Women in Combat Arms

[Litvyak]

I don't think the US is capable of what would make this work. I understand what you are saying, that if we are all adults about this and mature we can make it work, but thats not going to happen. There won't be a "Agreement of terms" like say "yes you can be in combat arms, but you may see things that offend you,if that bothers you, there is the door." like a pin up calender (Did you see my link on the last page about the USAF launching a nation wide inspection to clear the bases of pictures that objectify women?) That is one of those red flags that tells me this can't be handled maturely.

Yeah, I saw that, and I think it's pretty ridiculous.

There are examples, I think, which show that it *can* be done, though... for example the muscle car scene or the motorcycle scene. They have their own distinct cultures, and (maybe more so in the case of the bikers) it's a very male-dominated thing. And yet there are women involved, too. A woman who wants to be a biker's 'old lady' knows what she's getting into and doesn't complain about it; I know a woman who's a mechanic, works in a shop, she's got no issue with the pinup calendar on the wall; her response was simply to put a male pinup on her tool case. So I don't agree it's not doable, it just needs people to start thinking differently - men and women both (that's the big issue here, isn't it).

the PC aspect is undeniable. It will not be women entering and remaining in a male dominated culture. It will be about cleaning up that male culture to better accommodate women. And it can't do that without destroying combat arms.

You can have a highly effective combat arms field, with men that do things like drink curse and go to foriegn lands and kill people. or you can make it equal opportunity. You can't "clean up" the combat arms the way you can offices. I kind of prefer my combat arms guys as ill mannered, and insensitive to be honest.

Women in the military has been a painful, the same problems still exist now that have been going on for 20 years. Its just the "new normal."

In other threads you've voiced your opinion regarding Canadians' "sense of entitlement" with regards to our health-care system. Here, I'd counter by pointing out something that seems to run through American culture, in which people look for any means they can at getting some benefit for themselves by means of litigation. Instead of being laughed out of court as many if not most of such lawsuits should be, they get awarded enormous sums... and in most of those cases, it's obvious that anyone with two brain cells would know what they were getting into at the start, and it seems that they got into it deliberately, with the aim of starting a lawsuit. I'd not be surprised if at least some of the issues in the military stem from a similar mindset. And I don't think this will start to stop until such a case does indeed get laughed out of the courtroom.

My point is that you have to know what you're getting into - this is the army, not a finishing school for the upper class. Every organisation has its internal culture, the military included, and if you want to get involved in it, you the individual have to adapt to the existing 'corporate culture', not try to change the environment to suit yourself. It's like going to a foreign country and trying to force the locals to speak your language instead of their own.

I'd suspect that the majority of women who are enlisting are aware of what they're getting into, and don't have an issue with things the way they are. I know some girls who are as ill-mannered and foul-mouthed as you want; I've been known to use, um, to quote Spock, "colourful metaphors" from time to time, too, and my late grandmother in Hungary cursed to make a sailor blush.

That's not to say that I don't think there are some aspects of a group culture that don't need addressing; without question malicious misogyny exists inside the armed forces (as elsewhere in society), and that *does* need to be addressed and removed, but I don't think that an off-colour joke or a nude pinup constitutes malicious misogyny. Of course the radfems would be all over that, but those radicals are the reason that I'm occasionally reluctant to say that I'm a feminist, too, since they go to ridiculous extremes and make the (moderate) majority look bad by association. I guess it's like Martin Luther King vs Black Panthers. I could also go on for much longer here, but that would get beyond 'far too political', so I'll just stop here.

Its more than that, you can't afford to say "oh all is well that ends well/who needs em anyway" IF it gets caught, you lose members of a small group that rely on each other for survival. this isn't like getting a new manager at Wendy's because the old one got fired. This has serious implications for everyone. The military has tried making rules and it hasn't stopped anything. Pregnancy is a ticket out as well. If inappropraite relationships are not caught it can cause a nasty case of mistrust and descent. It can fracture units, Ive seen it happen. and these weren't even combat arms.

