# Responses to Sorry, we don't agree: "Fighting is for Men"



## Mike Bobbitt (15 Nov 2005)

Please post all replies to the Sorry, we don't agree: "Fighting is for Men" Editorial here.


----------



## BKells (15 Nov 2005)

Well said! Are you submitting that to the National Post?


----------



## ZipperHead (15 Nov 2005)

Well written, and logical. So, it will be relegated to page 18, somewhere after Britney Spears' (the REAL one....) latest escapade, and somewhere before a laxative advert. It needs more controversy, more drama, more innuendo for the average person to sit up and take notice. Maybe a picture of Britney in CADPAT to help sell it.....

Maybe somebody in a position of power will take notice. It should made into an election issue (hopefully Jack Layton and/or Stephen Harper lurk here......)

Al


----------



## ZipperHead (15 Nov 2005)

Wasn't it Mel Brooks who had the 2000 year old man shtick?? Maybe he can help..... Man, "History of the World, Pt I" was classic. If a movie ever demanded a sequel, that was it. "The peasants are revolting!!!" "I love my people. PULL!!!!!"

Al


----------



## 3rd Horseman (15 Nov 2005)

ahhhh.....how come no one has pushed the issue of "Time to Trigger"? Back to that old adage cant change 50,000 years of evolution.


----------



## long haired civvy (15 Nov 2005)

A very simple solution would be to "re-establish" the rigorous physical fitness standards that "used" to exist. Standards that had been set not by arbitrary means, but from actual operational experience. If that were to be done, in an honest, non discriminatory way, most women would not meet the standard. A lot of serving soldiers would not meet the standard. So be it. All male Battle School platoons in the past used to have brutally high failure rates because the training was hard, and that was the point, to weed out those who could not hack it, physically or mentally. The CF(combat arms) should not be a showcase for gender equality. What it should be is an institution that welcomes anyone who can meet the standard.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> ahhhh.....how come no one has pushed the issue of "Time to Trigger"? Back to that old adage cant change 50,000 years of evolution.



Hmmm....evolution & man

http://www.alldumb.com/item/17494/


----------



## Hollywog (16 Nov 2005)

Send a battalion of just women overseas by themselves to Darfur or whereever.

I mean if they are just as good and not riding coattails it would let them prove themselves beyond a doubt.

When I was in the forces they were starting the grand experiment and one came up to me sarge I broke my nail.  I bet there was a good look of shock on my face.

It was such a scam they would always be alongside men.  So I've seen women let guys carry backpacks, then guys get to dig trenches.

Never saw a woman carry a guys backpack, etc.

And one time we snuck up an entrenched hill on exercise because the male and female sentries were having sex.

Besides most women don't want this if they did we could send brigades of them overseas. How many women as part of the grand experiment are actually in the infantry. Thats a lot of miles of liberal propaganda without ever caring about whether they can fight. If they were worth the effort the physical standards would not have been dropped.  Course how many would be left 1? 5? Who knows.


I mean if they cry in peace time when emotionally distraught what would your mom be like in war?  If I was 5 I think I could have disarmed mine if she had a bayonet.  

The real question is could our politically correct canadian army with the low physical standards today have taken Passchendale.

Honestly I don't think we are as good as our forfathers.  The Israelis dropped this when it was proven to fail in battle.  And if anyone wants a big combat arms it's them.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> Honestly I don't think we are as good as our forfathers.   The Israelis dropped this when it was proven to fail in battle.   And if anyone wants a big combat arms it's them.



Remember, the Israeli's dropped them from their conscript army.  Self-selection, when combined with high standards, should be an important factor.


----------



## Hollywog (16 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Remember, the Israeli's dropped them from their conscript army.   Self-selection, when combined with high standards, should be an important factor.



I agree, they tried it in battle and found it to be a disaster.  The only way the canadian army should use it is if they are *never ever* looking at going into battle. If they do it will cost more lives than the ross rifle.  You also have to look at working together as a team which was one of the areas where the Israelis had real problems.

If people want Female assault troops send a Bn of just women to Afghanistan to see how they do.  And that's hardly a hot environment like any WWI or WWII battlefield.

I can't think of one battle that females won ever in any army, hmmm.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> The real question is could our politically correct canadian army with the low physical standards today have taken Passchendale.



That Canadian Army had been indoctrinated by three yars of war.   We have a peacetime army now.   If there was sufficient cause to get guys away from the parking lot at 7-11 or the sports bars, we would do it.   This is nothing new in Canadian history.   Unfortunately, just as in 1914 or 1939, any combat field force would have a steep learning curve.   We saw that at Second Ypres when 6000 men of the First Division were wiped out.   We saw it in Normandy when the 2nd and 3rd Divisions were getting their feet.   Or 4th Armoured, when on the first day of battle they lost an entire tank regiment that went up the wrong hill.   The 5th Division broke and ran in their first major attack in the Arielli Valley in early 1944.   Only the 1st Division seemed to have done well from the getgo.

The Canadian Army in September 1939 could not have taken Passchendaele, nor could the Canadian Army on 1914 or even 1915.   It's not a fair or intelligent comparison.

Mobilize us for war and - in the words of several WW II veterans I've talked to, after I told them "my generation couldn't do what you guys did" - "you never know what you can do until you try."

Of course we could take Passchendaele.   We would need a year of hard war service to limber us up and teach us the right lessons, first.

Sure, we could keep a standing army of 1 million men in Canada.   And watch our highways disintegrate, our health care system bottom out, our death rate climb.

Do you want guns, or butter?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> I can't think of one battle that females won ever in any army, hmmm.



Misogynists like you never gave them a chance...

You're actively promoting segregation?   Why?   

Segregated units have historically been successful.   Negro troops in the American Civil War, World War I and World War II performed - for the most part - very well (one black division in Italy was poorly led and performed terribly apparently).   The Nisei performed very well in WW II also.

I suspect with heightened expectations, an all female battalion would acquit themselves excellently.

Someone point this dude to the earlier comments on women in Afghanistan, it was a thing of beauty.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2005)

Did the Russians, during WW II, not use Women as Combatants in formed units.  We have the Legends/History of the Amazon warriors.  Women have been documented throughout history as being Warriors.  Look at the French Revolution, or earlier with Joan d'Arc.  There are thousands of examples.


----------



## Hollywog (16 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The Canadian Army in September 1939 could not have taken Passchendaele, nor could the Canadian Army on 1914 or even 1915.   It's not a fair or intelligent comparison.



The point is to get the soldiers to the point where they were in 1917 we would have to first eliminate females from the infantry.  Like we did the ross rifle. I could just see my mom or any of the females I've known in uniform in the mud carrying the duckboards. 


If its such a good idea why did the Israelies remove them? 

Awaiting your more intelligent answer than mine to point out how we overcame all the issues they had.  I must have missed that part.

As I see it we haven't and some will take nothing short of the ross failing at Second Ypres which as you point out there were about 6k casualties to wake up.

Remember a lot of those troops need not have died if the useless weapon they had worked do we need to have the same thing with women in combat to stir you?


----------



## Hollywog (16 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did the Russians, during WW II, not use Women as Combatants in formed units.   We have the Legends/History of the Amazon warriors.   Women have been documented throughout history as being Warriors.   Look at the French Revolution, or earlier with Joan d'Arc.   There are thousands of examples.



Yes the russians did use them in low quality units when in dire straits but, they didn't have a lot of female infantry during the cold war did they.  They knew better.

