is to push the junior combat engineer Marines through the course to understand the concepts of foot mobile breaching, demolition handling and dealing with improvised explosive devices," said Staff Sgt. Shaun A. Anderson, chief instructor of Sapper school.
> 
> Although Sapper school training focuses solely on combat engineering techniques, Marines don't have to be combat engineers to sign up.
> 
> ...


----------



## rutherford (May 20, 2005)

Food for thought.  This was posted on another message board by somebody I know and respect.


			
				Stephen said:
			
		

> I've had discussions with my wife on this idea, as well, in relation to writing about female characters who resort or are forced to resort to violence.  And one of the points we both agreed on was this:  Women don't, as a rule, fight for fun.  The idea of finding a fight "entertaining" or "sportsmanlike" that's common to most cultures' male machismo is mostly absent from female conception.  If you're fighting, you *fight*; it's deadly serious, not a game or contest, and the point is to *win*, not "lose well".
> 
> One of the books my wife likes to cite is a book called *Shoot the Women First*, the author of which escapes me but which can probably be found by Googling or on Amazon fairly easily.  This is a study of women's roles in guerrilla or terrorist movements in the last half of the twentieth century, and it concluded that almost without exception it was the women who were more violent, more dangerous, and less willing to surrender or negotiate in combat situations.
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 21, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Two completely seperate issues.


Only if you're schizophrenic. Otherwise, you can't make the paradoxical statements that A) No US soldier should be in combat in Iraq B) Female US soldiers should be in combat in Iraq 

unless you're saying C) ONLY Female US soldiers should be in combat, 

in which case you've performed an illegal function and will shutdown immediately.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 21, 2005)

Show me a woman who is as aggressive or conditioned as much as the top 5% of men, and you'll have an argument. Hardly the same as saying as saying women should be restricted from duties they are performing admirably in Iraq.

Again, i'll be waiting for someone to give me the name of that woman, she'll be the one fighting Roy Jones Jr. next month. Saying that women aren't as suited for physical combat as the most elite men, isn't a slight.  Of course the top 5% of women, are more than a match for a majority of men.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 21, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> Food for thought. This was posted on another message board by somebody I know and respect.
> 
> Originally Posted by *Stephen*
> _I've had discussions with my wife on this idea, as well, in relation to writing about female characters who resort or are forced to resort to violence. And one of the points we both agreed on was this: Women don't, as a rule, fight for fun. The idea of finding a fight "entertaining" or "sportsmanlike" that's common to most cultures' male machismo is mostly absent from female conception. If you're fighting, you *fight*; it's deadly serious, not a game or contest, and the point is to *win*, not "lose well".
> ...


Eileen MacDonald's book "Shoot the Women First" suffers from it's FIRST profound difficulty in that it's title, "Shoot the Women first", was derived from what was allegedly told to GSG9 snipers. The whole book is founded around this quote, and it turns out to have never even been said by any GSG9 member. The rest of the book is equally poor at supporting her case. Aside from a bunch of distorted anecdotal evidence, MacDonald offers nothing of real substance.

As far as the general assertion goes, it's become a truism in our society (with no real evidence behind it) that women can be MORE violent than men.  However I find no single piece of evidence throughout history to support this conclusion (unless you count Hollywood as history).  I don't intend to be sexists, women are extremely capable, but I kind of like proof of an assertion before I accept it.  As far as tribal history is concerned, women were usually the victims of tribal warfare, not active participants.  That is because a woman armed with a sword or mace or spear, is (generally) really no match for a physically larger and stronger male armed with the same.  There were exceptional women, but they were by no means the rule.

I can think of no (or scarce few) incidents in history where women played an active role in combat against enemy forces (predating modern firearms of course).  As the saying goes, however, god made all men, colonel colt made them equals.  I guess in that sense, the gun brought as much equality to women as anything else.  It is the lightweight M4 carbine that allows women to engage in combat to the extent they do in Iraq.


----------



## arnisador (May 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Only if you're schizophrenic. Otherwise, you can't make the paradoxical statements that A) No US soldier should be in combat in Iraq B) Female US soldiers should be in combat in Iraq


  Surely someone could believe:
  a.) The army should not be in Iraq
  b.) Women should be allowed to serve in the army

  It would follow that  the army shouldn't be in Iraq; but that if the army was in Iraq, women should be there too.

  Mind you, I'm not saying these are or are not my beliefs...I'm saying, the ideas are indeed separate.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 22, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Only if you're schizophrenic. Otherwise, you can't make the paradoxical statements that A) No US soldier should be in combat in Iraq B) Female US soldiers should be in combat in Iraq
> 
> unless you're saying C) ONLY Female US soldiers should be in combat,
> 
> in which case you've performed an illegal function and will shutdown immediately.


 umm... no... but good try...

 But you can't jump from:

 "The war is unjust"

 and

 "Females should have equal opportunities"

 to a paradox, the two statements are independant of each other.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Same here....as long as the same standards are met, let them at it. Fair is fair.


But I know a female in the army. When the going gets tough, she had a tendancy to use feminine traits to her advantage.

But, I say, if females want to shoot be, get shot, and die, then anyone can be trained to to this.


----------



## Tgace (May 22, 2005)

As the military is all about teamwork, its not a matter of "well if they want to let them". If a person is less than capable the result will not just be their own death...

I have no problem working/serving with anybody as long as theyre capable. If survival means everybody has to be able to hump a 75lb ruck 20 miles and fight at the end, thats the standard. If you cant do it youre out, no exceptions......no "this group has to be able to carry 45 lbs. 8 miles".


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

But a lot of people, including the media, have the ooos and ahhhs, when a female is KIA.


----------



## Sapper6 (May 22, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> But a lot of people, including the media, have the ooos and ahhhs, when a female is KIA.



i agree.

we would never go to war again, afraid of what someone might think if we lost female soldiers.