Well, I meant that statement more generally across the military, but I could see where a special force is a unique situation - though the closest thing I can picture of it from my own experience is a team sport. It wouldn't at all surprise me if some are using pregnancy as a way out of situations they don't want to get into (which is part of why I don't think it's a bad idea to say, okay, if you want to serve in a combat arm, birth control is a requirement. It's not a difficult thing)... at the same time, I'm not sure I see that being much different from what I was saying... if you can't trust a woman on your team to be able to discipline herself and keep from getting pregnant, for example, what's to say her self-discipline will hold in other situations? If you can't trust a man on your team to keep it put away with a woman around, what's to say he can control himself in another situation?

Combat arms for the women in the US Military is like taking every problem the military turns a blind eye too and bumping it up to an 11.

I'm starting to think that the situation with women in the US military is like a distillation of broader American society, because it's a closed system of sorts, things become more magnified and easier to spot... but I'm thinking that the issues in the US military might be something that can't be properly addressed until some fundamental issues in American society in general are dealt with first.

(Apologies if I may have got a bit incoherent here and there, I was working on the day's first coffee as I wrote this!)

[vince14]

Good point. They certainly treated the Chinese women decently when they took Nanking. I need to reevaluate my position on this subject.

You've missed my point. You can't just assume that if 50% of the Marines at Iwo Jima were female then the casualty rate would have been higher, any more than I can assume that the casualty rates would be lower - there's simply no evidence from any conflict in which women were a significant portion of the fighting troops that casualty rates were different from what they would have been if it were an all-male force. There's just not enough data to prove anything either way.

If the question is 'In combat, do units with a significant proportion of female combat troops sufer from either higher casualty rates or decreased effectiveness when compared to all male units?' then the only answer anyone can give at this point in time is 'We don't know'.

Vince

[TaiidanTomcat]

There are examples, I think, which show that it *can* be done, though... for example the muscle car scene or the motorcycle scene. They have their own distinct cultures, and (maybe more so in the case of the bikers) it's a very male-dominated thing. And yet there are women involved, too. A woman who wants to be a biker's 'old lady' knows what she's getting into and doesn't complain about it; I know a woman who's a mechanic, works in a shop, she's got no issue with the pinup calendar on the wall; her response was simply to put a male pinup on her tool case. So I don't agree it's not doable, it just needs people to start thinking differently - men and women both (that's the big issue here, isn't it).

Those cultures are small units that accept females based on their own rules, not those imposed from on high with the heavy handedness of government buearacracy.

In other threads you've voiced your opinion regarding Canadians' "sense of entitlement" with regards to our health-care system. Here, I'd counter by pointing out something that seems to run through American culture, in which people look for any means they can at getting some benefit for themselves by means of litigation. Instead of being laughed out of court as many if not most of such lawsuits should be, they get awarded enormous sums... and in most of those cases, it's obvious that anyone with two brain cells would know what they were getting into at the start, and it seems that they got into it deliberately, with the aim of starting a lawsuit. I'd not be surprised if at least some of the issues in the military stem from a similar mindset. And I don't think this will start to stop until such a case does indeed get laughed out of the courtroom.

the problem is the military don't have those kinds of courts. "People don't sue enough these days"-- said nobody ever

My point is that you have to know what you're getting into - this is the army, not a finishing school for the upper class. Every organisation has its internal culture, the military included, and if you want to get involved in it, you the individual have to adapt to the existing 'corporate culture', not try to change the environment to suit yourself. It's like going to a foreign country and trying to force the locals to speak your language instead of their own.

I'd suspect that the majority of women who are enlisting are aware of what they're getting into, and don't have an issue with things the way they are. I know some girls who are as ill-mannered and foul-mouthed as you want; I've been known to use, um, to quote Spock, "colourful metaphors" from time to time, too, and my late grandmother in Hungary cursed to make a sailor blush.

