What do you think of women in combat situations? Do you know of any defence forces that have implemented this move? I know that the US has to a certain extent.

I hope that this won't turn into a mud slinging match, but I know it will. I am particularly interested in the opinions of any former/current members of the defense forces (jim...)

I'll start it off.
I don't have any reservations on the physical side, they will have to pass male PFTs to get in. I'm a bit hesitent on the efect of male/female interactions in a front line situation.

To provide a springboard for flames/argument/reasoned comment, I'll say that I don't like the idea.

------------------
"A woman is always buying something" - Ovid (43? B.C. - 18 A.D.)

Now to every rule there are exceptions. There are a handful of women that I served with that I would gladly fight next to, and trust my life to. But as a general rule, women aren't as suited for combat as men. Even if they CAN pass the male PFT.

Cpl. Marie Bullock used to do the Male PFT just to prove what a bad ass she was. As a matter of fact she could 300 a male PFT, which is a perfect score. That's 20 Dead Hang Pull-ups, 3 Miles in 18 min or under, and 80 Sit-ups in 2 minutes. But she still couldn't hump the M-60 10 miles. She also was the type of women who wouldn't listen to orders, especially those from men. She also couldn't fight.

Those who have served in the military, and especially those who have seen combat, or even shipped to a hot LZ, will tell you that they don't feel comfortable trusting their lives to a woman soldier.

Just as a side note, there were lots of men I served with that I would never want to fight along side either.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

------------------
I may be paranoid, but not an Andriod.

woman are well suited for combat, just as well and sometimes even better then men. the IDF have many woman soldiers, i've met them! and damn, they are SEXAH! besides there are a lot of guy soldiers who are skinny and are probably unable to lug a m-60 10 miles.

quote:

---

Jim:
It's really hard to discuss this without upsetting someone.

---

------------------
"Once you have pulled the pin from Mr. Grenade, he is no longer your friend."
-Unknown (cited in nene, 2001)

------------------
"Once you have pulled the pin from Mr. Grenade, he is no longer your friend."
-Unknown (cited in nene, 2001)

Why don't you just save your breath and not reply to my postings you dumb fuck, since you obviously just contridict me on purpose even though you have NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! The My Woman is Crazy thread being a perfect example. You rant and rave against me, until everyone starts pointing out what an ass you are, then you run away from the thread with your pussy little tail tucked between your legs. FUCK OFF DIPSHIT!

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

quote:

---

Originally posted by CatKnight:
i've met them! and damn, they are SEXAH!

---

Oooooo, that just makes them combat ready right off the bat, doesn't dip shit?

Anyway, back on topic. If a woman wants to be president of the US, I'll support that. I voted for Anne Richards as governar of Texas.

Out of 100\% of men and women, generally speaking 90\% of men that can pass a male PFT are suited for combat mentally and phsyically. Out of women the percentages are reversed. I've been there, I've witnessed it! I used to teach NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) warfare, and the women in my class couldn't hack it all when faced with merely non lethal tear gas. If it had been a nerve agent they would be dead, dead, dead...

Anyone watch that show Bootcamp? They show some perfect examples of how men just outperform the women. There bodies are NOT genitcally capable of handling the type of stress that mens are. This is why these rules are in place, this is why women don't compete against the men in the Olympics, this why WOMEN DON'T BELONG IN COMBAT!!!

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

quote:

---

Originally posted by masher:
"Once you have pulled the pin from Mr. Grenade, he is no longer your friend."
-Unknown (cited in nene, 2001)

---

woohoo!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jim:
It's really hard to discuss this without upsetting someone. But if I had to give a yes or no answer, my answer would be NO. They shouldn't be allowed in combat. -snip- But as a general rule, women aren't as suited for combat as men. Even if they CAN pass the male PFT.

---

GRRRRR. Who's general rule? Yours?

I was going to go into the marines. I actually did some reading up on profiles of women in the armed forces. 'as a general rule' is a gross assumption.

Now, one interesting thing I did read was that women tend to make fiercer soldiers because they are more protective, and hence more vicious when attacking an agressor.

As far as male-female interaction, that's a case-by-case situation. You will have your male pigs and you will have your female sluts. All men in the military aren't perfect, and neither are the women.

grrrrr

Would you be scared of a vicious cat, or an angry bear?

Women's bodies are NOT designed to endure the rigors of combat. Plain and simple.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

Other points.

• No country has ever had a policy of putting women into combat. Those that have tried have regretted it.
  
• Women are not treated equally when captured.
  
• Harvard study: 3\% of enlisted women would voulentary go to combat, \%52 said they would leave if forced.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

*sigh*

I've seen you opinionate, i'm not even going to argue with you on this one.

US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine at Natick, MA was led by senior analyst Everett Harman. "You don't need testosterone to get strong," Harman concluded

"There is a widespread perception that the existence of lower physical fitness standards for women amounts to a "double standard." However, the physical fitness program is actually intended only to maintain the general fitness and health of military members and fitness testing is not aimed at assessing the ability to perform specific missions or military jobs. Consequently, DOD officials and experts agree that it is appropriate to adjust the standards for physiological differences among service members by age and gender."