----------



## bignick (May 22, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Show me a woman who is as aggressive or conditioned as much as the top 5% of men, and you'll have an argument. Hardly the same as saying as saying women should be restricted from duties they are performing admirably in Iraq.
> 
> Again, i'll be waiting for someone to give me the name of that woman, she'll be the one fighting Roy Jones Jr. next month. Saying that women aren't as suited for physical combat as the most elite men, isn't a slight. Of course the top 5% of women, are more than a match for a majority of men.


 What does the top 5% have to do with anything?  Pick any male from any outfit and see if he's in the top 5% of the armed forces....if he's not, do we kick him out?  After all, he can't cut it with the elite of the elite...so he shouldn't be eligible for his job.  

 If a woman can cut it in the training why shouldn't she be allowed to go?  I've still not seen one good argument on to this thread about why a woman that has completed the training and qualifies shouldn't be allowed to fight on the front lines.  I've heard, in flippant statements like "women are generally weaker"..."they can't handle the stress"...etc

 Perhaps, but we aren't talking about "generally" or "on the whole" or "overall".  How many guys, for the matter, would "generally" be able to handle the stress of combat?  If someone doesn't cut it in training, flunks all his PT tests, can't shoot the broadside of a barn, would they be allowed to fight on the frontline?  Would you want them fighting on the frontline, watching your back?  What if it's a guy?  Then do we let him anyways?  Well? I didn't think so?  So what about a woman that has completed all the training, past her marksmanship tests, and fulfilled every requirement that every other soldier needs to fill.  What do we do with her?  Let her fight?  No...she needs to go sit off to the side and knit the soldiers socks and maybe a nice rifle warmer...

 Do I agree with the war in Iraq?  No...I'm not going to lie to you.  Do I think any of our soldiers should be there dying?  No.  Do I think it's a disgrace that even though we're in the 21st century we still try to put women in their place and keep them safe so they don't get scared by the "big, bright world" outside of their kitchens?  Absolutely.

 I find it quite asinine that at a time when we the military is supposedly falling far short of it's recruiting goals that we are trying to cut back a section of our armed forces from doing the job that they've been doing quite capably for sometime.


----------



## Tgace (May 22, 2005)

The issue is that in some areas there are separate standards....there shouldnt be.


----------



## bignick (May 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The issue is that in some areas there are separate standards....there shouldnt be.


 And I agree...


----------



## Kane (May 23, 2005)

I guess it depends what job we are talking about here. I think a woman can do a great job in the frontlines driving a tank or airforce unit. I also think they would make great spies and snipers.

 However as far as being an army man or woman in the front lines, I think that job should be only to men. As much as we may hate it, men do have better endurance, strength, and speed for infantry shootouts and what not. I am not saying that a woman cannot be as good as a man, but in general no matter how much a woman trains men will always be stronger and I think in situations that involve more strength, endurance, and speed that it should be left to men. That's my opinion.

 Now should there be a law? I am not sure, I am really never been for too many laws. I think there are not going to be as much women trying for a frontline infantry job so it it might not make much of a difference whether there is a law or not. So a law might be unnecessary.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 23, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> However as far as being an army man or woman in the front lines,


 I think you mean Infantry man....



> I think that job should be only to men. As much as we may hate it, men do have better endurance, strength, and speed for infantry shootouts and what not.


 And women got more patience and accuracy...  Not all infantry jobs on the front lines are the same.  And again, there is courses that test these skills.  Some women CAN keep up with the men that are supposed to be better then them.



> I am not saying that a woman cannot be as good as a man, but in general no matter how much a woman trains men will always be stronger and I think in situations that involve more strength, endurance, and speed that it should be left to men. That's my opinion.


 But you are looking at the top level of each, and using mens strengths as the judging criteria.  Let's say 100 men qualify and can do the job, and 5 women do.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Authored by Jake Willens, 7 August 1996;
Proponents of opening all positions in the military to women argue that military readiness is enhanced when there is a larger pool of applicants, whereas opponents insist that due to politics, quotas would be undeniable, thus allowing unqualified women into key military positions. Opponents of allowing women to compete for combat billets argue that it is too dangerous to put women in the position of becoming prisoners of war. Without a doubt, there is a much greater probability for acts of sexual molestation and rape with the addition of women to the front lines. *The "front lines" in modern combat, however, are fluid.* Although they were technically in support roles, two female U.S. soldiers were taken captive and one was sexually abused by the Iqaqis in the Gulf War. This situation made those who were already skeptical about putting women in such a compromising position further question whether women should be subjected to the horrors of combat. Many, however, argue that adult women who make the decision to join the military are aware of the consequences _(Minerva, Spring 1994)_. 

*More than 40,000 American women served in the war against Iraq.* The Marine Corps awarded twenty-three women the Combat Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War because they were engaged by Iraqi troops. Desert Storm was a huge turning point for women, much like Vietnam was for African-Americans, and it showed that modern war boundaries between combat and non-combat zones are being blurred. It makes no sense to cling to semantics (combat vs combat support) given the reality of war. Furthermore, allowing both men and women to compete for all military occupational specialties is not an equal rights issue, but one of military effectiveness. If the United States is to remain the world's most capable and most powerful military power, we need to have the best person in each job, regardless of their gender.


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Like Ive stated before, IMO if anybody can meet standards then they should get the job. However as that last post stated, female soldiers are going to have to face the reality of sexual abuse if they are captured, wrong as it is, its going to happen. If they and the public are willing to accept that facet as "reality" and drive on, have at it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 23, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> "Republicans in the US Congress are trying to pass legislation which would keep female soldiers out of combat."
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm





There have been a number of revisions to this bill, most notably the one requiring that all tank crew members have at least one woman so that they'll be able to stop and ask for directions.



Regards,



Steve


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Like Ive stated before, IMO if anybody can meet standards then they should get the job. However as that last post stated, female soldiers are going to have to face the reality of sexual abuse if they are captured, wrong as it is, its going to happen. If they and the public are willing to accept that facet as "reality" and drive on, have at it.