But they don't know what they are getting into because militaries thrives on "maleness" if you will, The American Military is still striving for equality at the expense of lethality. A large majority of women who join see themselves as starting a new job, not entering into a male dominated culture that makes its living killing people and breaking their stuff. The US military had embraced this idea that its "just like any other job" and it's not though they continually try and it continually blows up in their face. The very fact that the military is "trying to change the culture" is what tells me they are... trying to change the culture. The air force isonly 65 years old yet they are already saying things like "this ain't like it was 30 years ago boys! those were the bad old days" Hell thats half your history! for the USMC WWII is the crowning achievement. If a Marine General were to say "we don't want it to be like WWII gents" most everyone would say "why the hell not? those were our best days... we need to keep doing what worked" especially since a lot of conflicts the last 20-30 years have been a little ambiguous in terms of clear winners and objectives. Bring back the good old days. For the USAF that was SAC and other commited organizations of butt-kickery... thank god we are moving away from that kind of kill/win concept.

That's not to say that I don't think there are some aspects of a group culture that don't need addressing; without question malicious misogyny exists inside the armed forces (as elsewhere in society), and that *does* need to be addressed and removed, but I don't think that an off-colour joke or a nude pinup constitutes malicious misogyny. Of course the radfems would be all over that, but those radicals are the reason that I'm occasionally reluctant to say that I'm a feminist, too, since they go to ridiculous extremes and make the (moderate) majority look bad by association. I guess it's like Martin Luther King vs Black Panthers. I could also go on for much longer here, but that would get beyond 'far too political', so I'll just stop here.

Thats the problem-- Everyone's line is different. The US military still can't decide if like in the days of chivalry women are innocent virgins to be protected, or if they are fighters. The "combat flower" syndrome I mentioned earlier. If seeing a picture of a naked lady is the most traumatic experience you have in the military, you count yourself lucky. all the time spent looking for pin-ups could have been better spent with a little "field trip" to the local VA to see the Marines and Soldiers coming back from overseas minus arms and legs. There is also a little bit of irony in the whole pin up fiasco beyond nose art -- With the repeal of Don't ask Don't Tell, there are also females that can openly enjoy those pin ups right along with the men; but of course the USAF in trying to show how progressive and modern it is yet it doesn't understand that the ladies can like ladies in these modern times. :rolleyes:/>/> also that female sensibilities must be guarded from the unclean (nothing anachronistic in this concept)

Allow me to tell a story. In training we were doing infantry rushes when a Marine armed with a SAW (Minimi for you canadians/europeans) hit the ground and proned out to continue shooting. However in the process of hitting the deck his helmet slipped over his eyes and blinded him. Not being able to see is no reason not to open up with a machine gun, so he pulled the trigger and proceeded to empty rounds into a tree directly in front of him. Upon seeing this, his squad leader sprinted over and kicked him hard in the ribs... followed by several more kicks, and then by others who had witnessed him firing blindly while there were friendlies in front of him and they also joined in kicking the screw up. You see in combat arms mistakes kill people, and its kinda hard not to take that personally. My last words were not going to be "aww don't worry kiddo accidents happen..." I'm not the only with this mindset. This all went unreported. The Marine learned lesson, and knowing he was at fault felt his punishment was painful but well deserved. as did the squad. No paper work need be filed, no meetings needed. instant decisive correction to a potentially fatal mistake.

How does this work when the SAW Gunner is a female?

Well, I meant that statement more generally across the military, but I could see where a special force is a unique situation - though the closest thing I can picture of it from my own experience is a team sport. It wouldn't at all surprise me if some are using pregnancy as a way out of situations they don't want to get into (which is part of why I don't think it's a bad idea to say, okay, if you want to serve in a combat arm, birth control is a requirement. It's not a difficult thing)... at the same time, I'm not sure I see that being much different from what I was saying... if you can't trust a woman on your team to be able to discipline herself and keep from getting pregnant, for example, what's to say her self-discipline will hold in other situations? If you can't trust a man on your team to keep it put away with a woman around, what's to say he can control himself in another situation?