There is also a lot of evidence that mixed-gender units in foreign militaries performed more effectively than single-gender ones - in North Vietnam and El Salvador for example. American commanders of experienced mixed-gender units noticed a similar pattern of positive dynamics - the women worked harder to gain approval and the men worked harder not to be outdone. This was quite evident in the Gulf.

This message has been edited by Nene on May 21, 2001 at 08:27 AM

quote:

---

Sergeant Charles Wright of the 44th Medical unit says that ten women are needed to do the work of six men, especially when heavy lifting is needed, such as the erection of 260 kilo field shelters. In a recent exercise a medical unit was assigned to set up a mobile hospital in 18 hours. After 24 hours the co-ed unit was still a long way short of setting up the hospital.

---

Eveyone needs to keep in mind that I'm speaking from experience. Most of you are saying (...or most women will say) that you can do all these things, but I've personally witnessed these failed attempt of women trying to perform on the level of men. They aren't as strong, they don't have the lung capacity, and they don't have the 'killer instinct' that men have.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

This message has been edited by jim on May 21, 2001 at 08:30 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by jim:
testoterone, something women don't have.

---

women do have testosterone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jim:
...testoterone, something women don't have...

---

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

In terms of evolution females do get a disadvantage..

Sure there's the exceptions but overall, not the best idea.

• U.S.S. San Antonio, a Marine troop carrier currently under construction, had key electrical systems lowered to accommodate the average 5-inch height gap between genders.
  
• Toilet Paper storage units capacity increased to 7 rolls instead of 2, to accomodate women.
  
• The women's bathrooms will have more ventilation "due to hair spray," along with more outlets and mirrors "for hair and makeup."
  
• Industrial grade washing machines that are murder on the undergarments of the women warriors have been replaced with ones with "gentle" cycles.
  
• The armed services are currently being reffered to as "The Kinder, Gentler Military."
  
• A large numbers of women develop urinary tract infections on those long desert marches because they were too embarrassed to relieve themselves in front of men.
  
• The military has adopted a politically correct gag rule to help ensure no one of military stature publicly points out the obvious fact that women aren't hacking it in the service (Though privately or once retired, many servicemen and women say exactly that.)
  
• Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness and a former member of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, and she put it this way: "The people moving to fully integrate women into combat positions in the military are in effect saying that violence against women is OK -- as long as it is at the hands of the enemy."
  
• America is outraged over the rape and torture of civilian Bosnian women in that conflict, yet at the same time is apparently willing to unnecessarily subject American women to what would be that and worse in a time of war. All in the name of "equality of military career opportunity."

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

Second, some empirical information may help to balance the discussion. In the first Arab-Israeli War in 1948, the Israeli army, due to severe manpower shortages, assigned women to combat roles, with disastrous results. The male soldiers were disproportionately concerned with the welfare of their female counterparts to the detriment of the unit as a whole. Furthermore, some Arab units continued fighting under desperate conditions because they thought it dishonorable to surrender to female soldiers.

Third, the Army conducted a study of gender in basic training companies in the early 1980s. There were three test groups: companies composed only of men, companies composed only of women and mixed companies. The men-only companies performed best, in just about all of the basic soldiering tasks (not only the merely physical), and the women-only units performed somewhat worse. In the mixed-gender companies, the women performed better than they did in women-only units, but the men performed worse than they did in men-only units. Since less than 20 percent of the Army is composed of women, logic dictates that the men be kept in male-only units as much as possible in order to maximize results.

Finally, studies have shown that enlisted women in the Army do not want to serve in combat roles; it is predominantly feminists without military experience who claim to speak for these women, but they apparently have no desire to learn what their supposed "constituency" really wants. Promotions come faster to those who serve in combat roles, but (enlisted) Army women are mostly not interested in these positions. If statistics show that women are not promoted as quickly as men in the Army, it is therefore not indicative of a conspiracy.

A commander in the U.S. Army has precious little time and resources with which to train soldiers. Should the commander spend all of this time trying to alter the manner in which men and women are genetically or socially prone to interact with one another, or should the commander use this time to train soldiers to fight and win wars and stay alive while doing so?

It is a priviledge to serve in the Armed Services, and in the time of war sometimes a duty. But, NEVER a right.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

We're too short, use too much hairspray, need delicate cycles, and have babies. WTF are we thinking trying to be strong and independent?

The only thing in your arguement that would apply to me is the 'short' thing, but then again, after 27 years of practice, I've gotten quite adept at reaching high places without stools.

Let me get back to my non-existent nail polish now.

nice 'facts'

Read this:
QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS

The Clinton Administration is proposing momentous changes in policy with serious implications for U.S. military effectiveness. Before changes in current combat restrictions are allowed to take effect in October, Congress must hold hearings on the role of women in America's defense. As part of these hearings, Members must ask Secretary of Defense William Perry, the Secretaries of each of the armed services, and senior uniformed officers five questions.

Question #1: Are women physically suited to the rigors of ground combat?

