# Women at War



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

Feb 26, 11:14 PM EST

Female Soldiers Face More Danger in Iraq 

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer



  
WASHINGTON (AP) -- When a roadside bomb in Iraq exploded on Feb. 9, Army Sgt. Jessica M. Housby became the 21st female soldier killed in action since the war began nearly two years ago.

That may seem a small number, given that hostile deaths among U.S. troops recently surpassed 1,000 and is getting closer to 1,500 when fatal accidents and other nonbattle deaths are included.

But by historical measure it is high, and reflects the fundamentally different nature of this war, where even a truck driver such as Housby is a target.

No one is suggesting that women be kept off the modern-day battlefield. But some question whether an Army that is being reconfigured to respond swiftly and more effectively to conflicts such as the one in Iraq is placing some female soldiers in what amounts to the front lines of fighting.

   
As in past wars, women are barred from units assigned to direct ground combat. That keeps women out of the infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers and Special Forces. But it does not keep them out of danger.

The nature of combat itself has changed a great deal in Iraq since the toppling of Baghdad in April 2003. Within weeks a violent insurgency took hold. It remains a deadly force.

In Iraq, there is no front line in the traditional sense of armies fighting armies. The front lines are everywhere - at a site where insurgents lay an ambush, plant a roadside bomb, lob a mortar or detonate an improvised car bomb.

Thus it is not just infantrymen, trained to kill in close combat, who are dying in Iraq, although they are taking the heaviest losses. Soldiers whose roles are categorized as "support," where most of the women in the U.S. military are found, sometimes find themselves in the insurgents' line of fire.

Housby, 23, from Rock Island, Ill., had been in Iraq since October as a member of the Illinois Army National Guard's 1644th Transportation Company. Two other female soldiers of the Illinois Guard have been killed in Iraq - one by mortar fire, the other by a roadside bomb.

In all, 31 female soldiers have died in the Iraq war, including 10 whose deaths were declared nonhostile, according to the Pentagon.

The most recent death was Spc. Katrina L. Johnson Bell, 32, of Orangeburg, S.C., who died in a vehicle accident in Baqubah on Feb. 16.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, five women were killed in action and 10 were nonhostile casualties. In the Vietnam War, women's roles were restricted to administrative, medical and communications work that was mostly performed in more secure rear areas. During that war, only one woman was killed in ground combat. Five others died in military plane and helicopter crashes; two died of medical problems.

Shortly after the Gulf War, the Pentagon opened more military jobs to women, including piloting attack and scout helicopters. The military also spelled out the kinds of assignments that would remain off limits - any job requiring a female soldier to "physically collocate and remain with" ground combat units that are closed to women.

The distinction then was clear. Now, the Army is redesigning its main fighting forces to make them "modular," or interchangeable.

Some in Congress are asking whether the reconfigured combat brigades have placed women in positions that violate either the letter or the spirit of the policies meant to keep women out of direct combat.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said recently that his committee is investigating the matter. David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said his office is "working closely with the Army staff" to review the matter.

Army leaders say they see no reason to doubt that the policy against assigning sex-integrated support companies to ground combat battalions is the correct one.

In letters to the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees in mid-January, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said his staff had reviewed compliance with the relevant laws and policies on women in combat in light of the new configuration of Army brigades.

"My assessment is that in our new brigade combat teams no women will be assigned to a unit below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat," Harvey wrote. "Neither will women be routinely collocated with units assigned a direct combat mission." Therefore there is no policy conflict, he said.

Not everyone agrees.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says the Army is misleading Congress by denying that women in support companies are being placed at the front lines of combat. She argues that the presence of female soldiers beside male ground combat troops undermines morale, weakens cohesion and could lead to troublesome "romantic entanglements."

"You set a precedent that would affect all of the combat units, including Special Forces and the Marine Corps. These are radical changes," said Donnelly, a leading opponent of expanding the role of women in the military.

A senior Army spokesman, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, denied that the Army has altered its policy on women in combat. He stressed that female soldiers are making major contributions in Iraq.

"We're not interested in glossing over the reality that women are exposed to the hazards of combat," he said.

---


----------



## Strike (27 Feb 2005)

> Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says the Army is misleading Congress by denying that women in support companies are being placed at the front lines of combat. She argues that the presence of female soldiers beside male ground combat troops undermines morale, weakens cohesion and could lead to troublesome "romantic entanglements."



Unfortunately, when you treat poeple like children they are likely to act as such.  Is this not the same argument the U.S uses when refering to allowing homosexuals in the military?

I think what gets me on all of this is that they are inadvertently telling the men that the women are more important and the men more expendable by placing the men in combat situations.  As honourable as this may seem on the surface (protecting women I mean) it is degrading to both sexes.

It's obvious that, with Canada's stance on women in front line roles, that we indeed have a different culture.  That and poutine of course.


----------



## JasonH (27 Feb 2005)

They just need to look to the north and see how the Canadians serving in places such as afghanistan match up to the male counterparts.

It's like religion, when a new age dawns you have people accepting it (like homosexuality) and you have people sitting in the bandstands shouting it's wrong.

Might aswell suck it up and get on with life because sooner or later it'll come to fruition.  They joined for a reason and they knew you could die, so quit whining.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Feb 2005)

If women aren't allowed to fight directly then why do they train women Marines.  Do these women marines only do non-combat arms duty which takes away of the uniqueness of the Marine Corp (if thats the case).


----------



## Infanteer (27 Feb 2005)

Interestingly enough, all Female Marine recruits are segregated and trained by Female DI's from the Males for Basic Training at Parris Island.   From what I can tell, they prefer the system that way because it allows the women to focus on training to become a Marine without having to worry about the boys who will almost always outnumber them and leave them behind because of their physiological differences.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Feb 2005)

but are they allowed to go to the front line and do battle


----------



## FastEddy (27 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, all Female Marine recruits are segregated and trained by Female DI's from the Males for Basic Training at Parris Island.   From what I can tell, they prefer the system that way because it allows the women to focus on training to become a Marine without having to worry about the boys who will almost always outnumber them and leave them behind because of their physiological differences.




Never knew that!, Questions, didn't Russia use Females in WWII Combat Zones and were just as efficient and deadly as their Male counterparts ?.

Haven't Women been fighting alongside their Men through out the ages?.

If a person (female) volunteers to fight and die for her Country, whats the problem with where or how she does it?.

Is a Soldier is a Soldier, is a Soldier with a weapon pointed at the Enemy. Believe me a Woman can kill just as quickly and without thought or compassion as any male, so why the distinction or concern now?.

Is this some product of the Victorian Age?.

You being a Infantryman, would you have any reasons or concerns about going to the front with several Women in your Platoon?._


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> but are they allowed to go to the front line and do battle


What "front lines"?   During Desert Storm 1, I saw US MP's in Hummers manning MGs.   They were women.   My only concern about someone backing me up is that they can hit their target.


----------



## Strike (27 Feb 2005)

> What "front lines"?



Of course, that's the whole point of the article.  It's very hard to distinguish what this line is in today's modern warfare.  If the U.S. Government is hoping to stand by their decision to keep women out of combat situations and away from the front lines they will have to remove them from jobs they have been holding for years.  This will just open a whole new can of worms.



> Interestingly enough, all Female Marine recruits are segregated and trained by Female DI's from the Males for Basic Training at Parris Island.  From what I can tell, they prefer the system that way because it allows the women to focus on training to become a Marine without having to worry about the boys who will almost always outnumber them and leave them behind because of their physiological differences.