But the media will have a blast when more women are reported KIA, POW, etc., giving more exposure as if these were more tragic than males.


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

I have met with very competent and profesional women in the military and in LE.  And men who were not.

That being said, I do have to agree that based purely on numbers. The inate and socialized aggression, basic "interest" in the role and biology of men is going to make them better "suited" for infantry roles in larger numbers than women.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

If I was in a fox hole or bunker, it wouldnt matter to me if my partner was male or female, provided that either did their job.

Hmmn,,, not to sound wrong, but I'll prefer the female if I was at the lost.


----------



## bignick (May 23, 2005)

I do agree that due to the demand of the job that the more men will be suited, physically at least, for the job of front line combat.  But if a woman qualifies, there should be no reason to deny her the position.  

As for women being killed, captured, or otherwise being placed in harm's way I believe that they are such huge stories, precisely because they are rare.  As sad as it is, but once it becomes a regular occurrence, the sensationalism of it will go away.  We become very jaded very quickly with the media saturated world we live in.


----------



## arnisador (May 23, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> I do agree that due to the demand of the job that the more men will be suited, physically at least, for the job of front line combat. But if a woman qualifies, there should be no reason to deny her the position.


 Yes, I think this is a sensible position.

 Sexual abuse in war isn't just for women, incidentally...e.g., Lawrence of Arabia.


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Of course not. However as a group, I think women will become subject to it more often.


----------



## arnisador (May 23, 2005)

No argument.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> As for women being killed, captured, or otherwise being placed in harm's way I believe that they are such huge stories, precisely because they are rare. As sad as it is, but once it becomes a regular occurrence, the sensationalism of it will go away. We become very jaded very quickly with the media saturated world we live in.


I guess, in time, it will become easier to accept like woman voters, drivers, politicians, and etc.,


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 24, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> What does the top 5% have to do with anything? Pick any male from any outfit and see if he's in the top 5% of the armed forces....if he's not, do we kick him out? After all, he can't cut it with the elite of the elite...so he shouldn't be eligible for his job.


Yes, actually, that's the point of elite units. They represent the CREAM. If they are not the elite 5% they shouldn't be there. I thought that would have been self-explanatory. lol.  I never said if he can't cut it with the elite, he SHOULD have the job.  That's the point, thank you for acknowledging it.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> If a woman can cut it in the training why shouldn't she be allowed to go? I've still not seen one good argument on to this thread about why a woman that has completed the training and qualifies shouldn't be allowed to fight on the front lines. I've heard, in flippant statements like "women are generally weaker"..."they can't handle the stress"...etc


Think you're combining physical and emotional strength in order to make a point, a factitious argument.  Women are not as physically strong as men.  The strongest ten percent of women are only as strong as the weakest half of men.  Again, you're mixing units like MP, Transport, Support, with other, more demanding units, such as SF, Rangers, Airborne troops and Marines.  There is no comparision.  Those Elite troops attract the hard charges, the extreme.  Driven women perform suitably well when compared to men from more mundane units, precisely because most of those men are mundane.  That's fine, I have no problem with those women doing those jobs.  When you compare them to men from elite units, it's like claiming that a woman who does well in amateur boxing, is all of a sudden a contender to fight Roy Jones Jr.  It's a wash.  If there is that 1 woman in 1000 who can do the job, fine.  There's not even any point in getting in to "emotional stress" arguments, as they are irrelavent. 



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but we aren't talking about "generally" or "on the whole" or "overall". How many guys, for the matter, would "generally" be able to handle the stress of combat? If someone doesn't cut it in training, flunks all his PT tests, can't shoot the broadside of a barn, would they be allowed to fight on the frontline? Would you want them fighting on the frontline, watching your back? What if it's a guy? Then do we let him anyways? Well? I didn't think so? So what about a woman that has completed all the training, past her marksmanship tests, and fulfilled every requirement that every other soldier needs to fill. What do we do with her? Let her fight? No...she needs to go sit off to the side and knit the soldiers socks and maybe a nice rifle warmer...


This isn't about the average guy, this is about the elite guy.  Elite forces don't WANT the average guy, so a woman who competes well with AVERAGE guys, still isn't going to cut it.  Elite units want EXTRAORDINARY guys.  They want the guy that makes the average guy look pathetic.  Your argument is, again, silly.  You are saying "Well, if a guy can't do it, do we let him do it?"  Of course not, it's not even a consideration with guys.  That's why women's PT tests are different than mens, so they can pass them with a commensurate score.  This is NOT an "every other soldiers" requirement, it's an Elite unit requirement.  



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> Do I agree with the war in Iraq? No...I'm not going to lie to you. Do I think any of our soldiers should be there dying? No. Do I think it's a disgrace that even though we're in the 21st century we still try to put women in their place and keep them safe so they don't get scared by the "big, bright world" outside of their kitchens? Absolutely.


lol. I love this paradox that leftists are stuck in. "No US soldier should be fighting and dying in Iraq (except women). lol. 



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> I find it quite asinine that at a time when we the military is supposedly falling far short of it's recruiting goals that we are trying to cut back a section of our armed forces from doing the job that they've been doing quite capably for sometime.


Think your knee is jerking a bit there, partner. I never said women should be cut out of areas they are performing right now. What I did say, was that 99% of women cannot perform certain PEAK functions such as elite units, and no woman can perform them at the level of the elite 5% of men. 

Again, show me the woman who's going to take Roy Jones Jr., and you'll have an argument.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

Yeah, its simple math. If only 5% of all applicants (and theres a screening to even make the pool) make the cut for elite units and the % of women in that pool is a fraction of that. The odds are stacked (not saying an exception is impossible) against seeing one make it in.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah, its simple math. If only 5% of all applicants (and theres a screening to even make the pool) make the cut for elite units and the % of women in that pool is a fraction of that. The odds are stacked (not saying an exception is impossible) against seeing one make it in.