Answer: The evidence suggests that they are not. In weighing the ability of women to perform under combat conditions, the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces heard testimony from Army Lieutenant Colonel William Gregor, Chairman of the Department of Military Science at the University of Michigan, who conducted a test of Army officer candidates and found that:

The top 20 percent of women at West Point achieved scores on the Army Physical Fitness Test equivalent to the bottom 20 percent of male cadets.

Only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60 on the push-up test, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

A 20- to 30-year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50-year- old man.

Only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men. Gregor concluded that going through this process would mean that "I have just traded off 60 soldiers for the prospect of getting one. The cost considerations are prohibitive." (Lt. Col. William Gregor, USA, testimony before the Presidential Commission, September 12, 1992, cited in the Presidential Commission's Report to the President, November 15, 1992, p. C-42.)

Soldiers under fire must have confidence in the physical abilities of their comrades. Before allowing women to face the stress of combat, Congress must hear from Lieutenant Colonel Gregor and other experts to determine whether women are physically suited for it.

Question #2: How will bearing and raising children affect a woman's readiness to deploy on short notice, as is frequently required of military units?

Answer: Because of pregnancy and family responsibilities, many women cannot be shipped out to a foreign crisis as quickly as men. During Operation Desert Storm, for example, enlisted women in the Navy were unavailable for overseas deployment nearly four times more often than men. At any given time, between 8 and 10 percent of women in the Navy are pregnant; (Department of the Navy, Navy Personnel Survey, 1990 Survey Report, Volume 2.) for the Army, the figure is 10 to 15 percent. (Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988), p. 235.) Because Navy regulations require pregnant sailors to be within six hours of a medical facility, each of these women must be replaced before a ship can sail. This could lead to sudden gaps in a small unit that depends on the presence of all members to complete its mission. Such gaps would damage the cohesion of a tightly knit combat team.

Moreover, this effect will be magnified as the military continues to shrink under the Clinton Admini-stration's defense budget cuts. Because it is getting more difficult to attract qualified candidates, military recruiters are trying to appeal to women with promises of career advancement. The result is a higher number of women as a percentage of the total force; while women accounted for only 14.5 percent of Army recruits four years ago, for example, they will comprise 20.5 percent this year. (Rowan Scarborough, "Military Recruiters Increasingly Rely on Women to Fill Ranks," The Washington Times, February 28, 1994, p. A1.) Lower unit readiness caused by the absence of child-rearing women inevitably will get worse as the military continues to attract a higher percentage of women its ranks.

Question #3: What are the potential consequences of women and men fighting alongside one another?

Answer: Combat is a team activity which brings people closer together than any other profession. A small number of women may possess the physical and mental toughness to perform some combat duties; but teamwork matters more than individual capabilities in combat, and this teamwork generally is undermined by the presence of women. On one support ship during Operation Desert Storm, 36 of the 360 women on board -- ten percent -- became pregnant. (Alecia Swasy, "Shipboard Pregnancies Force the Manly Navy to Cope With Moms," The Wall Street Journal, October 3, 1991, p. 1.) In a Roper survey conducted during the Gulf War, 64 percent of military personnel surveyed reported that sexual activity had taken place in their unit. (The Roper Organization, "Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Military Perspective," September 1992.) Mixing men and women in military units invites sexual attraction and special relationships, and these relationships -- or even the perception that they exist -- destroy the morale and cohesion which any fighting force must have to win wars. If more women join combat units that become open to them as a result of the Administration's new policies, this problem will only worsen.

Question #4: How do women serving in the armed forces feel about being assigned to combat units?

Answer: In a 1992 survey of Army women, between 70 and 80 percent of respondents favored allowing women to volunteer for combat. Yet, among the same respondents, 90 percent of female noncommissioned officers and 88 percent of enlisted women indicated that they would not volunteer; only 14 percent of the Army officers surveyed indicated that they would volunteer for combat assignments. And fully 52 percent of Army women claimed they would leave the service if women are compelled to serve in combat. (Laura Miller and Dr. Charles Moskos, "1992 Survey on Gender in the Military," Northwestern University, September 1992.)

The charge that barring women from combat units inhibits their career advancement is groundless. According to Department of Defense statistics, even with the combat exclusion for women, the services are promoting females at similar or faster rates than males. (Department of Defense, "Military Women in the Department of Defense," Volume VIII, July 1990, pp. 30, 73.) Expanding combat "opportunities" places the aspirations of feminist activists ahead of the wishes of most military women, who have expressed consistently strong personal resistance to being assigned to combat.

Question #5: What has been the experience of nations that have mixed men and women in combat units?

Answer: History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle. For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield. (Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, International Trip Report, September 14-27, 1992.) These findings will come as no surprise to most Americans; in a recent national survey, two-thirds of those who favored the current policy barring women from ground combat cited the potential loss of mens' effectiveness as a reason. (The Roper Organization, "Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Public Perspective," September 1992, p. 41.)

CONCLUSION

The American people know that the purpose of the armed forces is to fight and win the nation's wars, not to serve as a laboratory for social "progress." While the military attempts to provide servicemen and women with rewarding careers, it must not do so at the expense of its readiness for war. Most Americans understand that the majority of men are physically stronger than the majority of women and that the risk of sexual attraction can undermine the cohesion and discipline necessary for success on the battlefield. Most are also uncomfor with the deliberate exposure of women to violence. Unfortunately, their common sense is not shared by the Clinton Administration, which already has shown a lack of sound military judgment regarding the assignment of known homosexuals to the armed forces, the use of force in Somalia, and the military build-up around Haiti.