I've heard of the success in this training method and remember reading an article where females and males were segregated for "Power" training in the Air Cadets with remarkable results.  The only flaw is that neither sex has been training together (in the case of the USMC) but are expected to work together without any depreciation of output.  Since they were not together during basic training they have not been given the opportunity to learn how to work with each other or gauge the reactions of the opposite sex in stressful work situations.  Now they are expected to deal with them in an operational (albeit supposedly non-combat) situation.  This can lead to many problems and several misunderstandings.


----------



## FastEddy (27 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> What "front lines"?   During Desert Storm 1, I saw US MP's in Hummers manning MGs.   They were women.   My only concern about someone backing me up is that they can hit their target.


[/color

If you had said a rifle   your point could be considered, but a weapon basically designed for rapid supressing and strafing fire on possibly a moving platform.

As for "What front lines", maybe the center and immediate area of armed engagement with hostile forces whilst under fire from said forces.

Your first reference to the Female M.P.s is positive and complimentary however you then take it all back by
saying you "hope they can hit their target".

These Women who have volunteered to fight and die for their Country, should be allowed to do so, where ever and when ever.

If they are going to be killed, I would imagine they'd rather die with a weapon in their hands defending them selves than a typewriter by a suicide bombmer.


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

You mistook my reference.   All I care about _anyone_ who supports me is that they can hit their target.   Please do not infer that I am not supportive of women in combat.     

Personally, I think anyone would rather have the means to defend themselves, not just women.


----------



## FastEddy (27 Feb 2005)

Strike said:
			
		

> Of course, that's the whole point of the article.   It's very hard to distinguish what this line is in today's modern warfare.   If the U.S. Government is hoping to stand by their decision to keep women out of combat situations and away from the front lines they will have to remove them from jobs they have been holding for years.   This will just open a whole new can of worms.
> 
> I've heard of the success in this training method and remember reading an article where females and males were segregated for "Power" training in the Air Cadets with remarkable results.   The only flaw is that neither sex has been training together (in the case of the USMC) but are expected to work together without any depreciation of output.   Since they were not together during basic training they have not been given the opportunity to learn how to work with each other or gauge the reactions of the opposite sex in stressful work situations.   Now they are expected to deal with them in an operational (albeit supposedly non-combat) situation.   This can lead to many problems and several misunderstandings.




Boy are you out in left field,   Basic MarineTraining is,Shit,Yelling,More Mud,More Yelling,Hard work and all the Stress you can handle for both Male and Female Recruits. And that goes right on down the line which at the end produces a Marine, Male or Female.

When a Marine looks at another Marine (male or female) all they see is another Marine who's been there, done that. And a bond and comradship unsurpassed.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2005)

In this scenario, Iraq (the whole country) is the Front Lines.  The "Rear" is in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Sierra Del where ever, Where ever the Americans are staging and supplying from.  So in fact the US Army IS committing females to the Front Lines.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (27 Feb 2005)

When I served, the women were outnumbered by the men in field postions, but they were not uncommon. The women who wanted and could meet the same standards as the men certainly performed as well.  I think the Americans are buying the worst of both worlds, if they permit women to serve, but not fight, they guarantee that the women who do encounter insurgents will be a)not embedded in combat formations, and b)not trained/prepared for a firefight.  A woman trained to fight, serving seamlessly with her fellow soldiers can be expected to perform better in unexpected combat situations, because she will react like a soldier, not a female-non-combatant.  I have served with many women who would have no problem sending insurgents to Allah if ambushed, with the same discipline and elan as any of their male counterparts.  Perhaps if insurgents met more women like this, they would become less of a target.


----------



## ps387 (27 Feb 2005)

Even the title of this article irritates me "Female Soldiers Face More Danger in Iraq". More danger than their male counterparts? Maybe. But only because they likely lack the skill and confidence necessary to defend themselves should they come under attack because they have not received appropriate training.

Or is it more danger than than they would face at the county bake-off? Because I get the feeling that the powers that be, or at least the reporter conveying their stance, would like to see women tethered to their mix-masters and female soldiers shackled to their desks (or dentists chairs or whatever they deem appropriate and to be 'out of harm's way'). 

Obviously they are facing danger! They are soldiers in a war zone. 

And this statement is simply ignorant...



> ...the presence of female soldiers beside male ground combat troops undermines morale, weakens cohesion and could lead to troublesome "romantic entanglements."



Nevermind women for a minute....what does her statement say of the men of the US forces? That they are all pig-headed, sex-crazed, jackasses? Lets give everyone a little credit here.

IMHO, as long as a person is mentally and physically able to do their job, it doesn't matter what their gender is. Most women (and men) join the military knowing what they are getting into. And most just want the opportunity to do their jobs and make a difference.


----------



## mo-litia (27 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> As in past wars, women are barred from units assigned to direct ground combat. That keeps women out of the infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers and Special Forces. But it does not keep them out of danger.



This is what happens when the brass of a military refuse to let poltically correct idiocy get in the way of combat effectiveness.  There are several things about Americans that I am not the biggest fan of; but the way they run their military is indisputably correct in this regard!



			
				ps said:
			
		

> IMHO, as long as a person is mentally and physically able to do their job, it doesn't matter what their gender is.



PLEASE.  While great advances have been made in the field of gender equality-which is good-a women has no place being on a battlefield anymore than a man has working in a daycare.   All PC dogma aside, no one can argue that there are basic physiological and psychological differences between the genders that place limitations upon roles that they are naturally suited to do.

There are hunters and there are nurturers.  One generation of feminism can never completely undo the results of eons of evolution.  Women truck drivers, male nurses-fine!  Women infantrymen . . . hell, the title itself is a study in contradictions!

To silence those of you who would label me a sexist; consider this. There is a big difference between sexism and realism; I am a realist.


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

I have fought beside women in combat situations for the last 23 years.  They work as well as men.  By the way, my nephew who spent 5 years in the Royal Marines owns and operates a daycare in Belfast that has won awards for the last two years.  Ask I guess under your rules he shouldn't be doing that.  I am glad that you are not Prime Minister.

Please ask anyone who has served with women in combat zones how they feel.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Feb 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> To silence those of you who would label me a sexist; consider this. There is a big difference between sexism and realism; I am a realist.



Are you sure you want to stick to your guns now that a combat-proven Officer of the Royal Marines has told you that you're talking out of your hat?


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Feb 2005)

On the Russian Front during WW2, the Russians utilised full battalions of women armed with PPSH41 SMGs to great effect against the Germans. I reckon when its the fate of your homeland at stake, things change.

During frontal attacks outside of SMG range the Germans picked them off with their 7.92mm Kar98K's and MG's, but as the women came closer, with the Germans now in range of the 7.62 x25mm cartridge, the overwelming SMG firepower of a battalion of women was a proven sucess.

So never sell trained women soldiers short. Its our culture which prevents them for being on the pointy end.

Here in Australia, women are NOT allowed in combat arms trades, although I have seen RACT females driving gun tractors etc, so there are loopholes for them to be 'in the shyte' but from a different angle.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## ps387 (27 Feb 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> PLEASE.   While great advances have been made in the field of gender equality-which is good-a women has no place being on a battlefield anymore than a man has working in a daycare.    All PC dogma aside, no one can argue that there are basic physiological and psychological differences between the genders that place limitations upon roles that they are naturally suited to do.
> 
> There are hunters and there are nurturers.   One generation of feminism can never completely undo the results of eons of evolution.   Women truck drivers, male nurses-fine!   Women infantrymen . . . heck, the title itself is a study in contradictions!
> 
> To silence those of you who would label me a sexist; consider this. There is a big difference between sexism and realism; I am a realist.



