Women at War

[camochick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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.

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]

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

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]

: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]

Lock this one up.

 

[Cansky]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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