When their very existence was threatened, many nations -- Israel during its 1948 war for independence, and both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany near the end of World War II -- used women in combat, removing them when the crisis passed. The U.S. faces no such threat today; moreover, thousands of qualified men and women are leaving the military as it gets smaller. The facts demonstrate that placing women in or near combat units will damage military effectiveness. Weakening America's military might in this way and at this time is particularly troubling. The U.S. armed services already are suffering from deep budget cuts and declining morale. (For a discussion of the military budget crisis, see John Luddy, "Stop the Slide Toward a Hollow Military," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 209, January 14, 1994, and Baker Spring, "Fixing The 1995 Defense Budget," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 227, June 22, 1994.) By holding hearings to examine the wisdom of the Clinton Administration's change in policy, Congress can stop the Administration from using the military as a laboratory for social engineering.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

Im with Jim on this one for mostly the same reason, experience.

I have only met one woman that i would want next to me in a foxhole. She was an MP at the time and would get attached to us for some things in Panama. She could carry her weight and knew what to do when things went bad. Most of the other MPs i had to deal with down there were useless when it dropped in the pot. This woman COULD hump a 60 all over the country side and use it when the time came.
4 years in. only met one that could do the job if asked.

The reason men get medals in war is because we think with our glands. Ask anyone that has a medal of bravery or valor and they will tell you the same thing to this question.
"What were you thinking?"
Most of the time you will get.
"I wasn't"

You think about it after the fact and most of the time think "god, that was really stupid. I could of been killed!"

You women say it all the time. "You men just dont think!" This makes us suited for warfare.

You women think to much.

leave the makeing of war to us. You point it out and we will go kill it.

Now with all that said.

you want to put them in a fighter or a bomber i have no problem with that. Just make sure you drop the shit on the bad guys. Im still convinced that women make better combat pilots.

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >
< Robot Conflict >

Maybe my opinion is a minority, but for those of us who want to do this, why can't we? Set high combat standards. Fine, we'll just have to meet them. Draft women if you want. Its only fair.

Macho world saving heroism is a thing of the past. Men, Men, Men. Threaten their male territory and they will do all they can to bar your way. Is military combat still entirely hauling backpacks through mud and shooting guns? I'd think there's a bit more finesse to combat situations.

Its been an interesting argument. I dont think there is a thing you could say that would convince me that you are right, or vice versa.

This message has been edited by Nene on May 21, 2001 at 10:16 AM

Nene... your sort of contradiction yourself in saying that jim in wrong and in the same paragraph saying that you don't like conflict. That was the who POINT of what jim was saying. And he said that women can be president and make all the decisions they want! As far as I can tell he hasn't said one macho thing... he's only presented statistics and fact. Also, YOUR view is actually the MAJORITY because people are afraid to speak-up for themselves (even if it IS politically incorrect) as jim (the minority) has.

Good thread!

------------------
"OH GGOD!!! NOT THE HYLIGHTER AGAIN!!! GO AWAY YOU LITTLE PEANUT HEDGEHOG!!!"
"The only thread about ME likened me to poo shaped mummy."
"Have a nice day, because monkeys don't."
-< PersonGuy >

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nene:
Is military combat still entirely hauling backpacks through mud and shooting guns?

---

No, not at all.

Its just a fact that it could turn into that in a heartbeat.

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >
< Robot Conflict >

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolfguard:
you want to put them in a fighter or a bomber i have no problem with that. Just make sure you drop the shit on the bad guys. Im still convinced that women make better combat pilots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nene:
why can't we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PersonGuy:
And he said that women can be president and make all the decisions they want! As far as I can tell he hasn't said one macho thing...

---

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

quote:

---

Originally posted by CatKnight:
hehe jim, I KNEW you would say NO right when I saw your name in this topic. YOu're such a sexist asshole.

---

Catknight, you have got to be one of the biggest fucking dipshits on the face of the Earth. Bien le bonjour monsieur Nostradamus. You know what type of guy Jim is.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with Jim’s post*. He wrote with a foundation of experience, and kept it fair, well-written, and logical.

You, on the other hand, rarely dish out substance. In fact, your entire detnet “career” is marked by immature drivel and a hasty rush to become the post count leader. You’re a loudmouth, and you’re fucking annoying. Grow up.

You know, while I'm here, I might as well continue. See, I find it funny that the majority of people who think women do belong in combat have never actually been in a combat environment themselves. I also find it funny that said people fail to realize that women are automatically deemed the primary target when spotted by the enemy. Moreover, it's pretty funny to note that psychological field tests prove men take on an instinctual, yet detrimental, "hero attitude" towards women in a situation of danger. But what I really find funny is the fact that these critics don’t realize what happens to a fighting unit when a critical element is disabled or permanently removed.

But hey, who cares? Equality for all!

* For the record, I believe that women do not belong in the infantry, but can be valuable in other military positions.