I completely agree that certain people are not suited to certain tasks. But being male does not endow you with the mental and emotional fortitude necessary for the battlefield anymore than being female makes you a caregiver. This is not an issue of political correctness...at least not in my mind. If a person can do the job...let them.


----------



## camochick (27 Feb 2005)

> There are hunters and there are nurturers.   One generation of feminism can never completely undo the results of eons of evolution.   Women truck drivers, male nurses-fine!   Women infantrymen . . . heck, the title itself is a study in contradictions!



Realism, you have a warped sense of reality. I guess because I was born without certain parts I am sapposed to be a nurturer. Heck, someone take my shoes, knock me up and throw me in a kitchen. Reality is that it's the best person for the job, woman, man, black white, who really cares. My problem with the whole woman in combat issue is that people seem to think that a woman's life is more valuable than a man. If a woman wants to be on the front lines, and can do the job, then let her do it. I even read something once that woman can withstand more pain so in torture situations we can hold out longer then men. The problem with your argument is that long ago, and sometimes still today people said/say those things about minorities and these have been proven wrong so why is it alright for you to stereo type all woman as being one thing or another. You sir, are not a realist, you're someone with very distorted sense of reality, bordering on sexism.


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Women infantrymen . . . hell, the title itself is a study in contradictions!



I have never met an "Infantryman", I have met Infanteers, Paratroops, and Marines.


----------



## mo-litia (27 Feb 2005)

It appears that I have stepped on some people's dicks . . . or other bits here.

I'd like to clarify myself.   In 7 years in the CF, I have seen scores of women join my regiment.   Almost without fail, they were gone (read QUIT) within a year.   Now, I will freely admit that I have known a couple of OK female infantry soldiers, but they were by far the exception rather than the rule.

Not only is the expense of training a gender who has an attrition rate that must be around 95 percent completely unjustified considering the CF's current fiscal situation, I contend that the CF is actually hurting itself when it comes to pursuing this politically correct idiocy.

The CF has a hard enough time attracting women recruits without the establishment luring them into a trade were it is proven most of their gender will fail.   Consider how many women infantry recruits quit the CF completely after failing as an infantryman.   As these women are generally the most keen out of the women recruits-I am not disputing their drive-would it not make sense to encourage them to join a trade were they stand a good chance of making a long term career happen?

The CF would be better served by utilizing reasonable limitations which would ensure that we retained as many recruits for as long a term as possible.


----------



## enfield (27 Feb 2005)

Ok, I don't think Mo-litia articulated the idea very well, and I have no idea why a man can't work at a daycare, but I do have reservations about women in combat arms;

Physical fitness - there are physical differences between men and women, and men are stronger. Given the extreme physical challenges of combat arms soldiers, most women cannot meet the accepted standards of combat arms troops. This has to do with upper body strength, endurance, and marching. 

Yes, there are women that can easily meet and exceed the physical standards (just like there are men who can never meet the requirements). However, how many of them wish to be in the military, and how many of them want to be in the combat arms? Probably very, very few - thats what the stats in the CF seem to show. Are we willing to completely change the social structure of the military system for a few individuals? I don't see the benefit - reform must be centered on maximizing effectiveness, and I fail to see how including women (however good they are) makes us better. Its worth noting that armies that expect to fight do not have women in the combat arms, and nations that do not expect to fight have brought women in. 

The oft-cited examples of women in Russian and Israeli forces were extremely temporary expedients of desperate situations, and were done away with as soon as possible because of the difficulties involved in having them. Israel, for example, is now extremely conservative with what jobs women can do. 

I have no doubt that women can be as, or more, aggressive, disciplined, etc., as any man. I respect their service, and have no reservations whatsoever about their courage or professionalism. I just question the physical ability of women to perform the combat arms job, and the effects of women in the social structure of the unit - in the end, what does the army gain by their presence? I see more harm than good.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Feb 2005)

Regarding the Paris Island segregation - isn't that Marine Recruit School ... 8 weeks long etc. When I went through Cornwallis 22 or so years ago, the females were separated from the males. I think the only difference in training was the females got more time on the range for some reason. Other than that, we all went through precisely the same pre-Charter experience. The women carried the same rifle, pack and radio along the same routes as the men. They did the same PT, to the same standards as far as I know. Only an idiot would come out of Cornwallis thinking women cannot fight alongside men. When I went to Gagetown after basic for BSS   [remember that little 2 week tri-service   experiment before BDF became the standard?] there were an equal number of women to men, and the RCR types put all of us through the same training- mind you there was no way they could fail anybody. My point is that ability should eclipse gender, and nothing needs to be done to engineer the outcome. Females are more than capable of assume almost all duties in warfare.


----------



## mo-litia (27 Feb 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I guess because I was born without certain parts I am sapposed to be a nurturer. Heck, someone take



Ma'am, you were not born WITHOUT certain parts, you were born with OTHER parts.   If you feel that strongly about gender equality, ruck up, join the infantry and prove me wrong!

Hundreds, if not thousands of women, have proven me correct in regards to retention in this trade.

Cheers.

Enfield: Thanks for being a voice of reason in this; you are correct in that more harm than good is done because of this PC nonsense.


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

We seem to be digressing here.   The idea that women have to be in the Combat Arms to be in Combat is actually funny in this day and age.   I think that if a person can make the grade for any trade, then they should have the choice regardless of gender or colour.   These same tired arguments that I hear in this thread have been oft repeated.   50 years ago these same arguments were made in the US Forces except the word Coloured was substituted for Woman.   

Personally I don't care who or what a person is who is covering my back as long as they are effective at the job.    

We seem to make a "big deal" out of a training class that has a 50% attrition rate when it is made up of women.   In the Marines our "Basic Training" has a loss rate of 45 - 65% per class.   Does that mean we should not accept men?   No, we look at it as that we are getting the very best.

Enfield, the majority of Sniper instructors in the IDF are women.  

Mo-Litia talk to Brin11


----------



## camochick (27 Feb 2005)

Maybe the reason so many women leave the combat trades is because they feel a lack of respect by their male counterparts. Perhaps it isnt always because to quote enfield "men are stronger than woman" and women can't do the job physically.  It's not easy to break into the boys club, women are still fighting the good fight to be respected in traditionally male oriented professions. My boss is a chef and co-owner of her own business, yet on almost a daily basis her male partner is given all the credit for the business and the food. Why is it so hard for people to see women in charge, or in battle or in any position outside of the home? Sexism is alive and well, this thread has more than proved it.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (28 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> You mistook my reference.   All I care about _anyone_ who supports me is that they can hit their target.   Please do not infer that I am not supportive of women in combat.
> 
> Personally, I think anyone would rather have the means to defend themselves, not just women.


     You hit the nail on the head.  Man or woman, straight, queer, or sheep-humping, all I want to know is if they will stand to when called, and shoot straight when needed.  Why the Americans have to say "She's a soldier, but not one that fights" I can't understand.  In the Canadian Army, there have been more than a few occasions (Schelt in Belgium comes to mind), when we were throwing the cooks, the clerks, and the Sgt Major's bloody band onto the line.  Every man(and woman) a soldier, and every one a shooter.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Feb 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> Maybe the reason so many women leave the combat trades is because they feel a lack of respect by their male counterparts.



If they are leaving maybe its because they can't cut it! Infantry is pretty much hard ass work with a great physical demand, plus at times, endurance beyond comprehension. What I am saying in the infantry role there cannot be any double standards PERIOD.