As for the Amazons aren't they part of mythology?  Like Zeus? Romulus being suckled by wolves?   ;D

And did joan of arc ever have to use a bayonet?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Nov 2005)

In the words of one who was there (PM to infanteer inbound)



> As a company commander ... during Op APOLLO, I had a female infantryman under my command. We did the Army PT test and I had to tell her to stop at 350 sit-ups because it was becoming pointless. She had proved the point, and then some. We had another female infantry soldier who was equally hard. Neither of these PPCLI soldiiers who had met all of the "hurdles" ever let me or their fire-team partners down. They did the job, full-stop.
> 
> When we air-assaulted into the Shah-i-Kot Valley, both of those infantrymen were there. The ultra-fit soldier who had done the sit-ups twisted a knee disembtarking from the helo and had to be evacced. It was a legit injury. The other soldier did the business just like anyone else. She was later involved in a mine-strike during a routine KAF patrol that wrote-off the armoured Hummer her patrol was riding in. She got bruised and battered, but soldiered on. I give full credit to her and the soldiers that she served with in B Coy 3 PPCLI. Full-stop.
> 
> ...


----------



## midgetcop (16 Nov 2005)




----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> The point is to get the soldiers to the point where they were in 1917 we would have to first eliminate females from the infantry.   Like we did the ross rifle. I could just see my mom or any of the females I've known in uniform in the mud carrying the duckboards.



I couldn't see myself carrying a rifle either til I did the training.   Same with females.



> If its such a good idea why did the Israelies remove them?



How would I know? You brought it up.   I could think of a few reasons that have nothing to do with their suitability for combat.



> Awaiting your more intelligent answer than mine to point out how we overcame all the issues they had.   I must have missed that part.



What issues do you refer to?   I don't think creating an army that did well at Passchendaele had anything to do with prohibiting women from participating.



> As I see it we haven't and some will take nothing short of the ross failing at Second Ypres which as you point out there were about 6k casualties to wake up.



It didn't - the war winner was artillery not rifles.   The Ross is a red herring.   Riflemen didn't kill each other; machineguns and artillery did the work.   Wirecutting fuzes won the war, not Lee Enfields.   Hand grenades and the Lewis Gun did the job at the platoon level.   Most riflemen could have gone into action with broomsticks for all the difference it made.   Marksmanship was poor - in WW I and WW II. Read Strome Galloway.   The same was true in WW II - Galloway said most riflemen could have fought onto the objective armed with pitchforks. Rifles were security blankets, little more.



> Remember a lot of those troops need not have died if the useless weapon they had worked do we need to have the same thing with women in combat to stir you?



Your Ross analogy is useless.   It wasn't that important.   Your women example is moreso.

We need good women, not just any women.   Most women can't be bothered to join - attitudes like yours are one reason. Those that do, can obviously do the job.   We just need more of them, that's all.   Don't need to segregate.   Just find them, nurture them, get them working.   I doubt we'll find them. Women ARE smaller on average.

On average they're also much smarter and can't be bothered to live the life of a rifleman.   Kudos to them.   If men felt that way we'd have no more wars.





[/quote]


----------



## Hollywog (16 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Misogynists like you never gave them a chance...
> 
> You're actively promoting segregation?   Why?
> 
> ...



Oh yeah lets resort to name calling sorry I'm just using reason to show why a bad policy is doomed to fail.

And As for some officer making comments on women in afghanistan do you think it will help him get whisked into a generals job in the PC Canadian Armed Forces?

I promote segregation because I have seen men have to cover for them whether it's digging slit trenches, carrying backpacks,

I want segregation to prove 2 points, I contend they can't do the job, nor do they want to.

1 There are not enough after years of demasculating the military to make even 1 bn.   So women don't even want to join up,

2 if there was throw them to the wolves and let them prove themselves.   Men have fought thousands of terrible battles and misogny has nothing to do with it. 


I'm willing to give them a chance to prove themselves with their own blood misogny has nothing to do with it.   I'm saying give them a chance instead of letting them hide behind some guys coattails.

Hardly misogny.

It would be called an experiment.   Why does finding out the truth scare you?


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> And As for some officer making comments on women in afghanistan do you think it will help him get whisked into a generals job in the PC Canadian Armed Forces?



 :rofl:

If you only knew....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> Hardly misogny.
> 
> It would be called an experiment.   Why does finding out the truth scare you?



Segregation of blacks is racism.   Segregation of women is misogyny.

There's no need for me to discuss it further; if you feel this strongly about it, write your MP.   But it won't change the fact women are out there, right now, training and going on operations as infantrymen.   

Setting them up for failure...well, they did that with blacks in the Civil War.   Once they finally twigged to the idea of outfitting and paying them like white troops, they did the job.  The ones that met the standards, that is. 

Gunnar's points below are excellent and well stated.


----------



## Gunnar (16 Nov 2005)

Just analyze the argument for a bit, and see if it makes sense...

Infantry standards should be higher
It is mostly men who can meet these higher standards
Therefore, it is mostly men who should be in the infantry


OR

Infantry standards should be higher
Only men can meet these higher standards
Therefore, only men should be in the infantry

The problem with argument #2 is that there are a few women who CAN meet the higher standards...and that makes them qualified soldiers, full stop.

Argument 2 is also supported by an implicit belief that men are somehow superior to women in physical activity...that isn't true in the least.  There is a gender-based preponderance towards superior behaviour in physical activity... but that doesn't make the fat slob in the XXXXXL Cadpats somehow superior to GI Jane.

And if you're willing to admit that you're just plain biased, what are you worried about?  Under higher standards, you'd rarely, if ever meet a woman infanteer...and if they save your life, you'd rapidly stop caring about that too...

As with firemen, I prefer that the person doing the job can do the job.  If the fireman holding up the roof with one hand and throwing me to safety out the window with the other happens to be female, I don't give a d*mn...just that they can hold the roof up with one hand and save my life.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Nice logic-izing; you're good at that.  

An interesting case can be made for segregated basic training - the Marine Corps uses it.  Since females often start off at a different level, it allows women to train together and to be hardened both physically and mentally (and to look up to) by all female Staff.  As well, since the institution of Basic Training is about forming an outlook and "tearing down a civvie and building a Marine", it allows female recruits to better socialize to the norms of the Marine Corps without all the BS that accompanies putting men and women together in an especially charged environment like Basic.  Once, and only when, the recruits have been fully transformed into Marines (and met the same standard) are the merged together in the Corps.

One has to wonder if Canada even has the critical mass to consider something like this.  It would be interesting to see an all-female Basic run and to compare the success rates within it to an mixed course.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Nice logic-izing; you're good at that.
> 
> An interesting case can be made for segregated basic training - the Marine Corps uses it.   Since females often start off at a different level, it allows women to train together and to be hardened both physically and mentally (and to look up to) by all female Staff.   As well, since the institution of Basic Training is about forming an outlook and "tearing down a civvie and building a Marine", it allows female recruits to better socialize to the norms of the Marine Corps without all the BS that accompanies putting men and women together in an especially charged environment like Basic.   Once, and only when, the recruits have been fully transformed into Marines (and met the same standard) are the merged together in the Corps.
> 
> One has to wonder if Canada even has the critical mass to consider something like this.   It would be interesting to see an all-female Basic run and to compare the success rates within it to an mixed course.



Or even segregated trades training; would make it easier for everyone to concentrate.  There is logic in that.  I don't see a need to employ them seperately though.  We did that until the 1960s and the demise of the CWAC.  Would be a step backwards now - a major step backwards.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Would be a step backwards now - a major step backwards.



I think if you billed it the right way, it could be seen as a step forward.  Forget "seperating women because they slow men down"; that's a step backwards; how about "giving women their own environment to succeed at the unique challenges that Basic Training provides (or at least should provide)."  It would be interesting to see the difference of how a female course, run by female staff, would do.

Of course, the CF doesn't take Basic Training seriously enough anyways, so I don't think the impact of socialization is very huge anyways.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> I promote segregation because I have seen men have to cover for them whether it's digging slit trenches, carrying backpacks,
> 
> I want segregation to prove 2 points, I contend they can't do the job, nor do they want to.
> 
> ...



Hollywog,

This is my last post to you as you're obviously set in your ways.   Nobody has advocated 50% quotas or filling up the ranks with (insert group here) except you.   All the article stresses is that standards have to be high and uniform - power to those who can make the cut.   Physiological factors and self-selection are going to make it a fact that women will always be a very small minority, but to those who step up to the plate, their help is welcome.