This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on May 21, 2001 at 03:21 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nene:
Macho world saving heroism is a thing of the past. Men, Men, Men. Threaten their male territory and they will do all they can to bar your way. Is military combat still entirely hauling backpacks through mud and shooting guns? I'd think there's a bit more finesse to combat situations.

---

You don't know much about infantry combat, do you? While when you zoom out from the conflict it's all numbers grinding together, every person out there is doing their utmost to get what needs to be done, done.
There is no such thing as 'finesse.' Infantry combat will always be infrantry combat -- fast, harsh and in your face. Just because we have all the cute little bombs now doesn't mean that soldiers just point lasers at whatever they want destroyed.

Has there been any experiments done with female-only military units?

Putting female infantry on the front lines during a war is like letting Ghandhi play nosegaurd in the Superbowl.

jim to your point about testosterone. Not everything in humanity is caused by genetics and hormones-- there are something that are controlled soley by society. For example the view that women are incapable of killing another person because we *overthink* situations. I dont think this is necessarily true of all women. You generalize too much in your post I believe. I understand that both you and Wolf are going on personal experience. However you did not extend your focus beyond that. To ask the ever important question WHY!

Is it that women are physcially weaker than men...
Perhaps we are looking too much at this point. Women, though built with smaller frames than men, have a higher tolerance of pain and can endure longer. (Childbirth for example- and anyone with killer cramps knows also). I believe there have been studies done on this topic as well. (but I dont have time to find them- when I do have time I will send the links)

Are women emotionally incapable...
Again through endless socialization of the female gender the gap has become so widened that I believe institutionally women are at a disadvantage. What do I mean by this- the highly held common belief (and even by women) is that they cannot kill or cannot be brave in the face of danger because it goes against their very nature. This *nature* is nothing but social conditioning. If the world was a perfect place (which we know it isnt) then women as emotional beings could do quite well in a combat situation. Your example of the women in your class who got weak at tear gas is arguable because- men are often conditioned to hold their ground even when it is not in their best interest to do so (kind of like your shit with CK). Women by the contrary are often forced to give up without a fight because we are *the weaker sex*

You may not agree with me. But I believe that women if given a fair chance (ie they are socialized the same way men are) could be quite capable of combat- and may even excel past some men in these situations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DuSTman:
Has there been any experiments done with female-only military units?

---

Yes. The most feared sniper in Russian history was a woman.

However, if you took the time to read all the stuff I posted. (Which I don't expect anyone too.) you'll see that during studies All women units performed worse than all male units, and men performed worse in mixed units. And this is just in accomplishing military tasks. That study had nothing to do with the effects of combat.

quote:

---

The United States is not the first country to face the problem of integrating women into the military. Both the Soviet Union and Israel sent women into battle in the 1940s. The most-feared sniper in the siege of Stalingrad was a woman, and one of Russia's top air force squadrons was all-female.

But both countries pulled women from combat because of public opinion about female casualties and prisoners of war.

---

Chrissy:
It's not just about the women. In my opinion that is the biggest factor. But, it's also the effect that women have on men. This goes far beyond combat... Just look at all the stupid things men do for women. In a life or death situation the last thing I want to be worrying about is women dying left and right of me.

And for the record, the life expectancy of a Marine 0300 in combat is 3 seconds. Ever play Counter-Strike? Then you know just how fast your life can end in a fire fight.

Picture Saving Private Ryan with female bodies strung across the beach... Now tell me that isn't more gruesome than the men you saw.

There are many more issues at hand than just 'can she do it'. It has every thing to do with 'should she do it'? And will it have a bearing on other combat Marines?

Me and Wolf have both known women that we'd fight along side. If you want to integrate that .0001\% of them, so be it.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

This message has been edited by jim on May 21, 2001 at 04:17 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nene:
Is military combat still entirely hauling backpacks through mud and shooting guns? I'd think there's a bit more finesse to combat situations.

---

Hahahahahha.. what type of crack have you been smoking? Jesus christ, you don't know shit all about the Military or Combat at all do you?
You know how your standard Infantry soldier is refered to as a "Grunt"? Theres a reason. They're doing all the grunt work. There is no finesse in grunt work.

------------------
When my flying days are over, and my death has come to pass
I hope they bury me upside down, so the whole damn world can kiss my ass

And for jim, good work on researching this! I'm very impressed! You can't really argue the information that has been found, and I have yet to hear as concise an arguement from the pro-women-in-combat people. My hat is off to you.

quote:

---

Yes. The most feared sniper in Russian history was a woman.

---

like i said they make good assasins but i would like to be able to enter my women through the standard holes supplied by god not via the big twisted torn out one made by that passing high velocity round thank you

quote:

---

comes from the 3 civilian female bosses I've had, and the 4 or so female military superiors I've had. Out of the 7, 2 actually took on the responsibility and conducted themselves professionally. The rest were man haters.

---

maybe they just didn't like j00

and have you considered the possibilty that your perspective and 'experience' is not the objective truth?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jim:
This is my opinion based on personal experience. I'm sure a lot of you have had positive experiences. I haven't.

---

Did you just forget to read that part?

