Women in U.S. infantry (USMC, Rangers, etc. - merged)

[FJAG]

"The administration and its ideological radical feminist soul mates are willing to accept less effectiveness at the point of the spear in order to put women into every last military occupational specialty.”----------Asinine!

The meaning of the phrase "equal opportunity" is kind of lost on you, eh?

:stirpot:

 

[tomahawk6]

In an effort to afford women the opportunity to serve in combat,the Army has allowed women to serve as helicopter aircrew,MP's,Air Defense and Field Artillery - just not infantry or armor.This isn't an argument that improves combat effectiveness,but rather opening the door for women to become senior officers.An opportunity that women have already achieved in Intelligence and the Log fields.Gen Ann Dunwoody was the first four star General.Women have an important role in our armed forces and do an awesome job across the board.This all about the agenda of the left.They campaigned for the resumption of the draft with the idea to relive the Vietnam experience.They want demonstrations against any war.They dont get that with an all volunteer force.Maybe with alot of dead female service women they might get the same effect.But I doubt it.Typically anyone that doesnt support women in the infantry is gender biased.I am opposed on military grounds.Call it experience.

 

[armyvern]

Well, there's boys up here with some real and actual experience too.  They'll mostly tell you that "military necessity" is not affected by women.  They will also tell you it is the very very rare chickie-poo who can pull the shit off and get the job done.  Only those very very rare few should be allowed to do the job.  At the end of the day, if she meets the same high standard (IE: don't lower them) as a boy who is able to do the job, then she is meeting the same "military requirement".  If she understands that her life is on the line the same as the men, then "you go girl" is about all I have to say.  You somehow claim that the fact that she can do everything else they do has nothing to do with it, just that the fact she has a snatch negates all the other facts of being able to get the job done. 

You've lost me;  how the f does that = "military grounds" --- it equals nothing but "she's pisses differently, so she's out".

 

[tomahawk6]

Women cannot handle the rigors of combat faced by the infantry.They do just fine in most other fields.There I said it Vern.I preferred military grounds/standards ect.

 

[armyvern]

Women cannot handle the rigors of combat faced by the infantry.

Some already have.  :

 

[tomahawk6]

Some already have.  :

Not in the US Army.Although the Marines are giving it a whirl without success.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Is American combat really that much more arduous than Canadian or Israeli combat?

 

[tomahawk6]

Each military sets its own manning practices.Its wonderful that female soldiers can serve in the Canadian and Israeli infantry.Its not a practice that we need to follow in the US IMO.

 

[cupper]

This all about the agenda of the left.They campaigned for the resumption of the draft with the idea to relive the Vietnam experience.They want demonstrations against any war.They dont get that with an all volunteer force.Maybe with alot of dead female service women they might get the same effect.But I doubt it.Typically anyone that doesnt support women in the infantry is gender biased.I am opposed on military grounds.Call it experience.

The only thing more surprising is the failure of not incorporating a reference to the Obama Administration. :facepalm:

As for not getting demonstrations because of the all volunteer force, seems to me that there were plenty of demonstrations against the Iraq war both in the political run up for justification, and then after things went to crap in the so-called post combat phase. The war in Afghanistan has had similar demonstrations through it's 12 year run (many protests were dual purposed when both wars were running).

You give the left wing way too much credit to be able to put together a conspiracy such as you have posited. They are just not that f'n bright.

Simply stating you are opposed on "military grounds" and "from experience" without giving any detail just isn't a suitable argument. If a woman meets / exceeds the required standards for employment as an infanteer, passes all the courses and training, and is fully capable of meeting any tasking assigned, then what other "military" grounds could there possibly be?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Simply stating you are opposed on "military grounds" and "from experience" without giving any detail just isn't a suitable argument. If a woman meets / exceeds the required standards for employment as an infanteer, passes all the courses and training, and is fully capable of meeting any tasking assigned, then what other "military" grounds could there possibly be?

This USMC Captain gives some examples of why she doesn't think women should be in the infantry from experience.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

 

[armyvern]

This USMC Captain gives some examples of why she doesn't think women should be in the infantry from experience.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

Except that she isn't infantry.

No, we are not all created equal, but some are created as willing and capable ... they should not be excluded based upon the fact that we are not all equal squat to pee.

All men are not created equal either, and some can't hand;e combat as well as others either --- good thing we don't disallow men from attempting to become Infanteers based upon some not being up to the task.  Imagine that eh.

 

[cupper]

This USMC Captain gives some examples of why she doesn't think women should be in the infantry from experience.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

Having read the article previously, there are a lot of points she raised about her own experience that she attempts to extend out to all females, without really giving any evidence that the problems were specific to females. In particular, the lower back issues could very well have occurred in a male of the same stature, let alone anyone who underwent the same hardships she describes.