It gets even better than that.  Only 5% of men are even physically and emotionally sound to TRYOUT for elite units.  Many of those units have a 70% to 80% dropout rate.  That means that our acceptance rate is only 1% to 3%.  Unless you stack the deck, the odds aren't that good.  Of course, there's more than enough congressman who willing to stack the deck to make reality "GI Jane".  I don't think the outcome will be the same, though.  

Elite units don't operate like some supply logistics division based in Baghdad, it's a whole different world.  One that I don't even pretend to think I can operate in.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 24, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> umm... no... but good try...
> 
> But you can't jump from:
> 
> ...


That's not what's being said.  What's being said is "The war is wrong, the US shouldn't be there" AND "It's unfair that women may be removed from the unjust war, keep them there".  Again, it just shows how impossible it is for the left to let go of contradictory views.  Radical feminism and the Peace movement simply don't mind the paradox.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 24, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I guess it depends what job we are talking about here. I think a woman can do a great job in the frontlines driving a tank or airforce unit. I also think they would make great spies and snipers.
> 
> However as far as being an army man or woman in the front lines, I think that job should be only to men. As much as we may hate it, men do have better endurance, strength, and speed for infantry shootouts and what not. I am not saying that a woman cannot be as good as a man, but in general no matter how much a woman trains men will always be stronger and I think in situations that involve more strength, endurance, and speed that it should be left to men. That's my opinion.
> 
> Now should there be a law? I am not sure, I am really never been for too many laws. I think there are not going to be as much women trying for a frontline infantry job so it it might not make much of a difference whether there is a law or not. So a law might be unnecessary.


I have to take exception with the sniper comment. That job is extremely physically demanding, in addition to be emotionally demanding. The Marine Scout Sniper's are an elite unit with high physical demands that are very similar to other elite units. I agree with the rest of your comment, however. Especially as it pertains to operating equipment. It is in our technology that we bridge the gender gap. The saying "God made all men, Colt made them equals" is even more true when you start talking about the equality creation of technology. 

If someone says that a female can fly a fighter plane as good as a man, I won't argue that point.  It is the technology that even allows this to be a question.  If this were still the era of sharpened steal and blunt impact, there wouldn't even be an issue.  Women do not perform physical combat on the level of men.  That isn't a statement open for debate, that's why women have been the VICTIMS of violence throughout history, far more often that it's perpetrators.  The gun, and the tank, and the jetfighter are definitely equalizers, but equalizers not present in elite units.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 24, 2005)

Male against female unarmed combat-What comes to mind is the Joey Buttafuoco and Joanie Laurer boxing match.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 24, 2005)

"Trained Man" against "Trained Woman" is a different world than untrained against untrained, I think.

I once read an article by someone that said that one reason for keeping woman out of combat is simply that it's a good thing to keep as many people out of combat as possible.

We as men still have an instinctive reaction, for the most part, to protect women from harm, and I honestly think that is a good thing.

The only real problem is that, within the military, keeping women out of combat presents a sort of 'glass ceiling' from advancement as rank and postion are awarded on merit and performance and combat is a big way to gain merit and show performance.  Given the nature of the role of the military, I think that's pretty much neccessary.  You don't really want command given to those who have never fought.

So, personally I don't like seeing women in combat simply because I don't like seeing women in danger, but unfortunately I can't really see a good alternative.


----------



## bignick (May 24, 2005)

@sgtmac  I think we got some wires crossed, here...you were discussing elite units, I was discussing your average soldier.



> lol. I love this paradox that leftists are stuck in. "No US soldier should be fighting and dying in Iraq (except women). lol.


 I think this is where your knee is jerking a bit. This is no paradox, and certianly not a leftist one for me, considering I'm an indepedant raised in the midwest with a strong conservative leanings on many subjects. The war is something I personally disagree with and is not a matter of politics, it's a matter of our people dying when I feel they shouldn't have to. And there is no paradox here. You're twisting our statements a bit. At no point have we ever said that only women should be dying in Iraq, that is a ridiculous paraphrasing of what my statement was. What I stated, for the record, was that I feel that, in our armed services, if a woman can pass the requirements for a job, she should be able to perform that job. The fact that I disagree with the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the issue of denying women positions in our military that they can perform


----------



## bignick (May 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I have to take exception with the sniper comment. That job is extremely physically demanding, in addition to be emotionally demanding. The Marine Scout Sniper's are an elite unit with high physical demands that are very similar to other elite units. I agree with the rest of your comment, however. Especially as it pertains to operating equipment. It is in our technology that we bridge the gender gap. The saying "God made all men, Colt made them equals" is even more true when you start talking about the equality creation of technology.
> 
> If someone says that a female can fly a fighter plane as good as a man, I won't argue that point. It is the technology that even allows this to be a question. If this were still the era of sharpened steal and blunt impact, there wouldn't even be an issue. Women do not perform physical combat on the level of men. That isn't a statement open for debate, that's why women have been the VICTIMS of violence throughout history, far more often that it's perpetrators. The gun, and the tank, and the jetfighter are definitely equalizers, but equalizers not present in elite units.


 Actually, I believed the Russians used female snipers quite successfully....


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 24, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> "Trained Man" against "Trained Woman" is a different world than untrained against untrained, I think.
> 
> So, personally I don't like seeing women in combat simply because I don't like seeing women in danger, but unfortunately I can't really see a good alternative.


Come on, trained vs trained...untrained vs untrain, doesnt the female have the dis-advantage?

But women want to demonstate that they are willing to accept the danger


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 25, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> Actually, I believed the Russians used female snipers quite successfully....


You are of course referring to the battle of Stalingrad, where the Russians had no choice.  The best sniper in the conflict was still Vasilev. 