Things must be equal and women must pass the same tests as men to be an equal and effective fighting force. At no time should standards be altered or changed to enhance or encourage female enrolement. At the end of the day its not about being PC, as the lives of soldiers literally hang in the ballance. Anyone would cannot admit that is lying to themselves.

Should women pass, and make the grade, then all the power to them, but I fell very few do, and those that do make it may burn out faster than the blokes.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## mo-litia (28 Feb 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> ...What I am saying in the infantry role there cannot be any double standards PERIOD.
> 
> Things must be equal and women must pass the same tests as men to be an equal and effective fighting force. At no time should standards be altered or changed to enhance or encourage female enrolement. At the end of the day its not about being PC, as the lives of soldiers literally hang in the ballance. Anyone would cannot admit that is lying to themselves.



Well said, Wes!   

If the CF got rid of it's retarded double standard-which has the potential to risk the lives of every soldier serving next to someone who physically should not be there-I might very well look at this issue in a different light...

On the other hand, I must stand by my position that the CF has no place in allowing a demographic group into a trade where most members of that group will fail to make the grade; even at today's differing standards for each gender.

Cheers.


----------



## FastEddy (28 Feb 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Ma'am, you were not born WITHOUT certain parts, you were born with OTHER parts.   If you feel that strongly about gender equality, ruck up, join the infantry and prove me wrong!
> 
> Hundreds, if not thousands of women, have proven me correct in regards to retention in this trade.
> 
> ...




With regard to Female retention in this trade, has the thought ever occurred to you the possible reasons besides Gender.
1. Discovery that this is not what they thought it was (this is also applicable to Male candidates)

2. After Basic Training, that certain candidates are more suited to other trades (this is also applicable to
      Male candidates).

3. During Basic Training candidates are found to be lacking in psychical Attributes (this is also applicable to
      Male candidates).

4. And during Basic Training,   Instructors and NCO's. with attitudes like yours & Enfield who's sole purpose is
      to completely demoralize these Female recruits to the point of giving up (whats the use of trying   
      anymore). Your not Training them, your Destroying them. (and this is not applicable to Male candidates).

5. So I see no difference in the weeding out process between Male or Female.

May I at this point, stress that the above is not a reflection or encompass the countless numbers of Fine Instructors and NCO's of any Armed Force.

I would say off hand that the ratio of Recruitment of Male vs Females may have a great deal to do with the   rate of retention .

Unfortunately, this Gender harassment and discrimination does exist in all walks of life, to some degree or other.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Feb 2005)

I'm kinda late with this commentary, but I just had to point out the similarity....



			
				mo-litia said:
			
		

> PLEASE.   While great advances have been made in the field of gender equality-which is good-a women has no place being on a battlefield anymore than a man has working in a daycare.    All PC dogma aside, no one can argue that there are basic physiological and psychological differences between the genders that place limitations upon roles that they are naturally suited to do.



Now compare that to the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" (aka. why Mississippi took part in the civil war)



> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.



Cool similarity huh?   Whenever someone needs to justify their beleifs about any naturaly distinct group of individuals, "imperious laws of nature", or "basic physiological and psychological differences" jump in to fill the gap.

Mo-litia, I agree that the standards should be the same for male and female, and I also think it's sheer idiocy to creake marketing/recruiting campaigns directed specificaly at women.   That's about the only thing we agree on here.   Please try to avoid puting any group in silly categories based on your own biases.


Oh and as far as the original article goes....we took 3 females with us to Florida for 2 weeks to train with American soldiers.  The Yanks were shocked, and made our females sleep away from our lines, but otherwise allowed us to train as normal.  By the end of the exercise, the Amercan soldiers were treating our females the same way that we do, and several commented on the fact that they were amazed to see the women doing just as well as every other infanteer.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Feb 2005)

:boring:

Does anyone have anything new or interesting to say, or is this a rerun of an arguement that gets put on spin-cycle every 6 months or so?


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

Lock this one up.


----------



## Cansky (28 Feb 2005)

I know that this issue gets rehashed on every forum I've been too but I'll give to cents worth.  I agree that the double standard should stop.  One standard for all should hopefully weed out some of the females who really can't do the job in any trade not just infantry.  But there are just as many men who can't do the job either.  I am a female (medic) reg force for 17 years.  I have seen much more than you have Mo-litia but not nearly as much as some others on this forum.  Most people get out of the infantry because its hard work not because they are female.  I see ore re musters from young guys your age or younger who think the grass is greener on the other side.    I have work with the infantry and gone on Combat Ops as a company medic.  While in Afghanistan, I watched men drop their ruck's and others had to take them up the mountain.  I have met and worked with great infanteers within the 3PPCLI and 2 PPCLI both men and women.  I didn't ask to go to combat but its my job and a job I'll willingly do again.  As would an of the 28 women on my tour would do.  We don't consider ourselves women but soldiers just like everyone else.  The female Infanteer with us would excellent at her job.  And she wasn't one of these butchy looking women.  Treated everyone well and did her job as good as most of the guys.  The guys also respected her for the most part.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2005)

Just to add a bit to Kirsten's comments; on a slightly different tact, on retention in the Forces.  Now you molitia guys had better have a better look around you and take in all your stats.  Guys in the Reg Force Cbt Arms can look around themselves today and see what happens.  They can look and see how many of their comrades from their Basic are still in the trade after five years, after ten and fifteen and twenty.  The Cbt Arms take their toll on people and a lot take an easier route as Mechs, Posties, Clerks, MPs and such.  A lot go over to the Air Force or even Navy.  Now, historically these have all been MEN.  Now we have women in all trades and we will naturally see them doing the same.  Nothing PC in that.

GW


----------



## Highland Lad (28 Feb 2005)

IMHO, it's not women in the combat arms that are the problem - it's jackasses that go to one extreme or the other.

Illustrative points:

Female candidate on MG crse didn't have the upper body strength to cock the .50 properly - had to have an instructor do it for her in order to pass the PO check... she passed because the Crse O was told that she had to - PC gone too far (needless to say, she was NOT tasked to a MG team back at the unit).
A friend of mine left the Reserves under a cloud (making accusations of sexual harrassment against an NCO - he was supported by his CoC - until he got caught in an undeniable situation - too late for her). She was a pretty damned good soldier in most respects; carried a ruck that held the same crap as the rest of us, passed PWT rated Expert, could run at the head of the pack, and put up with all sorts of shite that none of the male soldiers had to. She couldn't do more than the min number of push-ups for fitness tests, but she could pepper-pot with the rest of her section, and I never felt the need to ream her out for self-selecting as a casualty during A to C exercises.

Only 2 points, but there are many more I could make. The sum of my beef is this: As an NCO, I have learned that, unless I let any soldier succeed or fail based on their performance, not their plumbing, I have failed that soldier, my unit, and the CF.

As one instructor of mine once said: "As a "leader of men", I don't care what equipment God gave you, so long as you can handle the equipment I give you."

I have yet to find any exceptions to this rule.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Feb 2005)

Highland Lad said:
			
		

> IMHO, it's not women in the combat arms that are the problem - it's jackasses that go to one extreme or the other.
> 
> Illustrative points:
> 
> Female candidate on MG crse didn't have the upper body strength to cock the .50 properly - had to have an instructor do it for her in order to pass the PO check... she passed because the Crse O was told that she had to - PC gone too far (needless to say, she was NOT tasked to a MG team back at the unit).





Okay, but if a war started tomorrow, is there reason to believe she might be able to retain the information on the course and been able to teach more able bodied recruits?   What is a peace time army for, if not to train for war?   And that doesn't mean everyone needs to be able to ruck up and march 200 miles - there would be a need for instructors and support staff in Canada, too.  So she can't operate an MG in a war zone.  