Other than that, come back after you've been awarded the Silver Star; most people in these parts don't agree with you or Ms Kay.



> For the Record: MPs Outgunned but Win
> Editor's Note: This is an After Action Report on the combat incident on March 20, 2005 near Salman Pak, Iraq, between a squad of ten soldiers from the 617th Military Police Co. (Kentucky Army National Guard) assigned to the 18th MP Brigade, and a group of between 40-50 armed Iraqi fighters. The report was written by the brigade intelligence officer. Names of the troops involve have been deleted, and the text has been slightly edited for clarity.
> AFTER ACTION REPORT: Raven 42 Action in Salman Pak
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think if you billed it the right way, it could be seen as a step forward.   Forget "seperating women because they slow men down"; that's a step backwards; how about "giving women their own environment to succeed at the unique challenges that Basic Training provides (or at least should provide)."   It would be interesting to see the difference of how a female course, run by female staff, would do.
> 
> Of course, the CF doesn't take Basic Training seriously enough anyways, so I don't think the impact of socialization is very huge anyways.



No, I agree with your idea about Basic - just don't extend it to employment in units.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> No, I agree with your idea about Basic - just don't extend it to employment in units.



Then we agree.  

Cheers.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Nov 2005)

"I can't think of one battle that females won ever in any army, hmmm."

The Romans most disliked the terrifying war spirit of the Celts, especially the fact that women fought alongside the men, indistinguished in honor and strength. The Roman Diodorus Siculus wrote of Celtic women, saying, "Among the Gauls the women are nearly as tall as the men, whom they rival in courage." The historian Plutarch stated this while describing a battle in 102 B.C. between Romans and Celts: "the fight had been no less fierce with the women than with the men themselves... the women charged with swords and axes and fell upon their opponents uttering a hideous outcry." Because Boudicca -- a woman, a Roman subject, and a Britannic royal -- led the rebellion, Rome felt even more disgraced and outraged.

Boudicca is believed to have had amassed an army of over 100,000 when she led her first attack at Camulodunum Colonia (Colchester), a colony of retired Roman officers and their families. Inside the city, a fifth column of rebels made sure the attack occured without warning or problem. The battle lasted somehow for a few days, long enough for messengers to flee to Londinium (London) to the Procurator (since the Governor was out of reach). The Procurator responded by dispatching merely 200 men, who were quickly engulfed in the battle.

Tacitus cites Roman and British religiosity that foretold of the coming Roman misfortune:

    Meanwhile, without any evident cause, the statue of Victory at Camulodunum fell prostrate and turned its back to the enemy, as though it fled before them. Women excited to frenzy prophesied impending destruction; raving in a strange tongue, it was said, were heard in their Senate-house; their theater resounded with wailings, and in the estuary of the Tamesa had been seen the appearance of an overthrown town; even the ocean had worn the aspect of blood, and, when the tide ebbed, there had been left the likenesses of human forms, marvels interpreted by the Britons, as hopeful, by the veterans, as alarming. 

Boudicca's revolt, 62AD, pretty tough chick in my book....


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2005)

look up Granuaile(Grace to the sasanach) O'Malley. Another hard woman.


----------



## Monsoon (16 Nov 2005)

In other news, does anyone else get the impression that Hollywog (who registered today) holds opinions about women in the military strikingly similar to those of Daniel H (who was baned today for being a bigoted troglodyte)?  May be conincidence, but is there any mechanism here to prevent banned people from re-subscribing under a different alias?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Nov 2005)

They are different wingnuts of the same ilk,......in fact one is chomping to log in as I type this.


----------



## winchable (16 Nov 2005)

> Boudicca



Beat me to it, don't mess with Ms. B.

It's one thing to say that there aren't going to be many women in an infantry role because the fitness standards are such as they are, logic dictates that, but it's an entirely different thing to say that women _can't_ be in the infantry because of fitness standards.
To me the latter is just a warped reverse form of poliical correctness.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (16 Nov 2005)

The Russians and Israelis did it out of self preservation not because it was a good or fair idea. Figure the Brits were getting ready to do it also when the box heads were so close to invasion. The Russians had massive amounts of women fighting in all female Divs, they even had a fighter wing of all fems. It would appear they fought very well and very successfully. Problem is not that women cant fight when they have to its about other issues; such as:

Women are not built to fight as well as men thus you need a larger mass of them in the population to get the correct amount recruited, we don't have the mass. 

When it is time to kill men go to trigger faster.

Men go forward under fire not for flag, god or country but the guy next to them out of a false bravado of not being seen to be weak. I would suggest that men do not have a desire to prove that when next to a woman. 

The only solution if you want women in combat IMHO is to form all female units, they will fight and will do well.


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Men go forward under fire not for flag, god or country but the guy next to them out of a false bravado of not being seen to be weak. I would suggest that men do not have a desire to prove that when next to a woman.



Have you ever been to a bar?


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Nov 2005)

I proposed this years ago.  We could call the Pre-Menstrual Battalions, and only put them in the line 4-5 days a month.  They would be devastating fighters.  The only drawback is speedy rotation out of the line, as they will spend the next 4 weeks apologizing to the enemy for being such bit ches................. :warstory:


----------



## midgetcop (16 Nov 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I proposed this years ago.  We could call the Pre-Menstrual Battalions, and only put them in the line 4-5 days a month.  They would be devastating fighters.  The only drawback is speedy rotation out of the line, as they will spend the next 4 weeks apologizing to the enemy for being such bit ches................. :warstory:



Normally, my first response would be to pummel you, but right now I'm laughing too hard...

 :rofl:


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Those last two were golden.... ;D


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Women are not built to fight as well as men


explain. I would argue that the women currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (on both sides) seem to be built well enough to fight. After all, they're doing it.



> When it is time to kill men go to trigger faster.


balderdash and poppycock. A person goes for the trigger according to their training, as proven conclusively in the American and British militaries right now in Iraq, and the various LEO agencies across North America. Some women react very poorly, as their training failed them, as well as their male counterparts. Some women are hell on wheels because they trained to be. Read Grossman's work for specific examples.



> Men go forward under fire not for flag, god or country but the guy next to them out of a false bravado of not being seen to be weak. I would suggest that men do not have a desire to prove that when next to a woman.


 I would argue that having a woman present to posture for, would cause a young alpha-male fight harder. Further, the last vestiges of chivalry amongst us older types would further cause us to fight harder to prevent the ungodly form getting their stinkin' hands on our wimminfolk.



> The only solution if you want women in combat IMHO is to form all female units, they will fight and will do well.


 this has proven to be a disaster. That's why the Israelis folded theirs. Numerous studies conducted in the '80s and '90s have shown that the best mix of male to female front-line soldiers is 70% to 30%.


----------



## 2 Cdo (16 Nov 2005)

Hollywog, just a couple of questions for you up on that mighty high perch of higher morality that you sit on.

1. What exactly is your MILITARY   background? Your profile offers no info.
2. Where exactly did you see all these female troops getting the males to carry their kit and weapon?
3. When exactly did you come across two troops having sex while you were launching the second battle of Vimy Ridge?

 Some of your terminology strikes me as the rantings of a man who has not served a day in ANY military, let alone the Canadian Army. I have never heard anyone in 23 years refer to their rucksack as a PACK, and if I, when I was a young private, was ever to refer to a Sergeant as SARGE he would probably have ripped my head off and sh!t down my neck. 
 Sorry buddy, but I'm going to have to call BS on ANYTHING you write from here on in unless you can authenticate it for me. :tsktsk:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> When it is time to kill men go to trigger faster.



Men like William Calley?  What, Me Lie?



> Men go forward under fire not for flag, god or country but the guy next to them out of a false bravado of not being seen to be weak. I would suggest that men do not have a desire to prove that when next to a woman.



Or sometimes out of conviction that what they're doing is important, regardless of the consequences.  I don't see that as genetically hardcoded...