And a lot of my experience comes from observation. I may be extremely outspoken here, but in the work place I take everything with a grain of salt.

Here is one example. My last female boss was hateful to me and the other guy I worked with, yet would joke around with all the women in the office. Yet she would take offense to anything said by me or the other guy. Then she got all pissy when I started to take my ideas above her to the VP who was a man. He was very receptive to my ideas, and would implement them through my boss (a female). This made her mad so she brought the VP up on fraternization charges, and accused me and my co-worker of sexual harrasment for using the word 'fuck'. After I was brought into an interview with the ceo I presented electronic evidence of dirty jokes that the female boss had forwarded to her female workers (people on the same level as me, only female). These female workers in turn forwarded the jokes to me and my male co-worker. My bitch of a boss was obviously fired. This is just one of many examples about this one boss. I have many, many, many examples, most have nothing, or little to do with me at all. If I'm being mistreated by my boss, male or female, I just quit and go work someplace else. I'm just saying that the female bosses I've had, have been much worse than the male bosses I've had because of the social indifferences between men and women.

This message has been edited by jim on May 21, 2001 at 01:07 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by jim:
Chrissy:
And for the record, the life expectancy of a Marine 0300 [b]in combat is 3 seconds.
[/B]

---

Excuse those of us who aren't military types, but what is an 0300?

As for my stance on this issue, I'm defering to those who have actual combat experience; I think it's hard to make a judgement call without that context..

T

------------------
Vi Forever! (or at least till you figure out how to quit..)

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

edit: grammer
------------------
L'absence est à l'amour ce qu'est au feu le vent; Il éteint le petit, il allume le grand.
- Comte de Bussy- Rabutin

This message has been edited by Chrissy on May 22, 2001 at 06:23 AM

[edit]Also note that I picked mostly quotes from women! Either from books by women, from articles in Time from women, or from studies conducted by women. If you have the time, read all my posts verbatim. I believe I mentioned in a few places where the quotes were from women.[/edit]

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

This message has been edited by jim on May 22, 2001 at 06:29 AM

I was just somewhat irked that I allowed myself to get involved in that discussion with this guy before I was fully versed in what I was talking about.

I read that website I posted by Capt. Critical, and read numerous articles by Elaine Donnelly. I read three 'analysis' papers posted on anonymous websites (the same one's jim pasted).

I'm having a hard time coming to a conclusion of my own. My initial gut reaction is "Nobody can tell me what I can or can NOT do!! Agree with me all women out there!!"

Then I really THINK about what 'Women In Combat' entails. The issue really becomes are women up to it and can we stand the idea of women being shot down along with men? I think yes and no. I think the idea that 'women stay home' or 'women do the jobs out of harms way' is too ingrained in many cultures to allow for the thought of women suffering alongside men. I think any woman, with enough drive could do it, but many women are not suited to it or don't have the drive. I think it should be an available option, but I think the regulations should be as strict as they are for men.

The issue is polarized into a yes they can or no they shouldn't without any gray areas. Women like Elaine Donnely, the most vocal and most quoted, become the poster children for the no they shouldn't groups, while women with a more 'feminist' approach push for the exact opposite. Eventually this debate will meet in the middle, but not right now. This is ancient tradition that is being changed, not some old outdated rule.

Women serving in the military is another issue altogether, just so I am not confusing anyone as to my stance. Women can contribute as well as men to the strength of the organization. They can do the same jobs with the same results. And no, we don't all need ventilation for our hairspray or more toilet paper. A footstool would be easier than a renovation. The military was designed to accomodate a MAN. There will be growing pains as the female presence is felt.

So there you have it. I dont agree with Jim entirely, but I see where he is coming from.

edit: I think we all often forget that the female opinion in here is not the norm for all women.

This message has been edited by Nene on May 22, 2001 at 08:46 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nene:
Unlike Jim and his cutting and pasting...

---

That is pretty rude! I think I got my point across quite well. I read everything I 'cut & pasted' that contained similar views of my own. Why re-write something when you don't have too.

I'm glad you are at least somewhat seeing my point of view now. The situation is much more grim when you get a first hand look at it. Only then can realize the full impact and the magnitude of what's going on! Once you've humped a 15 mile hike only to be greated at the end with a hummer full of women who fell out along side the hand full of broke-dick men that dropped out. Or witnessed a live fire obstacle course watching women drop their loaded weapons to make it over a high wall. Seen women on ship get pregnant just to go home. Most of my true inner feelings on this issue have been masked from the public, and you'd just have to see it to believe it.

How many guys want a woman on their favorite NFL football (baseball, basketball) team? Honestly!!!!! And why not? Because it 'could' make your team loose. Imagine watching football and seeing your female quarter back being laid out by a 300lbs linebacker. Is that guy a dick for breaking every bone in her body?? The point is, that men are more efficient at these phsyical tasks and we are talking about loosing the super bowl here. We are talking about loosing a WAR!!

If you truely want to integrate women into these roles, then the gender barrier would have to be completely broken. That means: Unisex clothing, Unisex toys, ONE SET OF STANDARDS FOR EVERYONE! It's never going to happen, because women don't want that.