And yes, you have our wires crossed.  I said that women were perfectly suited to the more mundane tasks of the military, which many of them perform admirably.  That is because the above average woman is serving with the average man, the average man being the type that works in those typical units.  Above average women can compete will there.  However, my point is that women can't compete in an elite unit where 90% of men can't compete either.  Nor should they be allowed in those units simply to help them avoid "The glass ceiling".  The fact is, you aren't arguing that women can do the job better, simply that it is unfair for them not be allowed.  Combat isn't about fairness.  That's what I take issue with.  If a woman can peform a task she is performing well, there is no reason to remove her, nor have I suggested as much.  

There is considerable paradox in the statement "No US soldier should be in combat in Iraq, we should get everyone out we can, but we need to keep the women there so it doesn't hurt their advancement".  It's the attempt to serve to contradictory political agenda, but, whatever, who cares.  Fact is, I don't support removing women from units they are performing well in.  I just caution that the units they are in are not the same as the elite units many want them to gain access to.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's not what's being said. What's being said is "The war is wrong, the US shouldn't be there" AND "It's unfair that women may be removed from the unjust war, keep them there". Again, it just shows how impossible it is for the left to let go of contradictory views. Radical feminism and the Peace movement simply don't mind the paradox.


 This rule isn't just for this one war, it is for this and any future wars.    Of course under that logic no one should be there, men or women...  But you want to single women out

 How about looking at it like this:

 This war shouldn't be getting fought, but if this/any war is to be fought it should allow equal opportunites for combat roles (providing of course the standards are met)

 But thank you for trying to turn this into such a black/white - right/left thing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 25, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> This rule isn't just for this one war, it is for this and any future wars. Of course under that logic no one should be there, men or women... But you want to single women out
> 
> How about looking at it like this:
> 
> ...


Keep trying, and you might actually hit on a rationalization that makes sense.


----------



## shesulsa (May 25, 2005)

There are exceptionally strong women and exceptionally weak men.  Anyone who can do the job right should have it.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 25, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> There are exceptionally strong women and exceptionally weak men. Anyone who can do the job right should have it.


Agreed


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

I'm not sure I'm quite getting your reasoning here, sgtmac_46.

Are you suggesting that if, say, that that uberliciously elite woman (the 1 out of 1000 you suggested) would be capable of doing the job, that they shouldn't be given it??


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> We as men still have an instinctive reaction, for the most part, to protect women from harm, and I honestly think that is a good thing.



Instinct is not the word I'd use.

I think part of this stems from commonsense (i.e., most women are obviously physically weaker than most men). An equal part stems from mythic-agrarian values (i.e., women should submit to men in accordance with the Great Plan).

As with all things, its probably a synthesis of motivations and agendas.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 28, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'm quite getting your reasoning here, sgtmac_46.
> 
> Are you suggesting that if, say, that that uberliciously elite woman (the 1 out of 1000 you suggested) would be capable of doing the job, that they shouldn't be given it??


I said we should be very careful we don't reduce standards in the name of advancement. And if that means that only 1 out of 1000 women is considerable suitable for the role, then we don't take any more than that just so that she can advance her personal career. Do you disagree? Or, more to the point, if you're going in to surgery, do you want the surgeon who was the top of their class, creme of the crop, or the guy who got by because they didn't want him not to have a chance? I bet I know the answer before you even give it.

So far i've heard lots of arguments and anecdotal evidence about women performing in standard military units admirably, and I have no reason to doubt those.  But, please remember, those units are manned by the average and below average male soldier, definitely not the hardcharges and elite.  The above average, uberliciously elite woman (1 out of 1000), is serving in those average units and showing herself to be the equivalent of the average male soldier.  Congradulations to them, they've now performed at the level of the average male soldier.  I've yet to see any female super soldiers, however, and I don't think i'm going to see them in the near future.  So I doubt i'm going to see any real life GI Jane elite SF or Navy Seals performing commando operations.  If we do see that woman, she'll be more than just 1 in 1000, she'll be 1 in 100,000 or more.


----------



## Flatlander (May 28, 2005)

For me, this entire issue is necessarily linked to the idea of standards.  If standards of ability have been codified into a system of training and testing, and are founded in rational data, they ought never be comprimised.  Rather, they should continue to be refined.  However, if any human is able to achieve a "pass" on the test, let'em go do their thang.  I don't see gender as being a necessary component in the discussion of standards of excellence.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> For me, this entire issue is necessarily linked to the idea of standards. If standards of ability have been codified into a system of training and testing, and are founded in rational data, they ought never be comprimised. Rather, they should continue to be refined. However, if any human is able to achieve a "pass" on the test, let'em go do their thang. I don't see gender as being a necessary component in the discussion of standards of excellence.


They shouldn't be, but they end up being.  There are some who have such a drive to show that women are as capable at ANYTHING as a man, that they are willing to stack the deck to prove it.  That's what we have to be careful of.


----------



## TonyM. (May 29, 2005)

Like changing the PT test in airborne school for women so they can pass it. Bad idea.


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

What, it's currently the optimal test? That's not clear to me.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/reed/20020311.htm



> From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993): "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."
> 
> Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> What, it's currently the optimal test? That's not clear to me.


 Are you suggesting that reducing the standards would make it "Optimal"? Reducing standards ALWAYS improves standards...lol. You see, this is what happens. Those on the other side of this issue ALWAYS lose sight of the mission. The new mission becomes "fairness" and what does fairness have to do with combat?  Either perform, or get out of the way.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Of course none of this means that if a woman can meet the standards and "make the grade" that she should be kept from the job...however with the military's new role as "social laboratory" and the current trend of separate standards, I dont see that happening.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

My kids are watching "The Incredibles" on TV right now and I just heard the "When everybody is Super....no one will be" line...sounds appropriate to this discussion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Of course none of this means that if a woman can meet the standards and "make the grade" that she should be kept from the job...however with the military's new role as "social laboratory" and the current trend of separate standards, I dont see that happening.