----------



## 3rd Horseman (16 Nov 2005)

Women are not built to fight as well as men 
explain. I would argue that the women currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (on both sides) seem to be built well enough to fight. After all, they're doing it. *(no argument, there still built different)

We are a different beast then women built and designed different for different jobs or are you one of those creationists? I have no argument that the current women in I or A are not doing well, read my post I said the Russian women units had great success.*

Quote
When it is time to kill men go to trigger faster.
balderdash and poppycock. A person goes for the trigger according to their training*,(I'm talking about the decision to trigger inside the brain not the actual trained decision to pull trigger, subtle difference but enough to keep you alive)* as proven conclusively in the American and British militarise right now in Iraq, and the various LEO agencies across North America *(that proves nothing). * Some women react very poorly, as their training failed them, as well as their male counterparts. Some women are hell on wheels because they trained to be. Read Grossman's work for specific examples.




Quote
Men go forward under fire not for flag, god or country but the guy next to them out of a false bravado of not being seen to be weak. I would suggest that men do not have a desire to prove that when next to a woman. 
I would argue that having a woman present to posture for, would cause a young alpha-male fight harder*.(well you would be wrong)*  Further, the last vestiges of chivalry amongst us older types would further cause us to fight harder to prevent the ungodly form getting their stinkin' hands on our wimminfolk.


Quote
The only solution if you want women in combat IMHO is to form all female units, they will fight and will do well. 
this has proven to be a disaster (by what country, Russians were very successful). That's why the Israelis folded theirs. *(Thats not why they folded theres)* Numerous studies conducted in the '80s and '90s have shown that the best mix of male to female front-line soldiers is 70% to 30% *(in canada I was part of the study the study does not prove your point it is out of context).  * 

 If you read the whole argument I think women can fight and very well just not as well as men pound for pound on equal comparison yes yes there are always exceptions to the rule we are not talking about the 5% that are built capable and have the drive we are talking about the entire group. The issue is not enough of the equal ones to fill an army thats the problem and the point.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

It's a bell curve - naturally, the requirements of the job are going to allow more men from the center of the curve than women.  However, you're making some claims and disputing some things paracowboy put up 3rd Horseman; lets see some facts to prove it.


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2005)

> Women are not built to fight as well as men
> explain. I would argue that the women currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (on both sides) seem to be built well enough to fight. After all, they're doing it. *(no argument, there still built different)*


You stated that women are not "built to fight as well as men". I asked you to show me how. You still haven't done so, and now have attempted to 'downgrade' your arguement to "there still built different". Well, they're certainly built differently, thank heaven, but you originally said they are not "built to fight as well as men". Prove it. 



> We are a different beast then women built and designed different for different jobs or are you one of those creationists?


my opinions on the creation of life, and how it got to this point, have no relevance to the topic.



> I have no argument that the current women in I or A are not doing well, read my post I said the Russian women units had great success.


so how, then, are they not doing as well as men? After all, that is the crux of your argument, is it not?



> (I'm talking about the decision to trigger inside the brain not the actual trained decision to pull trigger, subtle difference but enough to keep you alive)


what on earth are you babbling about? "the decision to trigger inside the brain not the actual trained decision"? What is that supposed to mean? There is no "decision to trigger inside the brain" in a properly trained individual! Nor is there an "actual trained decision to pull trigger"! There is a threat and the trigger is manipulated. 



> as proven conclusively in the American and British militarise right now in Iraq, and the various LEO agencies across North America *(that proves nothing*).


 so, lemme get this straight: the _fighting _ women in two Theatres of War, and the women who are _fighting_ on the streets of our continent, prove nothing about the abilities of women to _fight_? Sure, makes sense. If I beat myself over the head repeatedly with a blunt object, anyway.



> I would argue that having a woman present to posture for, would cause a young alpha-male fight harder*.(well you would be wrong)*


  how so, Oh Dispenser of Wisdom? You state that young men will posture more for each other than for a woman? When science (and innumerable bar fights) says the exact opposite?



> *The only solution if you want women in combat IMHO is to form all female units, they will fight and will do well. * this has proven to be a disaster *(by what country, Russians were very successful). *


 were they now? But, I thought you say that women are not built for fighting?



> That's why the Israelis folded theirs. *(Thats not why they folded theres)*


So, then, why did they fold them? The reports I read, released by the Israeli army, state other-wise, but edify and enlighten me. 



> Numerous studies conducted in the '80s and '90s have shown that the best mix of male to female front-line soldiers is 70% to 30% *(in canada I was part of the study the study does not prove your point it is out of context)*.


 How is it out of context? Were we not discussing the effectiveness of women in battle? Were we not debating the effectiveness of all-female units? 

And this study you were a part of, was it before or after your Deep-Combat Experience where you were the envy and awe of SpecOps? And was it despite, or because of, your suffering from Depleted Uranium Poisoning, PTSD, and Agent Orange Poisoning?



> If you read the whole argument I think women can fight and very well just not as well as men pound for pound on equal comparison yes yes there are always exceptions to the rule we are not talking about the 5% that are built capable and have the drive we are talking about the entire group. The issue is not enough of the equal ones to fill an army thats the problem and the point.


you have no point. You have argued for and against both sides of this issue, and neither very well. Stop back-pedalling. Make a point and stick with it. Then, try to debate that point in a common-sense manner. Or else, go put your big red nose and floppy shoes back on.

And for the love of all that is sacred and profane, man: use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. You write like a junior high school kid. The occasional typo is to be expected, but you have claimed to be an Officer of The Crown (and a very Rambo-ish one, at that, the epitome of professionalism). At least attempt to get your points across like someone with a degree. If I can do it, with my Alberta Grade 12, I'm certain that you can, as well.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (16 Nov 2005)

Feel better now,


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2005)

No. You still haven't answered any of the points with any logical rebuttals, and you still can't master simple English.

I'm going to briefly hi-jack the thread for a minute to expound: We spend a lot of time here, imbuing the concept of Quiet Professionalism into the wannabe's and FNG's. We do this so that they understand what it truly means to be a Canadian soldier. Your first post here was a boastful pile of hooey.

We also spend a great deal of time pushing the idea of proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation on the newer, younger members. We do this so that they will do better in school, and later, in professional life. Your barely literate posts detract from that.

You have claimed to be an Officer, and an extremely high-speed one, at that. Your behaviour has been directly opposite to that expected of a professional soldier, whether commissioned or not. You are not setting the proper example, and it annoys the crap out me.

Now, do you have any valid points to add that may support your arguements?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (16 Nov 2005)

Im thinking......best I not comment at this point...... :rage:....MCPL...... ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Nov 2005)

Certainly looks like she could do the job to me. I'll let her be my fireteam partner.


----------



## armywoman (17 Nov 2005)

Oy, definitely I well built soldier.  Her biceps are bigger then most men I know. 

And I like how she has coordinated her diamond drop down earrings so nicely with her do-rag and uniform.  If we bring nothing better to the army we will at least decorate it nicely.


----------



## paracowboy (17 Nov 2005)

armywoman said:
			
		

> Oy, definitely I well built soldier.   Her biceps are bigger then most men I know.
> 
> And I like how she has coordinated her diamond drop down earrings so nicely with her do-rag and uniform.   If we bring nothing better to the army we will at least decorate it nicely.


li'l tip: that there is *not* a soldier, and she brings *nothing* to the Army. That is a Marine, and she is devoted to the Corps. Never call a Marine "soldier" or refer to them being in the Army. Especially a Marine with pipes like that.

Gawrsh, she shore is purty, though.


----------



## armywoman (17 Nov 2005)

Good to know.

Thanks


----------



## Strike (17 Nov 2005)

Geez, once again I miss all the excitement.  Can't you guys plan these wonderful debates when I'm NOT working?  I'm on nights and get home at about 2200, in case you do.

WRT the Marine, notice her well manicured nails too.  All I do is fly a helicopter and I can barely get mine to grow HALF that length.