Granted, the best instructors are those with experience, and her body strength precludes that - but given how tiny our army is, a ramp up even to a single division would leave us pretty badly stretched.  Why use up your top physical specimens in a training role?

Just a thought.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (28 Feb 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> Sexism is alive and well, this thread has more than proved it.



Yes, sadly it is. Back to the kitchen for me, boys. :


----------



## S McKee (28 Feb 2005)

I remember once watching a TV program on a British destroyer, the reporter asked the XO of the ship what he thought of women fighting in the AF. He stated "Any nation that sends it's women into combat is morally bankrupt." I believe that statement to be true.   The feminist agenda touted by some on this forum and the "If they can do it let them." philosophy, is wrong.   Contrary to popular belief the equipment God gave you as one person put it does matter. There are fundamental differences between men and women. These difference are natural. It is the agenda of some to negate these differences in the name of "equality". Some on this forum have claimed to have been in combat with women, if this is true then you know first hand that war is a dirty business where the polite rules of society are thrown out the widow. Would you want you wife/daughter or sister to be placed in a position where she could be killed, raped all in the name of equality? This is mis-guided. Women have no place in the killing fields of combat, this does not mean that they are any less of a person than a man, if our society believes that in order for a woman to achieve equality with a man she has to right to die in combat we truly have lost our way.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Feb 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I remember once watching a TV program on a British destroyer, the reporter asked the XO of the ship what he thought of women fighting in the AF. He stated "Any nation that sends it's women into combat is morally bankrupt." I believe that statement to be true.



I'm sure that somewhere there's an interview with a member of the Taliban saying "Any nation that allows it's women to show their faces in public is moraly bankrupt".  You agree with that too?  Morality can be used to "jusify" any point of view, so where do you draw the line?  Your concept of "moraity" is your own, you have no right to force it on others, ESPECIALLY when it limits their freedom.



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> The feminist agenda touted by some on this forum and the "If they can do it let them." philosophy, is wrong.   Contrary to popular belief the equipment God gave you as one person put it does matter. There are fundamental differences between men and women. These difference are natural.



Thanks Dad, but I found out about those differences years ago.  Do they matter?  In the bedroom, damn straight they do.  On the battlefield though?  Other than making them a little top heavy, how exactly does a set of tits impact someones ability to fill a combat role?



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> Would you want you wife/daughter or sister to be placed in a position where she could be killed, raped all in the name of equality?



I would't want my son placed in a position where he could be kille or raped either, thanks.  Come to think of it, I really don't want anyone to have to be in that position.  It's a neccesary job though, so why should I stop anyone who's wiling and capable from doing it?



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> This is mis-guided. Women have no place in the killing fields of combat, this does not mean that they are any less of a person than a man, if our society believes that in order for a woman to achieve equality with a man she has to right to die in combat we truly have lost our way.



You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word equality.  As long as men insist on seing women as a set of sexual organs which must be protected from harm, they'll never be equal.  First you you have to start tihnking of them as individuals with the right to decide how they want to live their lives.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Feb 2005)

_Quote from: camochick on Yesterday at 22:48:27
Sexism is alive and well, this thread has more than proved it.
Quote from Sig Bloggins,
Yes, sadly it is. Back to the kitchen for me, boys._

...actually I think this thread shows that although sexism is still alive, it is not "alive and well", and to be truthful both of you owe apologies to some members of this forum.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (28 Feb 2005)

I  do? Really? What about the people that suggested that I am incompetant at my job simply because I am a woman?

Ok, well sorry if I offended anyone by suggesting that some members of this forum are sexist.


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

I started this thread to talk about women in combat.   Take notice that does n ot have to mean in Combat Arms.   I remember a nurse in Rhodesia calmly laying rounds into a Terr attacking her clinic.   She was very effective at it, laying more than one Terr out.   That is also combat.


----------



## camochick (28 Feb 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I remember once watching a TV program on a British destroyer, the reporter asked the XO of the ship what he thought of women fighting in the AF. He stated "Any nation that sends it's women into combat is morally bankrupt." I believe that statement to be true.   The feminist agenda touted by some on this forum and the "If they can do it let them." philosophy, is wrong.   Contrary to popular belief the equipment God gave you as one person put it does matter. There are fundamental differences between men and women. These difference are natural. It is the agenda of some to negate these differences in the name of "equality". Some on this forum have claimed to have been in combat with women, if this is true then you know first hand that war is a dirty business where the polite rules of society are thrown out the widow. Would you want you wife/daughter or sister to be placed in a position where she could be killed, raped all in the name of equality? This is mis-guided. Women have no place in the killing fields of combat, this does not mean that they are any less of a person than a man, if our society believes that in order for a woman to achieve equality with a man she has to right to die in combat we truly have lost our way.



Why is it that a man's life seems to worth less than a wowoman's.If a woman wants to be in a combat position and can do the job then why not let her. Believe me, we are not dumb, any woman who would go to war would know that the potential to be killed or raped is there. Heck, killing and raping of women happens everyday, should i just stay in my house like a good little girl and live in fear. Why is it such an issue for a woman to be in combat? Would you people throw a fit if it was a black man, or an Asian man, what about a Muslim. NO, cause that would be racist. well there is no difference here. Discriminating based on someones gender is like discriminating based on someones race. It's wrong. But the good thing about Canada is that we allow our women to make the choice and join the combat trades, so whether you like it or not, we are going to be there.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Feb 2005)

Quote,
_Ok, well sorry if I offended anyone by suggesting that some members of this forum are sexist._

...if the inclination was that SOME members are sexist I would have been ok with it, that was not the case........OK,girls.[get it?]

_I  do? Really? What about the people that suggested that I am incompetant at my job simply because I am a woman_?

...and you wish to belittle yourself to thier level?


----------



## camochick (28 Feb 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> _Quote from: camochick on Yesterday at 22:48:27
> Sexism is alive and well, this thread has more than proved it.
> Quote from Sig Bloggins,
> Yes, sadly it is. Back to the kitchen for me, boys._
> ...


  Edit: sorry if i made reference that all people posting on the thread were sexist, not my intention, the people i was refering to know who they are. 

If you think i owe an apology to people who tell me I will never be as strong as a man, or that i can't fight in a war like a man, then you are wrong. If you have a problem with me, them pm me but I won't apologize for defending women.


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

Camo, I think the problem is that you are lumping all men in the same boat.  I agree that it is evident that *some people* on the forum are sexist, BUT not all of us are.


----------



## camochick (28 Feb 2005)

Yeah, i'm sorry i made it seem like i was refering to all men on the forum, that wasnt my intention. For the most part the men on here are very supportive of women in the forces and I'm glad for that. Again, I apologize.


----------



## Gunner (28 Feb 2005)

I have to say there are some questionable comments being made by some young junior NCOs in this link.   

Traditionally, women were not the warriors as they were the primary caregivers to the next generation of warriors.   Moreover, a society could whether the mass extermination of their men, if the majority of their women survived in order to breed another generation.   Both scenarios are no longer valid within our society as we do not have large standing militaries and the chance of a mass extermination would probably effect both men and women equally (nuclear warfare).   Therefore the argument about women in combat roles is moot at this point because it is not relevant to the CF and moreover it is not going to be reversed.

If you want to argue anything, you can argue that standards (for men and women) have gone down in the last 10 years compared to previous standards.   I don't beleive this has anything to do with women being entered into the combat arms and everything to do with a declining recruiting base, increased release rates (reg and res), and a different style of recruit that we have not adapted to (or adapted to much...).