Essentially she's taken 1 data point and drawn a conclusion that may not stand up to more testing.

But I really have to question whether or not she had an underlying undiagnosed condition that caused  many of the issues she described. Her point about being diagnosed with Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) raises a flag for me. From personal experience with my wife having been diagnosed with PCOS 10 years ago, much of what she described could well be the result of another undiagnosed condition which also resulted in the development of PCOS.

All she is really saying is that her body was abused due to constant work under heavy loads, stress and lack of sleep. But she got through it. If you went through a comprehensive survey of physical conditions of infantry troops that underwent similar deployment history, I suspect you'd find many of the same ailments and complaints.

The first time I read it, I wrote it off as more or less someone whining about having a bad outcome from an experience that many others underwent as well. And haveing read it again, my opinion still has not changed.

As I said previously, If the female candidate is able to pass the all of the requirements for selection into the infantry trade, passes the courses and other training, and is fully capable of preforming the necessary tasks of the trade there is not other reason to exclude that person from the infantry.

 

[Jarnhamar]

She is not in the infantry but she does have considerable (combat) experience working along side infantry soldiers in environments they live and fight in.

We may not like or agree with her opinion, or even just chalk it up to her whining, but her opinion is based from first hand experience. I would say she is in a position to make a more informed observation on this than most of us here.


One of the biggest complaints people had (that I noticed) against this decision was the lowering of physical standards. A common response to this seemed to be "as long as they pass the standard than they should be allowed".  The US is now looking at lowering the physical standards for their combat troops.

 

[armyvern]

She is not in the infantry but she does have considerable (combat) experience working along side infantry soldiers in environments they live and fight in.

We may not like or agree with her opinion, or even just chalk it up to her whining, but her opinion is based from first hand experience. I would say she is in a position to make a more informed observation on this than most of us here.


One of the biggest complaints people had (that I noticed) against this decision was the lowering of physical standards. A common response to this seemed to be "as long as they pass the standard than they should be allowed".  The US is now looking at lowering the physical standards for their combat troops.

My aunt has PCOS; she's a friggin' secretary -- in a legion. Guesstimates are that up to 1.4 million Canadian women suffer from it.

You know, if she stuck to actual ailments caused directly by Infantry soldiering that would be one thing, but her statements of ailments that have SFA to do with being an/aggravated by/detrimental to being an Infanteer mean directly that she is merely "whining".  Shitloads of sup techs and RMS clerks (male & female) have bad backs too ... but if you listen to this chick, well ...  : 

Sorry, but I'll take the opinion of male infanteers on this very site who have worked with female infanteers oversees and posted of their experiences before I take the opinion of a whiney chick who believes that all her ails are caused/aggravated by her support role next to an Infantry guy.  Note that the CF has also had female supporters in roles working overseas with infantry too and I can tell you, from experience, that PCOS and bad backs aren't a given on these poor, dainty wimmin' folk. 



Edited to insert link.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Well she's entitled to her opinion of course.


What's your opinion on the US lowering their physical requirements?  I think overcoming 'the boys club' will be a much more significant obstacle for female US infanteers than what they'll face physically.

 

[armyvern]

What's your opinion on the US lowering their physical requirements? 

I've probably got 50 posts on this site already expressing my opinion on that matter;  I know I stated it in brackets in another post on this very thread just a few back ...

 

[LittleMagellan]

I'd agree, but that doesn't make it a female problem/fault.  It simply makes the offender an ******* whether their targeted person be male or female.  There is no excuse for this attitude, and any fellow soldier who excuses its occurrence without correcting it actually assists in the breeding of that attitude and needs to give themselves a good lookover in the ethical mirror.  Don't be the guy that shrugs it off as, "oh well, 'tis the way it is".

In schoolyards, we call that bullying.  Anyone who sees this occurring should stop it from occurring (the professional thing to do).  Full Stop.

Unfortunately this doesn't happen. I've witnessed it (in the Navy, actually)... where there were only about 2 guys who had insecurities about me being a woman and doing the same job as them... half of the remaining guys got sucked in and participated, to not be "left out", and the other half didn't agree with what was going on but didn't have the balls to say anything.

Unfortunately that's the way bullying works. It only takes one sour apple to ruin it for everyone. Especially the person being ostracized. I would have called them out on it but there was only about a week and a half left on course so I didn't bother.

 

[LittleMagellan]

I would say it's more an issue of integrating men to working with women other than their wives if your post is anything to go on.

See my comment above.  So, you're going to penalize a woman because a man is too much of a chicken to call the woman on (what you perceive to be) her laziness?  Do you also believe it's a woman's fault if she gets raped because she was dressing provocatively?

What standard is that?  Is that the one where a woman usually has to perform twice as well as a man to get half the recognition?  Remember, the express test is not a measure of someone's ability to do a job.