Oh, and paracowboy, thank-you.  You are keeping me very entertained.  You are a helluva lot more literate than I could ever hope to be.  Of course, I got my degree in engineering.  That's my excuse.


----------



## paracowboy (17 Nov 2005)

Strike said:
			
		

> Of course, I got my degree in engineering.


I gotta get me one a' them things. It sucks bein' all unedjikated an' stuff. You can know ever'thang they is ta know, but if'n you ain't gotcherself a piece o' paper sayin' ya do, well...ya don't.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (17 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Men go forward under fire not for flag, god or country but the guy next to them out of a false bravado of not being seen to be weak. I would suggest that men do not have a desire to prove that when next to a woman.



From my limited experience, the opposite is true: when some guys see a female doing well at something it motivates them to do it better. After all, no one likes being beaten by a girl.


----------



## Acorn (17 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Im thinking......best I not comment at this point...... :rage:....MCPL...... ;D



Well sir, I'm not sure how you'll take the advice of a WO. However I will counsel you that though the MCpl's comments are inappropriate in relation to the difference in your ranks, every point he made appears valid to me. You have an opportunity to correct your unprofessional conduct. I strongly recommend that you do so.


----------



## starlight_cdn (17 Nov 2005)

My opinion has flip flopped on this issue for many years now. Do women belong in combat roles? 

To compare Modern Canadian Women  to WW2 Russian women or female members of the IDF is a mistake. Apples and Oranges. Different culture and values. Different time.   Both groups were fighting for there existence. Both groups had endured long years of hardship prior to the wars they fought. Both groups believed in what they were fighting for.......

These things can rarely be said about most Canadians period. We all know exceptions......I mean as a general rule. Most Canadians don't know were Khandahr is.....let alone the safe end of a rifle.

However, I am becoming sidetracked......I have thought long and hard about this issue for many years. I have taught QL3   to infantryman, LET to medics and IBTS to units of Cbt Support types in that time. I have deployed with female combat arms, medics and cbt supports in leadership roles, both reserve and regular. I have treated both males and females in the UMS. These are my conclusions:

1. *There should be one standard  throughout the CF for all.* Pt, Wpns Handling, Marksmanship, Battlecraft, First Aid, Feildcraft, Driving , Leadership.....etc. All these standards should be focus on the mission. (Check out the defence policy review) Why should there be one standards. Simple, 'cause the animals we are fighting don't care if you are *black*,  *white*, yellow or purple. They don't care if you are male or female, gay or straight; they will do horrible things to all prisoners. They do not follow the Geneva Convention.

2. *Training is training.* From my own operational experience, you fight how you train. A properly trained soldier will kill. This goes back to my first point.

3. Leave the policy to the planners and the operations to the operators. One standard, solid training, good kit and get the hell out of our way!!!!

 I care about the J-O-B. Not what gender my fireteam partner is.....................

The real question is ......Are Canadians ready to have their mothers and daughter killed in action? I could be wrong but I believe the last time a women was killed in war was sixty years ago. I don't think Canadian society is as committed to the GWOT as the USA. I think there will be a political backlash as soon as one female soldier comes home in a flag draped coffin. Opinions???


----------



## TCBF (17 Nov 2005)

"Certainly looks like she could do the job to me. I'll let her be my fireteam partner."

- The girl show offs are just like the boy show offs - they fold when you really need them.  The quiet ones who just do their jobs keep doing their jobs.

Tom


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Nov 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> li'l tip: that there is *not* a soldier, and she brings *nothing* to the Army. That is a Marine, and she is devoted to the Corps. Never call a Marine "soldier" or refer to them being in the Army. Especially a Marine with pipes like that.
> 
> Gawrsh, she shore is purty, though.



when the photo was taken, she had left the Marines IIRC and is a professional bodybuilder now.  So the nails probably didn't look like that when she was "in" - and the earrings that annoy Allan L. probably weren't worn with her uniform.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Nov 2005)

Yeah - bodybuilder, model, website gal... so it appears

http://www.lisamariebickels.com/


----------



## Hollywog (17 Nov 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> "I can't think of one battle that females won ever in any army, hmmm."
> 
> Boudicca is believed to have had amassed an army of over 100,000 when she led her first attack at Camulodunum Colonia (Colchester), a colony of retired Roman officers and their families. Inside the city, a fifth column of rebels made sure the attack occured without warning or problem. The battle lasted somehow for a few days, long enough for messengers to flee to Londinium (London) to the Procurator (since the Governor was out of reach). The Procurator responded by dispatching merely 200 men, who were quickly engulfed in the battle.




err 200 men vs 100,000 men & women hardly sounds like a fair test.

And you missed the best bit her first and last real battle,

http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/defeat-of-boudicca.php



> Hammering the Celts with javelins, Suetonius followed up with waves of brutally effective auxilia and regular infantry charges. By the ancient accounts, the Roman assault was overwhelming, and the Britons were crushed in the onslaught. Perhaps as many as 80,000 of Boudicca's rebels were killed in the immediate aftermath, with the Romans killing women and children indiscriminately. By contrast, Tacitus reports that only 400 Romans were killed, and an equal number wounded, in the battle.



So some one who led a battle where 80,000 of their troops died and took out 400 romans is the proof in the pudding eh.



1. What exactly is your MILITARY   background? Your profile offers no info.
I was in a mere 9 years and got out in 1989
Most of the time with reserves, but I did go to Norway and Germany and some did call me Sarge,

Yes I may have been too familiar with the troops.

I used to be able to pick up a 106 too if any old timers remember what that was.   Doubt there is one female in the infantry who can do that.   Even the one with the cute biceps.


2. Where exactly did you see all these female troops getting the males to carry their kit and weapon?
Wainwright Alta, Dundurn Sask

Course way back theyn they were never "combat arms" types so most never thought much of it,

3. When exactly did you come across two troops having sex while you were launching the second battle of Vimy Ridge?
Ha Ha, and like I said I doubt it would happen overseas but sometime in the late 1980's.   

Someone on this site might recognize the nickname, ... and deny they know me   ;D


So yes I was in and if I seem too opinionated well shucks.   I just want to explore the issue because one day it might cost lives. And if lives are saved and my precious feelings get hurt I'm ok with that.   The best example out there is someone 2 millenia ago who in her only real battle took 80,000 casualties to cause 400 dead and the same wounded then to extrapolate the size of the Canadian Armed Forces well the size of units we should tackle would be very diminutive indeed.   

I always believe in experimenting to prove a point and to my knowledge there has been none to prove this will not degrade performance.   I'm still hoping to be proved right or wrong.   

I am not saying they should not be in however if they are in units of their own the reasoning behind a lot of the issues disappears.   If men risk themselves to rescue them well who cares if they are in their own units.   So what I propose takes most of those factors out of it and surely the onus is on the woman to prove they can do this.   I mean there is a slight possibility that some seem hesitant to acknowledge that reality is misognystic.

However if they land at Dieppe and are sold into the sex trade for german soldiers or Japanese at hong Kong are you ready for that?

Because we better be course all the people for this integration have asked that question right. Or will we just never go to real battle so it'll be ok.

I mean it isn't just about filling goldfish bowls with dogtags,


----------



## 2 Cdo (17 Nov 2005)

Just curious now, when you witnessed these males carrying females kit and weapons did YOU as a SNCO sort it out or did you let it slide.
Just another point, I have served with female infantry soldiers. Some were good to go and others were a bag of hammers. In fact, the first female to pass the PPCLI Battleschool in 1989 ended up in my section as a C9 gunner and completely out-performed the males from her course when we were in Fort Lewis on exercise. To paint all females as inadequate would be the same as saying all reservists are useless. Something most, if not all, reservists would take offence to.
I was also with 3 PPCLI in Afghanistan in 2002 and didn't see or hear of any problems with the female troops. They carried their own kit and did the same ops as the rest of the battalion. You would seem to believe that they shouldn't have been given the opportunity to do their job. I used to think along the same lines as you, thankfully I have since seen what a well motivated, physically fit female soldier can do. I've also seen what lazy, MIR commando, POS male soldiers cannot do.
In closing, I will agree with the fact that I don't think Canadians are ready to see ANY flag draped coffins coming home in any numbers let alone those containing females.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2005)

Well put 2 Cdo.