Now, I am going to head off to my daycare centre and nurture some children.    :

Cheers,


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

Hey, no problem.   This topic is a button pusher.


----------



## combat_medic (28 Feb 2005)

Sadly, it is the attitudes of many soldiers who think women don't belong in the combat arms that so many have left, and so few join. I can't think of a single female infanteer who has not been the victim or bullying, harrassment, sexual overtures from fellow soldiers, or various other forms of mistreatment. I know several that have quit because they were bullied into doing so. While women have to work harder in order to be successful in the combat arms, the men who are just as weak are given a fair shake right from the start. Despite all our attempts at PC-ness, gender integration and the like, it's the unfortunate lingering sexism that keeps a lot of the women away from such trades.

Fifty years ago, women weren't allowed to serve at all. 100 years ago, only white men could serve. The same tired arguments about group cohesion, and lack of "natural" agression have been used to exclude every minority group imaginable for centuries (Asians, homosexuals, women). It is only when people open their eyes and realize that EVERYONE has something to contribute, no matter what they're packing in their underwear. Some people can stick 200 pounds on their back and run a hundred miles uphill. Others make fantastic shots, while others can sit still in an OP for the better part of 2 days without moving or uttering a sound. I've seen plenty of male infanteers who are such bad shots that they couldn't hit the ground if they fell on it, and others who can't walk quietly, or move tactically at all. So, you make those guys your MG #2s, or your frontline assaulters. No one has said they can't serve, or that men have a genetic disposition to be loud, and could never do reconnaisance because they're too big and awkward. It's a ridiculous argument. People have different strengths and weaknesses, and should be employed with this in mind. 

Women will continue to quit the combat arms in droves, or refuse to join in the first place until the mysoginistic attitudes that have made the CF such a hostile place for women remain. 

Mo-litia; you watched me walk about a kilometre out of the field on a broken ankle, and you think women aren't tough? Not to mention, if you think women are caring and nurturing, try putting a baby in front of me. The thing would find itself starving and filthy before long. I certainly have no maternal instinct, nor some kind of intrinsic knowledge about child-rearing, just as men aren't born with a C7 in hand and the instinctual knowledge of how to dig a level 6 entrenchment. 

Finally, you want to argue different standards? There are not, in fact, only 2; there are 10. Changes for men and women in every age group. This is ageist; as a 50 year-old corporal should be able to compete physically with a 17 year-old corporal, right?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Feb 2005)

Thank you, Combat Medic,...and when Mo-litia is done talking to you he can talk to my sister who retired after 24 years with enough tours that I lost count, and lets see, in my ten years I did,...........oh yea, zero.          Hmmmmmm...


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Feb 2005)

I don't understand why female soldiers have not spoken out en masse against the discriminatory PT standards used by the CF. All worthwile female soldiers I know think the minimum standard for females is offensive and condescending, and propogates an artificially negative stereotype of females. Where's the equality?  If the feminist lobby is atually advocating this as a method of gender intergration then it is putting a 40mm HE in its own foot.

BB John you probably know of that time when they let a few females run the RM commando course and none passed? Somehow this was held up as proof that females should not be allowed in the Cbt arms. The fact that the majority of MALE candidates also failed the course doesn't seem to get mentioned much. 


and in the same vein....



> Thank you, Combat Medic,...and when Mo-litia is done talking to you he can talk to my sister who retired after 24 years with enough tours that I lost count, and lets see, in my ten years I did,...........oh yea, zero.          Hmmmmmm...



I think that says more about you than your sister.   ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Feb 2005)

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!! :-[



..in my piddly defence, :crybaby: I only had a shot at one tour, Cyprus in the waning days,[kiss] but I opted for a French course instead, which turned out to be the best decision I ever made.[long and happy story]


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (28 Feb 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Sadly, it is the attitudes of many soldiers who think women don't belong in the combat arms that so many have left, and so few join. I can't think of a single female infanteer who has not been the victim or bullying, harrassment, sexual overtures from fellow soldiers, or various other forms of mistreatment. I know several that have quit because they were bullied into doing so. While women have to work harder in order to be successful in the combat arms, the men who are just as weak are given a fair shake right from the start. Despite all our attempts at PC-ness, gender integration and the like, it's the unfortunate lingering sexism that keeps a lot of the women away from such trades.
> 
> Fifty years ago, women weren't allowed to serve at all. 100 years ago, only white men could serve. The same tired arguments about group cohesion, and lack of "natural" agression have been used to exclude every minority group imaginable for centuries (Asians, homosexuals, women). It is only when people open their eyes and realize that EVERYONE has something to contribute, no matter what they're packing in their underwear. Some people can stick 200 pounds on their back and run a hundred miles uphill. Others make fantastic shots, while others can sit still in an OP for the better part of 2 days without moving or uttering a sound. I've seen plenty of male infanteers who are such bad shots that they couldn't hit the ground if they fell on it, and others who can't walk quietly, or move tactically at all. So, you make those guys your MG #2s, or your frontline assaulters. No one has said they can't serve, or that men have a genetic disposition to be loud, and could never do reconnaisance because they're too big and awkward. It's a ridiculous argument. People have different strengths and weaknesses, and should be employed with this in mind.
> 
> ...



Amen to that combat_medic. You put into words exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

Try and try again, with training and determination.   Please read below, 59% of her class failed.   Oh, and they all were men.



First woman wins Green Beret    06.06.02 11:50 
    


A captain in the Army has become the first woman to win a coveted Green Beret.

Capt Pip Tattersall (27), of the Adjutant General's Corps, completed the arduous All Arms Commando Course at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines (CTCRM) at Lympstone in Devon.

The course is open to trained ranks from all three Services, male and female, who wish to serve with 3 Commando Brigade.

She passed her Commando tests on Friday May 31 and was awarded her Green Beret - although that does not qualify her to join the Royal Marines; qualification for the Green Beret does not automatically make the successful candidates members of the Corps.

Capt Tattersall first attempted the course in March of last year, but was withdrawn in Week 7 of the eight-week course.

Her second attempt in July 2001 ended when a back injury prevented her from continuing the training.

She returned for a final attempt last month, rejoining the course at Week 5.

Her success means Pip is now eligible to work in either combat support or combat service support areas of 3 Commando Brigade.

As is traditional, Capt Tattersall will continue to wear her parent unit's cap badge, but on a green beret.

In order to join the Royal Marines, a candidate would have to join the Corps as a recruit or an officer, and complete a six-month basic training course (recruits) or a year-long course for officers


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Feb 2005)

> OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!! Embarrassed



Oh come on, like you never saw THAT one coming. 

B John:

It was a number of years ago when I read about it, so times have changed I see.  But "Pip Tattersall"?! Are you sure she's female?


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

Yes! see below.


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

I also hear that "Pip" is not a person to cross.   She was brought up in the Army, her Dad retired as an RSM.  BTW the wall is 12' high.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Feb 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Sadly, it is the attitudes of many soldiers who think women don't belong in the combat arms that so many have left, and so few join. I can't think of a single female infanteer who has not been the victim or bullying, harrassment, sexual overtures from fellow soldiers, or various other forms of mistreatment
> .........
> Women will continue to quit the combat arms in droves, or refuse to join in the first place until the mysoginistic attitudes that have made the CF such a hostile place for women remain.