I think it's safe to say that the grunt work of the military is going to be left up to the men.

I don't know though. I'd be intersted to hear from people that went through integrated boot camps, and how well the women perform with the men during that phase of a military career. I was in the Marine Corps, and boot camp is segrated. Men go to one, women to the other.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

all you women complaining for equal rights, or that you can do just as good as men, well good for you but that doesn't change the fact that i don't want to watch women die.

quote:

---

Originally posted by demonk:
the gender barriers must be broken FROM BIRTH

---

Yes. We need to cut off all male penises at birth. Then we'll all be exactly the same... (notice "WINK")

Oh, BTW, women ARE allowed to join football teams, it's just rarely been an issue. Good point with the showers Demonk. And I don't think it's fair for women to complain about that anyway, cause I ALWAYS wanted to be a football player! I'm a REALLY good reciver and special-teams-rusher, BUT because of my extreamly bad weight/height ratio I wasn't allowed to play. My point is... if a chick has all the skills and meets all the requirements and makes the team, I've got no problem with that. But it would suck if some skinny chick filed a law-suit to get on the team and then got broken in half in the third quarter...

------------------
"OH GGOD!!! NOT THE HYLIGHTER AGAIN!!! GO AWAY YOU LITTLE PEANUT HEDGEHOG!!!"
"The only thread about ME likened me to poo shaped mummy."
"Have a nice day, because monkeys don't."
-< PersonGuy >

------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."

"Ehh... the movie, or the planet?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Observer:
Something like that did happen a few years ago in MD if memory serves. She took the school to court to let her join, then she took them back to court when she was injured during a scrimmage (not even a real game!). She claimed that nobody told her she could get hurt.

---

Didn't someone sue McDonalds for serving her a coffee, which she then proceeded to spill on herself? Apparantly there was no warning on how hot it was... stupid.

.

To sum up, we have the physical argument (they can't lift heavy things), and the psycological side (they can't hack it - both men and women)

On the physical side, there isn't much that we can do. Females, by their very nature are slighter than males. There will always be some that are capable, just as there are males that can't do it. This side, I believe, can be overcome by the correct selection procedures.

Its the psycological side that is the problem. Men looking after women in combat, being distracted, men not being able to follow womens orders, women getting big egos because they can order men around (and the inverse of these)...... This is were the 2-3 generations of education comes in.

Is that a fair assesment?

edit: clarification.

------------------
"Once you have pulled the pin from Mr. Grenade, he is no longer your friend."
-Unknown (cited in nene, 2001)

This message has been edited by masher on May 22, 2001 at 07:35 PM

Sex is a biologically determined characteristic of being either the male or female of the species. It has nothing at all to do with society and upbringing.

Gender is very much determined by society and upbringing, to the point that each and every one of us becomes aware of his or her gender and learns to play gender roles by observing and reacting to how they are treated, and learning what is expected of them. Boys are macho and tough like their dads and shouldn't cry when they get hurt. Girls wear skirts, boys shouldn't. Girls play with dolls, boys play with toy guns. As grown ups, men gravitate towards manly jobs that require strength, or intellectual jobs that require them to show their superiority. Women are often expected to stay at home and take care of keeping the family together, supporting men's careers, and raising children. Although today these stereotypical societal gender roles are relaxing, as evidenced by this particular thread (a century ago it would have been unthinkable to even consider a civilized western woman entering combat alongside men), our society remains divided along gender lines. There is no biologically sound evidence that men and women are capable of different levels of achievment and performance: in fact, our whole idea of women as the so-called "weaker" sex is a self-perpetuating societal phenomenon. Because women are expected by society to do less, they feel that they can't do more, and so do less. Historically, the norms of society which dictate a woman's place in life can be traced back to feudal societies like that of medieval England. Centuries upon centuries of societal pressures to fit into a mold shaped by expectations do not dissapear overnight, rather take severe social change like that brought on by the advancement of technology over the past two centuries.

Not all societies are like our society. In some tribal communities for instance, women are the leaders, the go getters, the career people, while the men stay at home, tend the children and cook breakfast. In reality, even in our own society, much more is expected of the "weaker" sex than the "stronger" sex. A man's day, starts by eating breakfast, going to work for 8-10 hours long, after which he comes home to a dinner, watches TV then goes to bed. A woman's day starts by making breakfast, serving it, eating it, preparing the kids for school, seeing them off to school, packing a lunch for the man, then either going to work herself, or caring for all the household duties such as cleaning, laundry, dishes, etc, frequently both these days. She must then prepare dinner, serve it, then eat it, clean up afterwards, put the children to bed, and then go to bed herself. I know this is a very stereotypical view, but that is the biggest problem with society: gender roles are stereotypical. You are expected to conform to the rules, else you are a deviant, and your behavior is seen as either wrong or strange. Frequently, people in society try to condemn deviance by inventing reasons why the status quo should be maintained, when really, all it is is sexist bullshit.