Is that the dynamic of watching porn in the wardroom and hanging up pictures of naked women in the office?  How does having to watch your language and temper your jokes negatively affect your combat effectiveness?

I could say the same about a whack load of men I've had to work with.

Haha that was a great post... made me laugh... completely the reality. I've probably seen more porn (well music videos that you could definitely classify as porn) being watched in the wardroom than I saw on PAT in Gagetown. I actually turn the music-porn on frequently just to fuck with the guys. Now they wonder if I'm gay and it throws them for a loop. Haha people and their stereotypes. It's fun messing with that.

 

[LittleMagellan]

Just to throw a tangent in, while we're at it, let's get more rich kids to join. They seem to be one of the most 'under represented' groups, to the detriment of the democratic decision making process regardign military deployments in most western nations (although I personally know quite a few kids who were easily multi-millionaires who became soldiers and Officers in the British Army):

Rich Kids At War

The U.S. armed forces recruiters have noted that a long time trend, that of more recruits from the middle and upper classes, is continuing. This top 20 percent of the population (in terms of income and social class) was never noted for sending many of its kids into military service during peacetime. And those that did go, usually went, via ROTC programs at college, which enabled students to graduate with an officers commission, and an obligation to serve as such for three or four years. When the draft was made permanent in the late 1940s (the first time that had ever happened in peacetime), the pattern didn't change. The military only needed a fraction of the draft age population, so it was easy to avoid service by staying in college, or getting a job that kept you out of uniform. The upper class kids that did get drafted, were eagerly sought after to fill administrative and technical jobs they already had some education or experience for.

When the draft ended in 1972, the upper class kids stayed away from volunteering. At first. But when the military began raising recruit standards in the 1980s, the military began, mostly via word-of-mouth, losing it's bad reputation. Right after the Vietnam war, the military was full of angry, and often inept, people. Lots of good officers and troops got out. But by the 1980s, that had passed, and by the 1990s, it became more common to see kids from the high end high schools, and colleges, joining. For many, it was for the adventure. The working class kids joined for technical jobs, so they could learn valuable job skills, in addition to earning money for college or technical school when they got out. So the combat units tended to be more upper class than the support units.

At the same time, the old, Vietnam era, myth that only the poor and uneducated joined, persisted, even though it was never true. Even when the draft was in effect, the military only accepted the above average kids. This was even more true as time went by. Thus even the recruits from the poorest families, tended to be healthier, and better educated (had graduated from high school and done well on the standardized test all recruits take) than all of their peers (of the same age and gender). But now, kids from the wealthiest families are edging out those from the poorest ones, when it comes to getting into the military. In the last decade, the recruits from the poorest families has gone from about 20 percent, to about ten percent. Meanwhile, those from the top 20 percent of families (in terms of income) has gone from under 20 percent, to about 25 percent.

The big draw for many middle and upper class kids is the combination of adventure, public service and generous pay and benefits. The educational benefits mean you can save up $100,000 or more if you go to college. Unless your parents are very rich, this kind of benefit is a big deal. Plus, the military pay is good enough, especially if you live and eat on base, that you can get out after four years of active service with at least $20,000 in the bank (especially if you spent some time in a combat zone.) Another edge the upper class kinds have is they tend to be more physically fit (a third of all potential recruits are too fat to serve) and less likely to have been arrested (which makes it more difficult, but not impossible, to enlist.)

The military is well aware of the fact that an important reason for their success in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the quality of the troops. Everyone in uniform wants to keep the quality up.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Rich-Kids-At-War-11-12-2009.asp

We weren't soldiers

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/served.htm

Oh man that article makes such a classist argument (maybe your post was tongue in cheek?). I've met plenty of rich kids in the military who were also probably the laziest people I know. In a few cases they had gotten so used to being spoon fed their whole life that they always expected to get what they want. And were also not particularly smart either (but their intelligence has nothing to do with them being well off). I'm not generalising for all rich kids, but making the reverse argument that poor people are dumb and fat is just as ridiculous.

 

[LittleMagellan]

I don't like affirmative action either, but what I've quoted below is talking about segregation...

Ugh I agree, total segregation. Which is totally counter-productive to the whole effort to integrate women into the combat arms in the first place!

"Lt. Gen. Robert Milstead Jr., deputy Marine Corps commandant for manpower, put forward a pitch for gender-segregated boot camp. The Corps is the only service that has maintained gender-segregated initial training.

“I think an excellent example of what you’re talking about is our gender-separated boot camp,” Gen. Milstead testified. “We don’t start teaching the [occupations] there. Our boot camp is about the transformation of individuals, men and women, from being a civilian to being a United States Marine. We have it separated for that reason, because we feel that this transformation, it goes on a separate track. It needs to be handled different.

“They need to be nurtured different. They just need different steps as they go. They end up in the same place, the United States Marines.”