Thats not seen as a "lack of discipline" for males. Warriors, not Warrior monks. Falling asleep on duty is a lack of discipline, having fun with ladies, drinking, etc is approved. However males don't typically have to worry about consequences the same way females do.

I'm starting to think that the situation with women in the US military is like a distillation of broader American society, because it's a closed system of sorts, things become more magnified and easier to spot... but I'm thinking that the issues in the US military might be something that can't be properly addressed until some fundamental issues in American society in general are dealt with first.

So here is my thought on why "Israel might work" and why it won't with the US. Israel is a nation constantly at war and always under threat. If a female is told she can't do something in the Israeli military I'm sure it is met with disappointment, but for the most part it is understood as to why-- the nation comes first.

The US has tried to do the same thing: For national security we feel men and men only must do these jobs. But there isn't a disappointed acceptance of this for the great good. instead, its "then youre wrong, equality is more important than national security" if it was accepted, we wouldn't even talking about it; in the same way that ARC doesn't get many "Earth: Flat?" threads

Edited December 11, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[Litvyak]

Thats not seen as a "lack of discipline" for males. Warriors, not Warrior monks. Falling asleep on duty is a lack of discipline, having fun with ladies, drinking, etc is approved. However males don't typically have to worry about consequences the same way females do.

Sure, no problem. Drink. Have fun with ladies or whoever of your choice - but not your teammates. That's what I was trying to get at with the discipline thing.

So here is my thought on why "Israel might work" and why it won't with the US. Israel is a nation constantly at war and always under threat. If a female is told she can't do something in the Israeli military I'm sure it is met with disappointment, but for the most part it is understood as to why-- the nation comes first.

That may well be part of it for Israel. But what about Canada then? Nearly 25 years now since we first had women serving in combat arms (gunners, in 1988). A year later we got our first female fighter pilot and first woman in infantry. 2003 for the first female submariner, and a woman became captain of HMCS Halifax in 2009.

Sure, there have been occasional issues up here, too, but I think far fewer in relative terms than there have been south of the 49th.

But even in Israel or here, it started with a few pioneering women saying, "hey, waitasec. If I'm strong/competent/whatever enough, why shouldn't I be allowed to do it, too?" So it started the same way as in the US... I just think, perhaps, there was more of a will to achieve the goal than in the US, and I think also the process was undertaken in a more structured way? I don't know the details of the situation in the US, but as far as I can tell, everything was done pretty haphazardly, which probably has contributed to the mess...

The US has tried to do the same thing: For national security we feel men and men only must do these jobs. But there isn't a disappointed acceptance of this for the great good. instead, its "then youre wrong, equality is more important than national security" if it was accepted, we wouldn't even talking about it; in the same way that ARC doesn't get many "Earth: Flat?" threads.

Yeah, this just reinforces my earlier thought that there needs to be some fundamental rethinking of American society/mentalities in general, before the military can integrate as successfully as Israel and Canada have done. Just my personal opinion here (and no offence is intended!), but I don't think you're ready yet... attitudes are changing though, of course, slowly, and with time I'm sure things will get worked out, and the US will have a properly, efficiently integrated military, too. (Though jumping back to my earlier comment about haphazardness, if from the start the integration was undertaken in a measured, structured, clearly-defined (bit by bit - not all at once) way, I suspect you'd probably have a fairly-well settled service already).

[Antonov]

Why not?

Because it's uncivilized. Old-fashioned concept, I know, and the mark of a real caveman, but there it is.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The United States Army is debating whether to admit women to Ranger School, its elite training program for young combat leaders. Proponents argue this is to remove a final impediment to the careers of Army women. But the move would erode the unique Ranger ethos and culture

I know could you imagine? How crazy would it be if the Army Hijacked Ranger culture? Next thing you know everyone will be wearing a black beret!!