That's the only purpose the military seems to serve in the minds of leftists, is that of a social laboratory.  That's why this is even an issue.  They hate the role of the military, but they still see it as a useful social laboratory, that's why they don't see demanding the pull out of ALL troops from Iraq, but also demanding that women stay as long as possible.


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that reducing the standards would make it "Optimal"?


 I didn't say to reduce them. Are they the best way to measure what is needed to succeed? Just because you have a test, doesn't mean it's a good one. Look at the SAT. Everyone uses it, but it's well-known to be a poor predictor of success in college.



> You see, this is what happens.


 People jump to recast your point to fit their preconceived biases? Yeah, I see it all the time.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Anecdotal story..when I was in MP school, in order to graduate you had to complete a 20 mi road march (after a week in the field) under full "battle load". Guess which soldiers were allowed to get picked up in trucks after "falling out" of the march around the mid point... 

Lets just say there were a couple of one sex in those trucks who didnt make it and a couple of the opposite sex who did complete the march. Needless to say you didnt "really" need to complete the march in order to graduate because I saw all those people in the final formation.


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

One question that story raises is, Is it necessary for an MP to be able to complete a 20 mile march, or is it just a traditional requirement?

There's a difference between wanting unqualified people in there and wondering if there are artificial barriers, like a "Can you pee out a window?" test for would-be soldiers.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Yes I do. Just because MP's drive HMMWV doesn't mean they dont have to park their rides at a rally point a signifigant distance from an objective and assault a position a signifigant distance away, carrying signifigant loads.



How do you determine if you are really making a test that measures a signifigant capability from a test that is being designed to be "fair" to a segment that couldnt pass the "traditional" one?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I didn't say to reduce them. Are they the best way to measure what is needed to succeed? Just because you have a test, doesn't mean it's a good one. Look at the SAT. Everyone uses it, but it's well-known to be a poor predictor of success in college.
> 
> 
> People jump to recast your point to fit their preconceived biases? Yeah, I see it all the time.


I'm still waiting for you to explain how dumbing DOWN the standards serves any pragmatic purpose, other than to ensure more people can pass it and be "fair". Fairness alone is not a valid military objective. Do you question by Ranger regiments need to have extremely demanding physical fitness requirements? 

In answer to your question, the standards in the military are generally originally created by those who have experienced combat and understand what it required physically, mentally and emotionally to perform well in that realm. That is why the Ranger course, the UDT/SEAL course, the SF course, the Delta selection process, etc, were all created by people who have operated in those environments, not some desk rider in the Pentagon who wants to look more fair. I'll defer to those operator's expert opinions on what is necessary, not the opinions of some political hack with an agenda.  If you water the standards down, people die and those that meet the standards have to carry the load for those who don't.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

There is a point to be made in requiring ALL jobs in the service to meet the same PT standards. My father-in-law was a commander of an Army field hospital (reserve). He used to complain that the most experienced surgeons were being kicked out because they couldnt meet the Army's PT standard as well as the younger (less experiebced) doctors could. Who would you want digging a bullet out of you? However, the closer to combat the job is, the tougher the standard should be IMO...not based on sex, but job.


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes I do. Just because MP's drive HMMWV doesn't mean they dont have to park their rides at a rally point a signifigant distance from an objective and assault a position a signifigant distance away, carrying signifigant loads.


  Fair enough. I defer to your judgment here,



> How do you determine if you are really making a test that measures a signifigant capability from a test that is being designed to be "fair" to a segment that couldnt pass the "traditional" one?


 One tries to make the test not so much traditional as appropriate--ensuring that it measures what is desired. It's not easy.

 My background is academics, where we keep using the SAT although it's known to be a poor predictor of college performance. But, it's hard to find a good one.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> One tries to make the test not so much traditional as appropriate--ensuring that it measures what is desired. It's not easy.


Not with sexual politics on your back it isnt. The pressure to make the tests "fair" would probably be intense.


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for you to explain how dumbing DOWN the standards serves any pragmatic purpose


  I'm still waiting to see where I said they should be revised downward, as opposed to being fit to the tasks.



> In answer to your question, the standards in the military are generally originally created by those who have experienced combat


 Well, by _men_ who have experienced combat.

 Why would you oppose reviewing the physical requirements to see if they suit the positions? Is a push-up the right measure? What's wrong with ensuring they fit the task?

 "The only thing harder than getting a new idea into a military mind is getting an old one out." --Attributed to various sources


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Not with sexual politics on your back it isnt. The pressure to make the tests "fair" would probably be intense.


 I agree, and that's not what I want.

 But I also know that the U.S. military has been run by men for hundreds of years. The requirements have surely been fit to them, and it's reasonable to review them for biases that have crept in because there was no need to keep them out.

 Forty years ago, you'd have been told that swearing and hazing were essential to boot camp, and you couldn't produce soldiers without them. Sixty years ago, you'd have been told that you need to be able to shove trainee paratroopers out of airplanes the first time. Eighty years ago, you'd have been told that being Caucasian was necessary for a serviceman. Yes, physical standards are different--but if the military was still judging the necessity of things on their own, we'd have an all-white, all-male, drafted army.

 It's a conservative and tradition-bound organization, as you may be aware!


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

If there was no "need to keep them out" then there was no bias. The bias arose when women entered into the system and they discovered that they couldnt treat then the same way. Of course there was also inappropriate treatment of women by the "system" but thats different. If those hundreds of years of combat experience didnt mean anything because they were all experienced by men, what does that say for the martial arts and the expierences of men there?



And the MEN found that they needed signifigant upper body strength and muscular endurance to survive combat. Which is different from the other "social" issues like hazing etc....


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

The same upper body strength argument was used with respect to female police officers and firefighters. Are women failing in those jobs?