Now you're going a bit far.   First off, men are also "victims of" bullying and harrassment.   It's the nature of the beast; the military and infantry especially is a very macho, aggressive organization, so you're always going to have that sort of atmosphere.   Male or female, you have to either grow thicker skin and learn to give as good as you get, or get out.   I can tell you of at lest one female Sgt though who never misses an opportunity to "harass" me and any other soldier who crosses her path.   Anyone who takes offense to it shoudn't be in the army.

Also keep in mind that the perception that "women don't belong in combat" is actualy more prevailant amongst women.   I mean, if you ask the average women wether women should be allowed in combat roles, the majority will say "yes", however, you'll also find that the majority of them wouldn't consider doing it themselves because they don't think they could handle it.   THAT is the main reason the number of women joining is so low.   It has little to do with sexism within the system, and a lot more to do with womens perception of military duty and their own capabilities.



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> Finally, you want to argue different standards? There are not, in fact, only 2; there are 10. Changes for men and women in every age group. This is ageist; as a 50 year-old corporal should be able to compete physically with a 17 year-old corporal, right?



Obviously they can't compete, but they should both be able to meet the same basic standard.   The changes for age groups should be more of a guideline really.   If the standard for a 50 year old female is acceptable for her, than it should be acceptable for everyone and be set as the minimum.   If the standard is too low, others could be encouraged to perform better, and rewarded for being able to maintain a certain level of fitness, but the basic standard should be the same for everyone, and should be based on the requirements of the job.

Also, keep in mind that there isn't very many 50 year old privates in the infantry.   On my QL3 we DID have a 50 year old man who actually exceeded the standard for his age group, but was unable to keep up with the course.   Our PL WO expected one standard from everyone on our course, so the 50 year old private was RTU'd along with anyone else who couldn't cut it.   He remustered to the medics and has been doing a wonderful job with them ever since.   Was it fair to expect him to perform to the same level as 17-18 year old males?   No.   But if he can't meet our standard, would it be fair to let him pass?   Instead of humouring him and pretending he was a good infanteer, the staff got rid of him and told him to remuster.   They did both him and the CF a favour by refusing to allow him to do a job for which he was unqualified, and instead directing him towards a job where he could be valuable.


----------



## combat_medic (28 Feb 2005)

Yes, there are women who think that women shouldn't be in the military; just as I've had people tell me that I'm psychologically imbalanced because I don't want to have children. Ignorance comes in all forms and from all types, but that doesn't make it excusable. 

As for "bullying" amongst men, I'm not talking about the typical, "hey ugly, how's it goin'?" attaitude amongst soldiers, I'm talking about the systematic harrassment against particular women in order to drive them to quit. Less of a problem in recent memory, but still, unfortunately, present. 

And yes, there aren't many 50 year old corporals in the infantry, just as there aren't many female corporals in the infantry. I have to compete at a higher standard than a 50 year old male in many areas, does that mean that he should also be kicked out, or not allowed to compete? People get weaker with age, so does that mean a mandatory retirement age of 35? Also, fitness according to trade wouldn't work either; what about CS/CSS pers attahced to combat arms? Infanteers occupying desk jobs? Fitness requirements aren't dependant on trade. 

I would entirely support a single fitness standard, but keep in mind, when you're 55 and nearly retired, you're going to have to be hauling your butt out with the teenagers who just joined and compete at the same standard as they.


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

As a man in my mid 40's, I'd be happy to have any of you join me on my morning 5K.  I'd love the oppertunity to run you into the ground.  LMAO


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Feb 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Yes, there are women who think that women shouldn't be in the military; just as I've had people tell me that I'm psychologically imbalanced because I don't want to have children. Ignorance comes in all forms and from all types, but that doesn't make it excusable.
> 
> As for "bullying" amongst men, I'm not talking about the typical, "hey ugly, how's it goin'?" attaitude amongst soldiers, I'm talking about the systematic harrassment against particular women in order to drive them to quit. Less of a problem in recent memory, but still, unfortunately, present.
> 
> ...



I think I illustrated this with my own post two pages ago - our peacetime army has one major goal among many -   to train the instructors for the next war.   Those 50 year old corporals - anyone, really, male, female, old or young - who have demonstrated leadership, a grasp of the principles of instruction, and at least some practical knowledge of the military will be very useful in training the younger and more able bodied to go fight.

We're the ones who keep the lights on in between periods of crisis.   This is nothing new, and will not change over time.   All those who dream of a military composed entirely of 20 to 30 year old males with commando and parachute training are kidding themselves.   When the next big war comes - God forbid - we will not need, nor be able to afford, 30 year old truck drivers, cooks, and staff clerks in their physical prime.


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Feb 2005)

> I would entirely support a single fitness standard, but keep in mind, when you're 55 and nearly retired, you're going to have to be hauling your butt out with the teenagers who just joined and compete at the same standard as they.



So what? is this a bad thing?

It bothers me that some of our members are actually worried about the PT "standard". Honestly I don't even know what the standard for my group is, other than being a level that 75% of civies off the street could probably pass. I know of no infantryman below the rank of MWO who takes them seriously, most have goals to the tune of "score 100 points on the Cooper's test". I would seriously question the motives of any youngish soldier who's worried about "passing the PT test to avoid a verbal warning" .  Really, you guys talk about the regular infantry PT standard like it was the bloody assaulter's course.


----------



## Strike (28 Feb 2005)

As I mentioned on another thread -- the PT test is for fitness, the BFT is for ability.  That is why the PT is adjusted for sex and age and the BFT is standard no matter who you are.

As for the whole "women aren't meant for combat arms" thing, Try telling that to the CLS who's EA is a female infanteer.  I've spoken with members of her former unit and they have nothing but positive things to say.

As for saying we don't have the mental toughness to cut it, you have obviously never seen me in the ring.  Watch out.  I've bested more than a few guys.

Finally, wrt bullying, it's not enough to say to grow a thicker skin when someone continuously questions your actions, motives, private life, etc and add some type of sexual overtone to it.  It can really wear a person down after awhile.  I saw enough of this throughout my training.  Luckily an "old school" type took me under his wing (and of course people questioned that as well) and things got sorted out pretty damn quick.  The point is a woman has to be 2x better than a man to be considered half as good.  I know I am generalizing but this is from experience and observation.

As for the original point of this thread, the article had nothing to do w/ women's abilities to fight, but wether it was morally appropriate to have them there.  If I was a man I might start wondering why it's okay for me to die in battle, but not a woman.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Feb 2005)

...and just to be the equal opportunity poop disturber, don't any of you out there think for a second that when things are reversed SOME women aren't just as bad as SOME men.
Several of my good male friends got sent to a female institution when ours closed and guess what?.......... same things happen......


----------



## Strike (28 Feb 2005)

I once new a man who used to be a tech and, when he got out, started working for a volunteer organization that was primarily female.  In fact, when he arrived, he was the only man.  He never suffered any lasting trauma -- exept for being witness to some "questionale"   ;D  conversations.  The first thing he asked when he saw me again was if that was what life was like for me in the military.  Ah, revenge is sweet.


----------



## Mad Max (28 Feb 2005)

I find it fascinating that a group of people, some military, some not, some male, some not, and some without ANY KNOWLEDGE OF OR INTEREST IN things Combat Arms are jumping on this bandwagon heading down the road to nowhere! Our artificially low standards of recruitment and training are STILL demonstrating to the vast bulk of people in the know with a vested interest in the ultimate outcome of this ridiculous social engineering experiment (females in the combat arms-specifically Infantry) that females are NOT particularly well- suited for a career as a grunt! This is NOT a revelation- just ask any dedicated Trainer of infantry troops. I f he isn't overtly concerned with pleasing the powers that be with his Stalinist zeal in achieving the politically-correct norm vis-a-vis female infantry training successes under his belt, he will, almost without exeption, call a spade a spade- and tell you that they ARE NOT, in the vast majority of cases, physically or mentally suited for the rigours of normal infantry service. Heck, half the MALE recruits we get these days aren't suitable, and we have a hard enough time training them, or getting rid of them so that the units won't have to deal with their weakness! I'm speaking here of THINGS I KNOW, NOT THINGS I THINK I KNOW! Anyone who has ever instructed pugil fighting, or taken troops on a forced march- NOT some panzy walk down the road- will understand what I'm talking about. And we're not even talking about the REAL nasty stuff! Bring it on!