From this article:

With a question(s) too:

But does changing the fabric of the military culture to improve the odds of individual achievement make sense for the military? Do individuals serve the military or does the military serve them? Remember, this is an all-volunteer force.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577448821376681662.html

Wait spoiler alert The Army Ranger school will admit women:

If physical fitness standards are sex-normed for the women, as Army standards overall are, and women are carefully preselected (trained up in land nav, only strong swimmers) then they can get past that initial 60% drop and have a decent chance of passing. Right now, the plan is for women officers only, and for them to have as much as a two month train-up prior to the course. If the women beat the 50% attrition rate of men, expect a publicity blitz. Some attrition means the initial 5 to 8 in the first class will be winnowed down to a publicity-friendly 3 or 4 junior-officer graduates, a number of whom are likely to be "legacies" of military families and already fast-tracked for promotion.

The question is, is the purpose of Ranger School to prepare leaders for combat or to provide careerist officers with a shiny ticket-punch? The Chief of Staff has answered the question, and his answer conforms to what appears to be his overall policy: get the Army firmly on a peacetime bureaucratic footing, and banish the unpleasant lessons of combat.

(Its a blog):

http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814

There is a gag order on the ranger cadre

I heard from my bestie in the army that several soldiers burned their tabs upon the news of female entry. Sorry everyone TT was debating something that had been decided

[Litvyak]

Why not?

Because it's uncivilized. Old-fashioned concept, I know, and the mark of a real caveman, but there it is.

We find ourselves quite civilised; I'm sure the Israelis consider themselves civilised, too.

One could just as easily (maybe more so?) argue that NOT doing this is uncivilised ('old-fashioned' can be just a polite way of saying 'backwards' or 'outmoded', after all).

I'm (by now probably obviously) all for it. But you guys are doing it wrong. You guys evidently set it up from the start such that problems would be guaranteed to happen, by putting in two sets of standards. Saying outright 'no' to women serving is, IMO, not a defensible position in a modern, civilised society; but, again just IMO, there is also no problem in having a unified set of standards and saying, if you meet these, you're fine, otherwise, sorry. You also can't try to make it out that the armed forces are anything but what they are, and that should be made clear to anyone wanting to join.

tl;dr it *can* be done - it's been proven -, but both sides of the argument in the US need to stop, take a breath, and rethink their positions.

[fulcrum1]

Wait spoiler alert The Army Ranger school will admit women:

It's a nasty rumor. There were changes made to both IBOLC, RANGER, and ARBOLC this summer, but none of it had to do with females or "dumbing down" each of the courses. The big change was in the patrol portion of Ranger School and how much time you're given, making it harder, IMO. I think the original rumor was a hand selected group of female West Point grads would attend IBOLC during the summer, of course this never happened. How and why that blog took that rumor along with the Chief of Staff's comments and made that story....I don't know, but there isn't any truth to it right now.

Edited December 12, 2012 by fulcrum1

[TaiidanTomcat]

It's a nasty rumor. There were changes made to both IBOLC, RANGER, and ARBOLC this summer, but none of it had to do with females or "dumbing down" each of the courses. The big change was in the patrol portion of Ranger School and how much time you're given, making it harder, IMO. I think the original rumor was a hand selected group of female West Point grads would attend IBOLC during the summer, of course this never happened. How and why that blog took that rumor along with the Chief of Staff's comments and made that story....I don't know, but there isn't any truth to it right now.

Thanks, Brian.

I wonder if those guys snuffed out the tabs, or sheepishly replaced them.

I think this is where the Army runs into more trouble than the Marines. Infantry Officer Course is for Officers that go into the USMC 03 occ field. Its not a "box check" for promotion. Marines do jump and Ranger School but its very rare and isn't required for promotion by any stretch. I had a friend who went to jump school as a reenlistment perk for example.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Sure, no problem. Drink. Have fun with ladies or whoever of your choice - but not your teammates. That's what I was trying to get at with the discipline thing.

They still havn't been able to pull that off. "It's discipline, don't sleep with your shipmates..." That discipline does not exist. The problem with the Stigma about sleeping around in the military is that there isn't a stigma about it.