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

There is a wider variety of "acceptable job performance" in those jobs than there is in infantry combat. And more places for people of varying strength. When the whole platoon has to go 20 mi with 70 lb packs and weapons, be able to jump walls and into windows in full "battle rattle" and throw grenades (X) yards, the whole platoon has to do it. Combat is different...

Look Im the first one to say, "if you meet the standards you get the job"...many men failed to make the current standards for many military jobs...should the standards have been altered for them to make up for the differences in abilities between men?


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Look Im the first one to say, "if you meet the standards you get the job"...many men failed to make the current standards for many military jobs...should the standards have been altered for them to make up for the differences in abilities between men?


 No. All I ask is that the standards match the job requirements. Marching long distances: Yes, obviously. Keep that requirement. Doing (standard) push-ups: Favors men for anatomical reasons, and not the only way to measure strength. Why not replace a requirement of n pushups in m minutes with a requirement of showing that a person can lift a weight equivalent to, I don't know, a machine gun? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about...test what needs to be tested.

   I don't want to lower standards. I want the standards to be rational, not merely traditional.

 I understand your fear that it'd be used for social engineering, though. Yet, the racial integration of the military stands as a high point in equal opportunity in the U.S.; and, the military still discriminates against homosexuals, who, to the best of my knowledge, aren't physically weaker than heterosexuals on average. So, I don't trust the military to do this right without oversight, to be frank.

 In my gut, I'm not all that crazy about women in the infantry, to be frank...but, the tests should measure what needs to be measured. That's all I ask. No quotas, no lowered standards.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Nothing I can disagree with there. Im all for the good old "American underdog". 
Not that Danica Patrick was an "underdog", her skills are apparent, but who couldnt help but root for her. You have a driver, a car and 500 laps. Get out there and race and see who wins, thats the way it should be. She wasnt given any special treatment. Didnt have to do 450 laps. And she came close to winning. She probably will be winning some major races soon. Thats what I respect, get out there and excell just like anybody else..no excuses.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

If women are to be allowed in infantry roles, should the government then be able to "force" them into combat in the event a draft becomes necessary?


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If women are to be allowed in infantry roles, should the government then be able to "force" them into combat in the event a draft becomes necessary?


 If they're allowed into the infantry, they should be drafted into it if--as seems unlikely--a draft is ever re-enacted. Of course, I'd expect fewer would be placed there for the reasons we've been discussing.


----------



## Flatlander (May 29, 2005)

Here's my thought, though I should preface it by offering that I've not served. Also, that I do agree that there are very likely duties that must be staffed appropriately, and for some, the top 1 - 0.5% of physically able men should probably be doing them, in the name of efficiency, expediency, and timeliness. However, I also believe that, due to the wide variety of responsibilities that I'm certain must exist within the Military in General, there must be some to which women are better suited in terms of their own abilities.

 Thus, for the sake of general efficiency, it would be in the best interest to the overall success of the military to attempt to make the testing for those instances relevant and suitable.


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> there are very likely duties that must be staffed appropriately, and for some, the top 1 - 0.5% of physically able men should probably be doing them, in the name of efficiency, expediency, and timeliness


 I can see the reasonableness of that in a few cases--as you say, reasons of efficiency (possibly financial).

 Of course, haven't they tried some all male ships, some all female ships, and some mixed?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 29, 2005)

A related but separate question...

 If we do eventually allow female infantry*ahem*persons... and they begin to get pregnant to avoid going into combat...

 Can we treat them the same as a male who, say, shoots himself in the foot to avoid combat... or not?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

1. An interesting point brought up by one of Lucian Truscott's novels--you folks DO know that today's women are passing harder physical tests than men had to pass twenty years or so ago?

2. I wonder why nobody has brought up the possibility that, using the arguments advanced so far, there might just be military tasks that women were better suited for than men? After all, there appears to be evidence that they have better pain tolerance, dexterity, and endurance...


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

It's widely believed by those in the service that this happens--e.g., to avoid being called up if in the Reserves or Guard.

 I don't know how to prosecute and penalize that, even though in principle I agree.


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I wonder why nobody has brought up the possibility that, using the arguments advanced so far, there might just be military tasks that women were better suited for than men?


 I've heard this suggested before--that women may make better pilots, for example.


----------



## Flatlander (May 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. I wonder why nobody has brought up the possibility that, using the arguments advanced so far, there might just be military tasks that women were better suited for than men? After all, there appears to be evidence that they have better pain tolerance, dexterity, and endurance...


I did.  Upthread.  8 minutes ago.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Ive heard that women can take more "G's" then men but that men "in general" have better spatial abilities when it comes to air combat. Once again, make some sensible, "scientific" tests and training standards and let the people fall into the jobs they are best suited for, regardless of sex.


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2005)

I think we're in agreement!


----------



## Flatlander (May 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I think we're in agreement!


:rofl:  Unpossible!


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2005)

Hey! Them's fightin' words!


----------



## Tgace (May 30, 2005)

On the other hand, men have had to compete against other men with the current standards. Whats wrong with expecting ANYBODY who wants the job of meeting those same standards? At least until better standards are found?

And another point..dont forget that another issue with military training is "mental toughness". Much of the physically demanding training in the military is as much about seeing who will "crack" under the pressure as it is about doing the task. That road march story I told...most of the people who didnt make it didnt fail due to any lack of physical capability IMO. Most couldnt "take" the blisters, the back pain and the stress of lack of sleep/food etc. Their minds told them to quit. Most of the SF "selection" courses like the SEAL "Hell Week" is about taking as much "abuse" as possible and not quitting. Where do we separate "fair" from "stop whining and drive on..if you really want it you will make it happen". Dont we all take more pride in ourselves when we accomplish something "not just anyone could do?".

We do nobody any favors by taking it easy on recruits, espically themselves.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ive heard that women can take more "G's" then men but that men "in general" have better spatial abilities when it comes to air combat. Once again, make some sensible, "scientific" tests and training standards and let the people fall into the jobs they are best suited for, regardless of sex.