Most of us older guys think [EDIT: or at the very least are starting to think] pretty much along those same lines.   Boils down to *Merit* (performance), not profiling or stereotyping by sex, creed, race, religion, etc.


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> when the photo was taken, she had left the Marines IIRC and is a professional bodybuilder now.   So the nails probably didn't look like that when she was "in" - and the earrings that annoy Allan L. probably weren't worn with her uniform.



As I am in a more jovial mood today than I normally am (PD day here at CTC for Sr NCO's), I will take your good natured jibe at my annoyance at the Year of The Vet commercial female soldier wearing earrings, even though it has nothing to do with my fashion sense ("Those earring just DO NOT match her uniform") but more with my keen eye (sometimes) for detail and (perceived) transgressions in dress regulations (my assumption that the peacekeeper was currently still serving). 

That, and the fact that you didn't give us our daily dose of history, such as that the earrings that Boudicca wore had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to carry a sword or shield....... or that Joan of Arc's do-rag and/or tattoo were in compliance with the force commanders policy on acceptable PT gear.... 

"Those that forget history are condemned to be reminded of this fact by somebody who reads too many books.....". As we were reminded yesterday in our PD period, if you keep looking in the rearview mirror, you're going to end up in the ditch. Not all of your historical factoids have relevance with the arguments that we have here (this goes pro and con, folks). Let's focus on what we can do, not what we couldn't do in years past. Today's society IS different, and we have to adapt. That doesn't mean drop the ball that our predessors carried; use the lessons that they taught us, adapt them to our circumstance(s), and move forward. Fighting our last battles (ad nauseum it seems) doesn't bring us forward: marking time doesn't accomplish anything. 

Al


----------



## armywoman (17 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> However if they land at Dieppe and are sold into the sex trade for german soldiers or Japanese at hong Kong are you ready for that?



Firstly, I can not speak for all GMT, or BMQs'.  That was, however one of the things that was brought up on my course.  We were warned that could happen and I am willing to risk that.  There was one female that had not thought of that (then again she was a band member and did not realize that she was going to have to do any fighting period, same with her male counterpart from the same unit) but there were just as many guys that were discusted by it, then the females.

Secondly I knew what I was getting into, if I want to run that risk, that is my decision..no one elses.   If it should happen however, they better have their fun and make sure they hold me down and don't take their attention away from me for a second, because if I am given the opportunity to fight back.  I will cause so much pain and injury to my attackers that Loreena Bobbit would be sickened, and they won't be able to sew anything back on when I am finished.  :threat:

There is no getting ready for it.  The same with females in coffins. That argument is so old and unimaginative.   No one wants to see males or females coming back in coffins.  Just because the general public are not ready to deal with females dying in combat does not mean that we should be kept from doing a job we want to do.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Nov 2005)

I remember a female master corporal from the reserves physically pushing me along in order to complete the British forced march we were doing. (I'll mention I had a 2 cracked ribs from a British+1 Canadian vs Turkish fight the night before).

She even gave me a chocolate bar for a "good boy" reward when our platoon completed it and beat the British TA in a bad way.
Good soldier and an even better person whom unfortunately has been ridiculed way too much.

Don't have a problem with female soldiers in general.  There are a lot of female recruits who make it through who shouldn't.  The very same can be said for male recruits.  The fault here lies on our recruiting standards and the whole "Everybody passes" mentality.

As far as 17 and 20 year old guys rhyming off stats about females serving in ww2 and their performace- ya sure.
Maybe YOU should get some "trigger time" before judging anyone who has fought in a war.

Weak women are int he same boat as weak guys. Just seems like guys are quicker to point out weakness in females.

I really agree with the comment about training and conditioning a few pages back.

Modern armies have came a long way in terms of training to kill, as demonstrated by the whole 50% (?) firing rate among infantry in ww2 to 98% in Vietnam.
Where as in the past gender may have played a huge role in performance, now i bet it's a lot more about the actual training and conditioning.

I can't believe people still argue the whole 'but a woman might get raped' line.  Our enemies are cutting the heads off prisoners, blowing up crowds of women and children and mutilating bodies.  There's a hell of a lot more to worry about out there than guys becoming OH so distraught over a female soldier being sexually assaulted. Well in my opinion anyways.

What a dead horse.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> As I am in a more jovial mood today than I normally am (PD day here at CTC for Sr NCO's), I will take your good natured jibe at my annoyance at the Year of The Vet commercial female soldier wearing earrings, even though it has nothing to do with my fashion sense ("Those earring just DO NOT match her uniform") but more with my keen eye (sometimes) for detail and (perceived) transgressions in dress regulations (my assumption that the peacekeeper was currently still serving).
> 
> That, and the fact that you didn't give us our daily dose of history, such as that the earrings that Boudicca wore had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to carry a sword or shield....... or that Joan of Arc's do-rag and/or tattoo were in compliance with the force commanders policy on acceptable PT gear....
> 
> ...



Spoken like someone who's never read one!  Bravo!

And if you can get past reading your own posts in wonder, you'll see that I commented on the earrings also with disapproval.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Nov 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Modern armies have came a long way in terms of training to kill, as demonstrated by the whole 50% (?) firing rate among infantry in ww2 to 98% in Vietnam.



Much more research needs to be done on this.   Marshall made up the whole thing (his figure was 25% in Men Against Fire) basically.   But Galloway seems to concur that rifles were not much use - whether or not anyone was firing them.   Berton intimates the same about WW I though I think Morton is a better source for this than Berton.

There is firing, and firing effectively.   I don't think any one solid reliable source exists, but there are enough differing opinions out there to conflict with the figures you give, both as being too high, and too low!   but what the hell good are books for anyway - you can't read and mark time simultaneously, or somefink like that.. ???


----------



## army girl/army wife (17 Nov 2005)

I'm new here so don't bite my head off. But this topic has bugged me since my GMT( so yes I have been in for a while). When I first joined the reserves as Artillery my grandfather just about killed me, he was of the opinion that females should not be in combat arms. Guess what I proved him wrong and alot of females have proved that they can hack it and do the job. Unfortunately there is some females who should not be in the combat arms, but they slip through the cracks. The funny thing about that though is, the other females that are in already don't tend to take kindly to the whiners and complainers. They tend to quit after the first 2 to 3 years. I have never got anyone to carry my rucksack or dig my trench. I, and many   other females pass our BFT every year, while I see some males drop out, because there feet hurt or their knee. Some of the best C7 shooters I know are female. The thing is there are good and bad soldiers, male or female. The way I look at it I can give birth and put up with that pain which is the worst pain you can imagine, so I figure I can put up with just about anything.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Nov 2005)

army girl/army wife said:
			
		

> I'm new here so don't bite my head off. But this topic has bugged me since my GMT( so yes I have been in for a while). When I first joined the reserves as Artillery my grandfather just about killed me, he was of the opinion that females should not be in combat arms. Guess what I proved him wrong and alot of females have proved that they can hack it and do the job. Unfortunately there is some females who should not be in the combat arms, but they slip through the cracks. The funny thing about that though is, the other females that are in already don't tend to take kindly to the whiners and complainers. They tend to quit after the first 2 to 3 years. I have never got anyone to carry my rucksack or dig my trench. I, and many   other females pass our BFT every year, while I see some males drop out, because there feet hurt or their knee. Some of the best C7 shooters I know are female. The thing is there are good and bad soldiers, male or female. The way I look at it I can give birth and put up with that pain which is the worst pain you can imagine, so I figure I can put up with just about anything.



I don't think the question is one of whether or not there are females out there that can do the job. I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim an absence of capable females. Most of the arguments against women in the combat arms seem based more in the social/institutional effects it is _theorized_ to _possibly_ produce. 