Before the Petraeus scandal I might of agreed with you. I might have said something like "you know officers could pull it off, they aren't a bunch of horny 19 year olds stuck in a tin can for months" If a married 4 star general in 60's can't keep it together, I think its hopeless. And before we go saying "oh TT thats just one isolated incident" It really isn't.

This guy starts talking to a C-130 loadmaster in the USAF. Chatting him up. "oh you are in the air force!? my daughter just joined up." he asks a few questions then says "You know I'm kind of worried about her... she is pretty and there are all those men around..." I could tell he was kind of looking for some assurance, kind of a "don't worry good sir she will be fine, its a whole new military" Instead he got something I will never forget "If she is pretty some married colonel will probably hook up with her, no need to worry about "the men'" I almost choked. So glad I stopped for coffee at the McDonalds across the base. loadmaster must have been having a bad day.

The next thing is Feminism. Any female that goes into combat arms will sacrifice her feminism. Its that simple. if thats a sacrifice that some women are ok with then thats one step closer to being in combat arms. What I fear, and what others fear, is that sacrifice won't be asked. Women in combat arms, with a micro managing leadership, will want to "have their cake and eat it too" IE What do you mean she has to shave her head? You can't force her to be on Birth Control! What do you mean you will charge her with a crime if she becomes pregnant? What do you mean she doesn't get any privacy? Just because she is in the infantry doesn't mean she has to give up her life! Even now women are required to have a shower at least every five days. If you are out at some godawful FOB wiping your self down with a baby wipe because you havn't showered in months as the convoy arrives that will take them women to nice showers it causes a little "dislike" Infantry is in the field for months at a time.

It can not be "equality" it must be "assimilation"

theGreat PR machine will want this:

Strong, capable, pretty "Iceland" Annie Thorisdottir Female Crossfit Competitor

They will be lucky to get this^ Kristin Clever, Female Crossfit competitor

And yes for as strong and capable as these women are, I still don't think they would make it in the infantry for a length of time worth the effort put in.

[Chorse6]

Before the Petraeus scandal I might of agreed with you. I might have said something like "you know officers could pull it off, they aren't a bunch of horny 19 year olds stuck in a tin can for months" If a married 4 star general in 60's can't keep it together, I think its hopeless. And before we go saying "oh TT thats just one isolated incident" It really isn't.

When I was in Iraq, there were senior officers and NCOs under investigation at all times for sexual misconduct. This stuff is rank indiscriminant.

I will reiterate my original comment as most of the comments here are about the individual and not the organization. We would be just adding another problem for the leadership to manage other than their intended purpose.

[JasonW]

They will be lucky to get this^ Kristin Clever, Female Crossfit competitor

Wait a minute, I know a dude when I see one........

[JasonW]

We would be just adding another problem for the leadership to manage other than their intended purpose.

Couldn't agree more on this point. There is already enough distraction as it is.

Not like our military leadership needs to worry about training troops and fighting a war or anything crazy like that......

[NWarty]

I've mentioned this before to my wife and friends when this topic pops up: Exactly what sort of value is added to the Infantry/Armor/Artillery/CBT EN if combat arms is open to women when there is plenty of fit males to do the job? In an era of a drawdown, how does this HELP the military?

I'm an Artilleyman by trade and have spent many of my years in combat arms both as a Gun Bunny and a Mech. FSO, a BSB and BDE Staff.

Edited December 13, 2012 by NWarty

[TaiidanTomcat]

Bump :bandhead2:/>

Found this:

The Q angle

Who wants to see what happens when we throw 130 lbs on?

http://www.cusjc.ca/catalyst/?p=833

from an article about ACL injuries being more common in females in the high impact, heavy load arena of... soccer?!

Edited January 25, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[phantom]

Canada dealt with this decades ago. I do not recall any issues when I was in.

Armed Forces in Canada Resolved Issue Long Agowww.nytimes.comMore than two decades later, the debate in Canada over the suitability of women as combat troops has all but faded from the nation’s collective memory.