Biologically, the only difference between men and women other than primary and secondary sex characteristics is build. Women typically have smaller frames, and shorter torso's compared to their legs than men do. The extremes are easily shown in bodybuilders, where men show gigantic torso's and thick arms, while women show more pronounced developement of the thigh muscles than the torso. This does not mean that all women are smaller and weaker than the smallest and weakest man, these are merely averages. But should averages dictate the way things are in society? I don't think so. Your average american is white. Does that mean that black americans should not be considered citizens? Absolutely not! that's racist and discriminatory, yet it was a way of life 250 years ago in this country. Notice it took a long time for society to change its views, and even today, there are white supremacists who refuse to acknowledge that the color of one's skin should not determine their place in society.

What was the point of all that? To come to this conclusion: I believe that women should be included in all militaries. I think they should be subject to the same rules that the men are. I also think that women and men should be given the same life chances from the day they are born. When do I think what I think will become a reality? Not in a hundred years at least. Several generations are required to replace the layers of societal norms that saturate the majority who determines how society functions, and thus what roles people are born into.

If that was a bit disjointed, perhaps its because it is way past my bedtime and I can hardly keep my eyes open.

So in conlcusion; Jim is right: from a certain point of view. But there are always at least two sides to every story, each side equally valid, and it is only after objectively reviewing each side of the story that one comes to a full understanding of the larger situation and can make an unbiased judgement based on reason rather than personal beliefs or attitudes.

Feel free to disagree with any and all of what I said, after all it is a free country (to an extent) and it is that freedom that the men and women in our militaries have dedicated (and sometimes given) their lives to protecting.

------------------
Old farts never die, they just get blown away.

Firstly, around here, the women's requirements are about half to 2/3's of the men's. (Maybe that's just the Canadian Armed Forces - I don't know.)

Secondly, when a program was undertaken to make a platoon of women "prepared for field combat". After 6 months of training, the women barely made the men's mark. If we spent the same 6 months training a platoon of men, we'd have a group of John McClanes who could mow down an entire army between breakfast and lunch.

Finally, the "gender equality" crap - I'm sorry, but there are unbalanced things on both sides of the fence. Women - I'll admit it, you're "naturally smarter". Men - we have more natural aggression and raw strength. Men have these things hanging between their legs called "testes". They have many functions, including sex drive, producing sperm, and turning us into pre-Neanderthal beasts when angered. If suddenly in the middle of training a platoon of males and a platoon of females were forced into an unarmed combat to the death, would there be any doubts about the outcome?

Well, that's it for the moment. I'm gonna go blow off some steam in the Rants area.

------------------
I don't believe in stereotypes. I prefer to hate people on a much more personal level.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellraiser:
well thought out post

---

the only problem is though, if everyone is treated the same, and then theoretically, they will act the same, then there wont be any real distinction between guys and girls (other than the physical) and then theres no more reason to date a girl then a guy other than to reproduce.

This message has been edited by fatbitch on May 23, 2001 at 04:59 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
the only problem is though, if everyone is treated the same, and then theoretically, they will act the same, then there wont be any real distinction between guys and girls (other than the physical) and then theres no more reason to date a girl then a guy other than to reproduce.

---

I'm not advocating treating women and men the same in every situation, merely giving each the same life chances, and the ability to make the same choices in their lives, particularly relating to their careers, etc. Right now, there are many male dominated fields where women could excell at if given a chance, but because of all that sexist social bullcrap I referenced, women are not given a chance. That's the kind of thing I think is wrong and needs to be changed. Also, women on average are only paid three-quarters as much for doing the same job as men, a statistic that should also be changed. That's not to say that women and men shouldn't maintain a certain amount of gender identity, but that most of the socially defined "male" and "female" roles can be performed equally well by both sexes. I hope that explains my stance a little more clearly than my last post.

------------------
Old farts never die, they just get blown away.

i couldn't EVER be part of any organiztion in which the majority of the members took one look at me and considered me handicapped, less than worth it, or just plain worthless.

hairspray has no place in my bathroom. i can piss standing up. makeup is used only to become camouflaged in hunting season. i'm 5'9" tall, nearly as tall as "average" height for men.

physiologically, i consume less oxygen and require slightly less physical space than a male. on average, women's ligaments are longer than men's, allowing us more flexibility. i'm quick thinking, willing to get dirty, and not the least bit squeamish about blood, guts, and death.

i also know that no matter what i do, for the rest of my life, some guys are gonna look at me and see just a chick. a second class citizen. someone who's not worth as much as them. someone who has no business being willing to fight and die for the freedom that all americans enjoy every day. so, i'll never go anywhere near the u.s. armed forces.

but if some day all hell breaks loose, i'll still fight. with none of the glory, no medals to win and no rank to achieve, i'd still fight.

would you?

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

quote:

---

jim said:
Picture Saving Private Ryan with female bodies strung across the beach... Now tell me that isn't more gruesome than the men you saw.

---

the loss of human life is always a tragedy. whether they are men, women, or little kids. it's not *who* died that's important, it's what they died *for*.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

about 1/3 down that page is a fascinating discourse on the origin of gender roles.

So it's not enough to get the women treated and raised differently, the men must also be raised differently.

Now this is all well and good for discussion purposes, but with the way our society is structured right now, I'm leaning heavily toward Jim's and WG's side of this argument.

------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."