I believe Infanteer covered such arguments quite well in another thread on the same topic, to the end of demonstrating that they're largely erroneous or lacking evidence.


----------



## paracowboy (17 Nov 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I remember a female master corporal from the reserves physically pushing me along in order to complete the British forced march we were doing.


I've seen the same thing. My RSM (who is harder than woodpecker lips) commented to the UMS NCO about his li'l tiny slip of a girl medic (Pte-type, cuter'n a button) humping as much weight through the mountains of the USMC Mountain School as any male, including some Old Dogs from the Old Days, and when the males were dropping like flies, she "Picked them, treated them, and helped them on their way. That's a good soldier, you got there MCpl D******".



> She even gave me a chocolate bar for a "good boy" reward


 and you needed a fat pill? YOU?



> I can't believe people still argue the whole 'but a woman might get raped' line. Our enemies are cutting the heads off prisoners, blowing up crowds of women and children and mutilating bodies. There's a hell of a lot more to worry about out there than guys becoming OH so distraught over a female soldier being sexually assaulted.


 A convenient fact that these particular men neglect is the number of males that have been raped over the centuries, and how much more traumatic is for them. Africa in particular, with the Mau Mau, and Simbas in the middle of the last century come to mind. As well, with the prevalency of homosexuality amongst our enemies, and the traditional outlook on removing an enemy's masculinity by raping him...



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Much more research needs to be done on this. Marshall made up the whole thing (his figure was 25% in Men Against Fire) basically. But Galloway seems to concur that rifles were not much use - whether or not anyone was firing them. Berton intimates the same about WW I though I think Morton is a better source for this than Berton.


Have you read Grossman's works? He refers to Marshall's findings and explains his agreeing with them, in a general sort of way. Made sense to me when I read it.


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Spoken like someone who's never read one!   Bravo!
> 
> And if you can get past reading your own posts in wonder, you'll see that I commented on the earrings also with disapproval.



I've read a few books in my day (some even were sans pictures).  But the MAJORITY of the books I read have been printed in the last few years, with an eye to the future, not to the past. The good old days weren't always so good.... Reading about the 524 set isn't going to help you understand the TCCCS.

My point (besides being on the top of my head) is that people rely on what has happened in the past more than focussing on what is happening and what will happen. The CF has tried to force everything into a template of what we have always done. 'SALY' was a mantra in Germany, apparently. 'Same As Last Year'. That served to drive our Forces square into the predicament that we are in. People kept waiting for the dastardly Russians to sneak thru the Fulda Gap, well after the Bear was put out to pasture. People were shocked. SHOCKED!!!! that "we" (N Americans) were attacked on our own soil. What history book was that in??? 

People like history because they are comfortable with it, because it has already happened. You can even be a revisionist historian if you want. People need to move away from their comfort zone (fighting the Cold War, for example) and fight the war against the "snakes". People like pulling out facts (or manipulated facts, that revisionist historians twist and shine up to their own liking) to suit their own needs. 

I will be honest, and say that I never imagined a day that women would be in the Combat Arms. I didn't like it then when I was a young soldier, and I am only now coming to terms with it on a few different levels. My wife is a veteran of combat operations (Op Apollo 2002 - Op Cherokee Sky), and I am not. How weird is that?? Granted I did basically the same things, but have never been granted the illustrious "combat operation" 'qualification' (heliborne operations in Bosnia and Op Grizzly). But no matter: my wife did it. Did any of the naysayers?? If so, well done. But wrap your head around the fact that women have done it, and will continue to do it. As pointed out by a lot of guys who have "been there and done that", there have been women there. And men who could not cut it. The women who made it made it because they did the training alongside men. I also have examples of women who couldn't cut it (training, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan), and they don't deserve to be in the combat arms, or CSS trades for that matter. Either you should be there, or you shouldn't. Make the standards realistic (fuq fairness.... make them realistic), and we will weed out the people who were allowed in by social scientists: men, women, whites, asians, tall people, short people, medium people, young people, old people who can't cut it,alike. Give people an honest chance, but if they can't cut it, don't keep pushing them along just because they made it through the front door.

The Brits have a saying now about moving into the future in regards to e-learning, distance/distributed learning: 'Get on with it.' I couldn't agree more.....

Al


----------



## Gunnar (17 Nov 2005)

> Make the standards realistic (fuq fairness.... make them realistic), and we will weed out the people who were allowed in by social scientists: men, women, whites, asians, tall people, short people, medium people, young people, old people who can't cut it,alike. Give people an honest chance, but if they can't cut it, don't keep pushing them along just because they made it through the front door.



Bravo


----------



## Hollywog (17 Nov 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Just curious now, when you witnessed these males carrying females kit and weapons did YOU as a SNCO sort it out or did you let it slide.


That's essentially the problem isn't it that things might slide. Guilty as charged I suppose, but if you get a date is it ok? 

Guys don't still think that do they?  Naaaah,

Seems all the women people on this thread know in the forces are tougher than the men who would have thunk it? not me.



			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Just another point, I have served with female infantry soldiers. Some were good to go and others were a bag of hammers. In fact, the first female to pass the PPCLI Battleschool in 1989 ended up in my section as a C9 gunner and completely out-performed the males from her course when we were in Fort Lewis on exercise. To paint all females as inadequate would be the same as saying all reservists are useless.




Hardly the same, there's lots of evidence re reserves to refute that reservists are useless.  Reserves didn't do that bad at Normandy while the reg force was in Italy and the unit with the most battle honours in WWII was a reserve one the Hastings and Prince Edward Regt if memory serves.  So to say Reservists are useless I can easily refute by looking at Canadas more recent battles.  

As for women I get; people who lost their only battle 2000 years ago but scared the romans up to the point where they took 400 dead to wipe them out, Amazons from mythology, and Joan of Arc as some kind of testimonial evidence and I have "a mighty high perch of higher morality"?  Plus even suggesting sending them on their own is apparently misogyny and sexist.

I see it different though.  If it hasn't worked since Emperor Nero just maybe there's a reason. Ie It does not work or they can prove themselves.

I'm glad you say they do just as well, maybe things have improved since I was in, but I'm sure the Israelis had lots of evidence like that before it was tried in real combat and discarded when it failed.  They must be doing something right they get their picture on our currency sans firearm.

Question
Again I ask and this is the crux of the matter that none of the people supporting it seem to want to answer, what are we doing so right that the Israelies could have done before they abandoned the whole idea?  Maybe they should see how it improves our combat readiness and they will put women back there in their infantry. Lord knows if anyone needs the manpower its them not us.

Still awaiting an answer,




			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> You would seem to believe that they shouldn't have been given the opportunity to do their job.


AAAAHHH, I said they should be in units of their own to prove themselves in most every post!

Hardly the same thing as saying "they can't do the job! Don't give them the chance!"

That way armywoman wouldn't have people like me second guessing her role.

Why are people in favour of them integrating so opposed to them being in a unit of their own? 


I've said to more than a few people over the years that they should call up Militia Units to go over seas, because I'm confident in their ability to do well in a unit by themselves.  If your Unit could fight in WWII re Goodwood or Totalize how bad can Yugoslavia be.  Sure they might need more lead up time but the rotation cycles from what I've seen are crazy for guys in the regular force and retention would be helped if you got an extra year at home with your family.

Plus there would be lots of money for a PC womans regiment as long as the Libs are in.




			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I've also seen what lazy, MIR commando, POS male soldiers cannot do.


hmmmm,

There is a mom at my daughters school who just came back lets just say MIR commando too.

However lower standards and expectations can't help.

Just can't do those firing squads like they did in WWI to motivate the troops.




			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> In closing, I will agree with the fact that I don't think Canadians are ready to see ANY flag draped coffins coming home in any numbers let alone those containing females.


So we can agree on this.  and the Japanese using them as "Comfort women" like they did Koreans too I would think.