[Jennings]

Every argument against it was almost identical to the arguments used against racial integration of the military in 1948, and gays serving openly. Not a single one of the dire predictions of those things has come to pass, nor I doubt will any regarding women in combat.

[arkhunter2002]

I'll just be leaving this one here....

[Aaronw]

It's a done deal at this point anyway.

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2013/01/ban-women-combat-will-officially-end/60832/

Not really much in the way of pro or con, but kind of an interesting article on women disguised as men during the Civil war. Really more of a promo piece for a book on the subject.

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2013/01/think-women-havent-been-combat-situations-already-history-crossdressing-soldiers/60874/

[Hoops]

Found this:

The Q angle

The above has to do with childbirth, not really with the male knee being designed to carry more load. In order to be able to pull, there has to be something to pull against, and for childbirth that something is the muscle on the inside of the thigh. These inside muscles are more developed on women, as opposed to being more symmetrically distributed on men, and this pulls the kneecap to the inside as well as increasing the "Q Angle" depicted above. It doesn't have to do with the thighs, hamstrings or calves being smaller, rather the emphasis being differently distributed.

Hoops

[TaiidanTomcat]

The above has to do with childbirth, not really with the male knee being designed to carry more load. In order to be able to pull, there has to be something to pull against, and for childbirth that something is the muscle on the inside of the thigh. These inside muscles are more developed on women, as opposed to being more symmetrically distributed on men, and this pulls the kneecap to the inside as well as increasing the "Q Angle" depicted above. It doesn't have to do with the thighs, hamstrings or calves being smaller, rather the emphasis being differently distributed.

Hoops

Which results in....?

Every argument against it was almost identical to the arguments used against racial integration of the military in 1948, and gays serving openly. Not a single one of the dire predictions of those things has come to pass, nor I doubt will any regarding women in combat.

We aren't talking about women in combat, we are talking about women in combat arms, and yes there is a difference.

Edited January 25, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[Phantom ordie]

I like women who are women. My wife thinks it is wrong for women to want to try to fulfill mens roles. I agree. If that type of woman appeals to some then ,more power to you. I like cuddlely , soft women women. I believe the womens libbers will say that females are not given a fair shake so the military will have to lower physical standards.This will degrade our military.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I like women who are women. My wife thinks it is wrong for women to want to try to fulfill mens roles. I agree. If that type of woman appeals to some then ,more power to you. I like cuddlely , soft women women. I believe the womens libbers will say that females are not given a fair shake so the military will have to lower physical standards.This will degrade our military.

I'll admit I have actually really warmed up to the idea. I don't think the military should discriminate in decisions that have life and death consequences if it inhibits career options in the service. Plenty of men fail out of combat arms too, and they deserve the same chances. If a man can't do the regular PFT he should have the option of doing the female PFT. Its only fair. Why should my physical limitations hold me back?

Or for example, if someone suffers from vertigo, I don't know why the military should stop them from from being a fighter pilot. If a 45 year old wants to join the army and he can't physically make it, we should be able to give him a separate test so he can. Its time to rid ourselves of all these rules and restrictions that have kept people out of jobs the military arbitrarily feels they can't do. Just because you can't operate a microwave oven without someone telling you the exact buttons to press, doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to work on a nuclear reactor what could go wrong? being a Navy SEAL is great for your career, and I don't feel my lack of ability to keep up with the teams or pass the same training should keep me out.

Just because I can't carry the same load the same distance as fast is no reason to keep me out of where I need to go to get the next promotion.

Also, time for the ladies to register for selective service, can't let being a lady stop ya from being drafted.

Edited January 25, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[Horrido]

The Army has carried the American ... ideal to its logical conclusion. Not only do they prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, creed and color, but also on... ability.

--Tom Lehrer

[Horrido]

Ah, f-it, I'm posting the song. He touches on the uniform issue, as well. Far ahead of his time, this being 1958-9:

He's also got one honoring the Marines if anyone's interested.