----------



## mo-litia (28 Feb 2005)

CombatMedic,

This was not meant as a personal criticism of any female I have served with...if you read my posts you'll see that I have expressed several positive things about advances in gender equality and the drive of female recruits.

While I freely admit some of my statements were inflammatory, they were intended to stimulate debate on this issue - which I feel strongly about.   My main point-which I stand by- is that the CF has no business recruiting a gender into a trade were the attrition rate for that gender is so high as to make continued enrollment of this gender both fiscally irresponsible, and, given the nature of the job an infantryman has to do, morally wrong.

You know that I have never expressed these views while wearing the green, and were you an infantry soldier, I would serve alongside of you as a professional.   I have learnt that self preservation of one's career demands a low profile on this issue...unless one is in the mess with the boys, where the truth usually comes out about most infantry soldiers' EDUCATED opinions on this issue.

I am not disputing the valuable contributions women make to the military, just that certain limitations are reasonable.

That being said, please don't take a swing at me the next time you see me... 



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> I remember once watching a TV program on a British destroyer, the reporter asked the XO of the ship what he thought of women fighting in the AF. He stated "Any nation that sends it's women into combat is morally bankrupt." I believe that statement to be true.   The feminist agenda touted by some on this forum and the "If they can do it let them." philosophy, is wrong.   Contrary to popular belief the equipment God gave you as one person put it does matter. There are fundamental differences between men and women. These difference are natural. It is the agenda of some to negate these differences in the name of "equality". Some on this forum have claimed to have been in combat with women, if this is true then you know first hand that war is a dirty business where the polite rules of society are thrown out the widow. Would you want you wife/daughter or sister to be placed in a position where she could be killed, raped all in the name of equality? This is mis-guided. Women have no place in the killing fields of combat, this does not mean that they are any less of a person than a man, if our society believes that in order for a woman to achieve equality with a man she has to right to die in combat we truly have lost our way.



Jumper, thanks for speaking up for the silent majority on this issue. I knew when I jumped into this debate there was going to be a loud reaction as 'those who scream the loudest disagree the most'.   I'm glad that political correctness hasn't prevented other brave people from speaking the truth on this matter.   Most armies in the world look upon this kind of social experimentation in the military as completely out of tune with their most important task of being a combat ready force; this is a undeniable fact.

Can we get back to the original theme about the poor female troop who gave up her life for her country?   Thank God there is only 20 females out of the 1500 American dead, or the US would be in a serious domestic crisis. Remember the outrage over Jessica Lynch, Shoshanna Johnson and Laurie Piestewa? Now consider why they were front page news and most of the other 1500 KIA are just a statistic mourned by their families.   The world isn't a fair place, and it never will be. I do not think it is wrong to limit infantry enrollment based on good commen sense.

That's it, I'm done on this issue; you'll hear no more from me. (big bad john is right, this issue is starting go in circles and may require a lock on the forum.)   If I offended you, sorry, but that's they way the world works. I hope I made more people think; my comments were not driven by bias or sexism, they were motivated by concern for a military and a nation-however misguided-that I care deeply about.

Again, I speak for the silent majority.

Cheers


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> While I freely admit some of my statements were inflammatory, they were intended to stimulate debate on this issue - which I feel strongly about.   My main point-which I stand by- is that the CF has no business recruiting a gender into a trade were the attrition rate for that gender is so high as to make continued enrollment of this gender both fiscally irresponsible, and, given the nature of the job an infantryman has to do, morally wrong.



So if I go with your model, Marines should not recruit men?  You also say that you speak for the "silent majority".  I dispute that strongly.  I think that you are behind the times.


----------



## Mad Max (28 Feb 2005)

I love it! Let's all gather together and make a unanimous Marxist-Leninist DECLARATION THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT! All you folks out there, understand- speaking in the manner of a politically-correct commisar MAKES YOU a politically correct commisar- NOT a military type with his head spacing and timing properly adjusted. And if you don't know what I mean by that, you've just made my point. It doesn't matter what you were-or THOUGHT you were- it's what you are! If that means I am a sexist dinosaur, bring me a bronto-burger and I'll eat that sucker hands-free! I also have a ton of training experience in this field (this field-get it?), and I would be extremely interested in hearing your realistic, hard-nosed, practical, common-sense objections to ANYTHING I've said! This ain't rocket science, as the saying goes, this is grunt work. So if you wear a skirt, or maybe SHOULD wear a skirt, then let's have the facts and figures that prove I'm full o' crap. Not the Canadian soft candy crap that I've been reading here! Go rapid! (That last bit means shoot quickly for you non-grunt types)


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

Please read my posts.  I believe that i have made my point...or rather the thousands of women in combat have.


----------



## Mad Max (28 Feb 2005)

Man, why would I WANT to read YOUR posts? This discussion is good fun, and reading your stuff would just about cause me to fall on my bayonet(that's the pointy, knifey thing on the end of your rifle for you non-military types). Anyway, what I've been saying still stands, and I'm still waiting for someone with suitable cred to shoot me down or shut me up.


----------



## The Bat (28 Feb 2005)

Mad Max last time i check the world is flat i mean you lay a map down and you look at it and its flat LMAO the way the CF has lowered all standards in the CF is a joke and all for what for the women to come and join us in the trench, don't get me wrong i think women have a place in the Army but being up in the front lines nope not the place. i did my walk in the mountains in Afghani land and i really don't think that the normal lady could carry what i had and take care of herself for more than 3 days. i was a real gut check. so if you cant do it then why???? lets be real here and think about it.


----------



## Strike (28 Feb 2005)

Max,

Were you to rant a little less and discuss a little more maybe people would respond to you.   Alas, I am taking the bait.   Let's see, as previously mentioned, the EA to the CLS is a woman (infanteer) who I have been told several times can more than hold her own and then some.   She is the epitome of one who is silent yet carries a big stick.

I do know of another woman (armoured, and first female in the trade) who had several barriers to overcome and also had no training difficulties and excelled when it came to deployments and ops.

As for myself, although not combat arms (I think you're all a little crazy anyway   , kind of like submariners are) I can also hold my own in the field.   I've always been a good shot, have run several marathons, and have distinguished myself in another male-dominated trade.

None of this is PC, unless you consider equality (ie, a female who can do the SAME as her male counterpart and being given the SAME chance as said male) a PC term.   If that is the case I hope you never find yourself trying to give me orders in me helicopter.


----------



## mo-litia (28 Feb 2005)

One final thought....

Mad Max:                  

I'd serve with you anyday, bro. You tell it like it is!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Feb 2005)

Mad Max said:
			
		

> Man, why would I WANT to read YOUR posts? This discussion is good fun, and reading your stuff would just about cause me to fall on my bayonet(that's the pointy, knifey thing on the end of your rifle for you non-military types). Anyway, what I've been saying still stands, and I'm still waiting for someone with suitable cred to shoot me down or shut me up.



Done.  Locked.


----------