As long as those scientific tests aren't just a smoke screen for a social experiment, then by all means, in the name of efficiency do so. However, nothing that's been said about dumbing down standards (i'm sorry, reviewing them to see if they are the best measure) will IMPROVE performance, merely that it will make advancement easier. When the hell did that become the mission of the military. I'll tell you when, when it became a laboratory for social experimentation.  Nowhere did I hear how altering standards will IMPROVE the military's performance in it's real and primary function, merely that those standards prevent a barrier to advancement for some people.  If that's the only reason for changing standards, then it's an extremely wronged headed and poor reason.


----------



## Tgace (May 30, 2005)

Hence the problem...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 30, 2005)

1. To make a point that's obvious, it's remarkable that the same claims about performance, the degradation of military readiness, and the inadvisability of making the military run, "social experiments," last appeared--in pretty much the same forms--when.....?

2. This thread actually began when somebody brought up the fact that several conservative Republican legislators attempted to pass legislation--over the military's strong objections!--designed to deny military women the right to even try.


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> However, nothing that's been said about dumbing down standards (i'm sorry, reviewing them to see if they are the best measure) will IMPROVE performance


 So, these are the best possible measures? Optimality has been achieved? What the military is currently doing is incapable of improvement?

 On another note, the mental toughness issue is certainly a fair standard. I'm sure I don't have all the details exactly right in the following story after all these years, but it is what happened: When I was teaching at West Point, a women's sports team (soccer?) had a van accident during a return from a road game and one or two cadets died. The remaining women were expected to take their exams the next week as usual despite the event. I was told that they'd be expecetd to keep on fighting if a comrade died in combat, and this would be considered some small amount of experience in that. Well, I'm not sure one ever becomes inured to the death of a friend, but I understood the point.


----------



## Tgace (May 30, 2005)

Long the same lines...Another anecdotal story,I was in advanced training while my wife was pregnant. When I asked my drill sergeant what would happen if my wife went into early labor he told me "Well plenty of soldiers wives have had children while their soldiers were away from home." It is the military, it works under a different mindset.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 1, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> So, these are the best possible measures? Optimality has been achieved? What the military is currently doing is incapable of improvement?


You've given no information or evidence about how or why standards could be improved by reducing them. In fact, the only reason you suggest altering them in the first place is so that more people can pass them. I haven't heard one single argument from you that performance will be improved by reducing standards. More people would be able to pass medical school if the tests weren't so hard, are you suggesting it would be an improvement to reduce standards there too?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 1, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You've given no information or evidence about how or why standards could be improved by reducing them. In fact, the only reason you suggest altering them in the first place is so that more people can pass them.


 You seem to have in mind what type of argument you'd like to refute, and you don't intend to see any others. Have fun arguing with yourself.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

What I think hes getting at is, for example, take my road march story. 20 mi under combat load. I stated that the females had a hard time completing it, you asked if that was an accurate "test". Well, isnt the implication that as women (at least the women in my Basic) had a difficult time completing that test that it should be changed? i.e. If its too tough change it. Meanwhile are the "easy tasks" getting a pass? I think thats his point...he will have to clarify.


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 1, 2005)

Had a corporal in the 2/75th that escaped from communist Yugoslavia in the early seventies. He said the Russians were better trained in technical  things than the U.S. The only thing he said we were better at was our physical training. Lets not mess that up.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jun 1, 2005)

The whole thing still seems like "GI-Jane"


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What I think hes getting at is, for example, take my road march story. 20 mi under combat load. I stated that the females had a hard time completing it, you asked if that was an accurate "test". Well, isnt the implication that as women (at least the women in my Basic) had a difficult time completing that test that it should be changed? i.e. If its too tough change it. Meanwhile are the "easy tasks" getting a pass? I think thats his point...he will have to clarify.


My point is that the thought process behind "It's too hard for women, so it should be changed" is not a valid argument. It does not have at it's core the requirements of the mission, but merely the illusion of fairness for fairness sake. I have not heard one valid argument as to how this will improve the end goal....achieving the mission objectives more efficiently, which is the ONLY real measure of whether or not particular requirements are useful. If a woman passes all requirements, she should be admitted. If only 1 woman out of 10,000 can measure up, that's NO reason why standards should be reduced. 

The fact is that many women are serving admirably in posts they are currently stationed in, some are not.  If someone is doing their job well, I DO NOT support removing them from the theater of operation.  We are too understaffed as it is.  However, I think the measure of what women ARE and ARE NOT allowed to do should be pragmatic, not based on what will make someone look better come promotion time.  Decisions of that type need to be made based on what is best for the mission, not what is best for the person, otherwise Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen or Marines die.  They have the right to expect ONLY the best in those critical roles. 

If someone does not understand the mission/goal oriented mindset, then they don't possess the basic understanding needed to even have this argument. It is a prequisite to understanding the military and what it requires.
Anything else needs to be dumped as purely emotional tripe.Completing the Mission with maximum efficiency and minimum loss of personel is the first, last, and only objective.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 16, 2005)

* First Woman Gets Silver Star Since WW II*


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050616/ap_on_re_us/woman_silver_star

 (I wish I could keep this thing from retaining the original formatting when I cut and paste...I don't necessarily want the title to be in bold.)


----------



## Tgace (Jun 16, 2005)

HOOORAH!

Like I said "if they can do the job let em at it"...never had an issue with women in combat. Only the politics around it.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 16, 2005)

Yes, I think this is nice to see. If someone earns it, that's great!

 :cheers:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 17, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yes, I think this is nice to see. If someone earns it, that's great!
> 
> :cheers:


  Yes, if they earn it.


----------



## Rick Wade (Jun 17, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> * First Woman Gets Silver Star Since WW II*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050616/ap_on_re_us/woman_silver_star
> ...



That is great good for her.  except for that hole fire fight and all but i am glad that her Soilders can count on her to have their back.

V/R

Rick


----------