----------



## 2 Cdo (17 Nov 2005)

Hollywog, you're argument about reservists is hollow. By citing WWII units as reservists is by all measures wrong. By the time these _RESERVE_ went into battle they had been training in England for YEARS!

If you could step into the present for a few moments there are plenty of incidents involving reservists where one could be inclined to paint all reservists with that ever handy broad brush. (My apologies to those reservists who are good soldiers, you know who you are)

As for Canada's most recent battles, can you name any? I'll give you a hint, they are more recent than WWII.

As for your idea of segregating, maybe we should form all native units, or maybe all black units! :
Actually it's probably a good thing you are no longer serving because with your attitude you couldn't cut it in todays army. Sorry there pal but it's time to join the rest of the country in the 21st century, WWII is history as is my time wasted trying to educate those who wish to remain ignorant. :threat:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2005)

2CDO, 
normally you and I get along like oil and water, but well said my friend..... 

Isn't it funny how most dissenters are "used to be's" and "never wases"?


----------



## 2 Cdo (17 Nov 2005)

Bruce you'd be surprised by how much I agree with your posts! ;D
That being said, don't think I'm blowing sunshine up your arse! ;D When you write something I disagree with (and you know you will) I'll be there to correct your obviously misguided views! ;D
Have a nice day!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Nov 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Hollywog, you're argument about reservists is hollow. By citing WWII units as reservists is by all measures wrong. By the time these _RESERVE_ went into battle they had been training in England for YEARS!



Exactly, I spelled that out in detail a few pages back.   This is going in circles now and Hollywog is not bothering to listen.


----------



## paracowboy (17 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> As for women I get; people who lost their only battle 2000 years ago but scared the romans up to the point where they took 400 dead to wipe them out, Amazons from mythology, and Joan of Arc as some kind of testimonial evidence and I have "a mighty high perch of higher morality"?   Plus even suggesting sending them on their own is apparently misogyny and sexist.
> 
> I see it different though.   If it hasn't worked since Emperor Nero just maybe there's a reason. Ie It does not work or they can prove themselves.
> 
> ...


The Israelis folded their femail-only battalions because they didn't work. They, and several other armies, have found that an integrated unit, with approximately 30% female, 70% male works best.

As for recent examples of women in combat: this has been addressed several times, with examples drawn from Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and the LEO agencies of our own continent.




> Why are people in favour of them integrating so opposed to them being in a unit of their own?


 because we've found that it works? 

I find it ironic (and somewhat pathetic) that men who have never served on an Operational Deployment, to a scary place, with female soldiers, are telling men who have, what works. We know. We were there. We've seen what women can do when properly trained. Sounds a lot like insecurity to me. "If women can do it, then I'm not as special".

The silliest part is that these men are questioning men with several years' experience. At 35, and with only 3 tours, I am the youngest and least experienced of the proponents of women in the CF, and yet, you question them. For Chris'sakes, 2 Cdo is a vet of Apollo, with experience in the CAR, (not exactly a bastion of feminism). If he's fer it, it's prob'ly a good thing. Maybe because it is simple common sense?

Bottom line: I have seen women out-perform men, and I have seen women who should not have been trusted with a firearm.
I have seen men out-perform men, and I have seen men who should not have been trusted with a firearm. Sounds a lot like equality to me.


----------



## Jed (17 Nov 2005)

In a previous post the question was raised about segragated training in the CF between women and men.  If I recall correctly I know of 2 women who took ROUTP (RESO) in all women courses in Shilo in 19784. I don't know how many years it ran that way, but I'm sure it did not last very long.


----------



## KevinB (17 Nov 2005)

Hollywog -- You seems to be intentional ignoring or sidestepping the comments people are showing you.

 I know of both women and men that are not fit to be in the CF for a number of reasons, but still are.  That is not a gender issue,  as well there are females and males performing admirably, which is also not a gender issue.

Hence it is a training and standards issue - not a gender issue at all.


----------



## armyvern (17 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I'm thinking......best I not comment at this point...... :rage:....MCPL...... ;D


3rd Horseman I'm giving you a +1 for this post. It is the best thing you've had to say since you've started visiting this forum...I'm talking the "best I not comment at this point" part. 

Good job!! Keep it up!! No eggagerations...just stick to the nice clean facts of the matter...ahhh how nice it is


----------



## Gunner (17 Nov 2005)

> No eggagerations...just stick to the nice clean facts of the matter...ahhh how nice it is



+1 for you as well!


----------



## Strike (17 Nov 2005)

When I was in Pang for Ex Narwhal there was a young female Inf Res who was in with 2 RCR for the Ex.  Some guy was complaining about all the crap he had to carry.  Well, she looked him up and down and said, "What are you complaining about?  You have 60 pounds and almost a foot on me and I'm carrying just as much as you are."  Then there were a few expletives in which she told him to shut the ^*@# up.


----------



## armyvern (17 Nov 2005)

Strike said:
			
		

> When I was in Pang for Ex Narwhal there was a young female Inf Res who was in with 2 RCR for the Ex.   Some guy was complaining about all the crap he had to carry.   Well, she looked him up and down and said, "What are you complaining about?   You have 60 pounds and almost a foot on me and I'm carrying just as much as you are."   Then there were a few expletives in which she told him to shut the ^*@# up.



Strike,

Are you sure she wasn't the Reg F female they've had for about a year now? She's a phenomenally girl for her size and I see her out the back door of Clothing all the time. I counted off 14 chin-ups last time I saw her doing her PT. Good for her. I'm a scrapper and I don't think I'd like to piss her off!!


----------



## armyvern (17 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> I mean if they are just as good and not riding coattails it would let them prove themselves beyond a doubt.
> It was such a scam they would always be alongside men.   So I've seen women let guys carry backpacks, then guys get to dig trenches.
> Never saw a woman carry a guys backpack, etc.
> I mean if they cry in peace time when emotionally distraught what would your mom be like in war?   If I was 5 I think I could have disarmed mine if she had a bayonet.



Get out!!

Hmmmm

EXCUSE ME!! Lifeguard of the genepool...I think you missed this one!!


----------



## KevinB (17 Nov 2005)

Believe me IF I could clorox him - I would have...


----------



## 3rd Horseman (18 Nov 2005)

Armyvern,

  Thankyou, I will keep my pie hole shut and just watch those positive promote tags build...oh joy oh bliss....It will counter that overactive paracowboy neg tag ever 5 hours.

Oh and I like the picture of the Marine body builder, she must have been a real good addition to the motor pool since she was a maint person...I wonder how much combat the motor pool got in California.


----------



## Slim (18 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> And did joan of arc ever have to use a bayonet?



I think they were still using swords so heavy that it took two hands to use one back when she was around. :

Sarcasm off


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Nov 2005)

Quote,
_Oh and I like the picture of the Marine body builder, she must have been a real good addition to the motor pool since she was a maint person...I wonder how much combat the motor pool got in California._

On behalf of my sister [ maint person] who did the same tours you did [only more]...frig off.
Is anyone in this world half as good as you are?   Jumpin' jesus....

EDIT: and that wasn't "frig".


----------



## Aislinn (18 Nov 2005)

As for women in the IDF, this is what Wikipedia had to say: "In a controversial move, the IDF abolished its "Womens Corps" command in 2004, with a view that it has become an anachronism and a stumbling block towards integration of women in the army as regular soldiers with no special status." To see the entire page go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces
Just adding more facts to the argument...

Cheers


----------



## 3rd Horseman (18 Nov 2005)

Bruce,

   Let me clarify for the benefit of all maint pers, the post had nil to do with the job she did just the reason it was trotted out. 

 bruce said *On behalf of my sister [ maint person] who did the same tours you did [only more]...frig off.*

Actually all the soldiers that served under my command were better than me, thats why I did so well. Hats off to them.. 

 Bruce said *Is anyone in this world half as good as you are?  Jumpin' jesus....*


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Nov 2005)

10-4


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2005)

Time out.


----------

