Females in Combat Units - Page 3




 
--
 
May 25th, 2016  
dadsgirl
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by -- Dusty
Well, women feel they are supposed to have equal "everything", I suppose that might as well include the same horrors and nightmares. I wonder if they can handle PTSD the same way.
Dusty, men, I'm really surprised at the way yous guys are talkin'. You know that I personally did not serve. You'd be a lucky son of a gun if lieutenant tatas ( absolutely no offense!) plucked you out of a situation! Who cares? As long as you and your bros are alright! PTSD? ALL due respect Gentleman !
May 25th, 2016  
brinktk
 
 
Women don't belong in offensive ground combat...PERIOD.

Unless it is a fight for the survival of the nation or civilization, they simply should not be there. In a volunteer military, it is isn't cost efficient, fair to the women, or fair to the men that would have to deal with all the complications that would ensue from it, or fair to the service whos job is to ensure the most capable fighting force is put on the battlefield to break things and kill people.

How many men could you have been trained simply to find the very few that might be able to make it?

How long would their bodies endure the brutal punishment that they aren't designed to endure?

How would they deal with the lack of testosterone that greatly aids in not only aggression and focus, but muscle recovery that is absolutely crucial when you're burning more calories than you're consuming?

What happens after 4 weeks into an operation where everyone has lost 20% of their body mass because of miserable conditions and lack of supplies where even the most fit women in the world start to greatly break down because their bodies simply can't take carrying 100 or more lbs of equipment every day, on almost no sleep, likely with malaria or dysentery, and their body fat is consumed to the point that their body literally starts to eat itself because they can't physically recover as quickly as men can?(again testosterone)

What happens to a units camaraderie and brotherhood(one of the most important aspects to effective combat units) when sexual hormones are added to the mixture?

However, if this is to be done. Then it needs to be completely equal across the board. One standard for everyone. No more double standards, and no more lowering of standards to accommodate the fairer sex. One standard...PERIOD.
May 26th, 2016  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
Women don't belong in offensive ground combat...PERIOD.

Unless it is a fight for the survival of the nation or civilization, they simply should not be there. In a volunteer military, it is isn't cost efficient, fair to the women, or fair to the men that would have to deal with all the complications that would ensue from it, or fair to the service whos job is to ensure the most capable fighting force is put on the battlefield to break things and kill people.

Well put, agreed!
--
May 26th, 2016  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
Women don't belong in offensive ground combat...PERIOD.

Unless it is a fight for the survival of the nation or civilization, they simply should not be there. In a volunteer military, it is isn't cost efficient, fair to the women, or fair to the men that would have to deal with all the complications that would ensue from it, or fair to the service whos job is to ensure the most capable fighting force is put on the battlefield to break things and kill people.

However, if this is to be done. Then it needs to be completely equal across the board. One standard for everyone. No more double standards, and no more lowering of standards to accommodate the fairer sex. One standard...PERIOD.
Well said.
July 23rd, 2016  
-- Dusty
 
 
I don't know about that, BA. Women complain about how much they want equal this and equal that. Well, maybe it's time we gave them the equality they want. Can they handle it? Who knows.
July 26th, 2016  
brinktk
 
 
Is this really what we should be doing as a military force? Although this is one example, it demonstrates the aggression difference. The male actually toned it down on his next two hits because she simply didn't have a chance...something the males didn't afford each other and something the enemy certainly won't afford either.

How are feminists going to take men hitting women with their full force during training...leading to injuries, because professional armies train like they fight? Or women for that matter? How are men going to resist the temptation to protect the women the same way four men jumped in to protect this female when she got obliterated in one shot?

I had one patrol while I was platoon leader where a good looking Air force intelligence NCO joined my platoon in an operation where were conducting a joint raid with Special Forces to secure the most prominent bomb maker in Northern Iraq at the time...along with several hundred lbs of home made explosive. Our staging position was in a nearby towns soccer field in the middle of the night. This should have been a time where we were diligently pulling security and going over last minute details before moving to our attack position...A time for deadly seriousness. And under any other circumstances that is precisely what would have happened. However, while in our staging area, as I'm walking the perimeter I find an entire squad of my soldier surrounding the female, protecting her, seeking her approval, telling jokes, offering cigarettes...total discipline break down. She was smitten with all the attention, laughingly interacting with my soldiers and taking whatever they offered her. I ended up having to quarantine her inside one of my vehicles with my personal Radio operator sitting at the door of the vehicle to wave off suiters if they came while myself and platoon sergeant walked the line to make sure our soldiers were properly motivated to do their damn jobs.

We got lucky that night because our staging area wasn't compromised. After that situation I had to reprimand several of my soldiers and admonish myself and my entire platoon because of our lack of judgment. If we would have been attacked on that mission, I'm not sure if some of my junior leaders would have followed my orders...leaders who had days before entered into a building with armed insurgents, at great risk to themselves, to detain them, on my orders...yes, they managed to detain them. Had we been attacked and there was a refusal to follow orders because they wanted to be near or protect this female, it could have been catastrophic.

Again, I understand this is a singular incident and it doesn't represent all women. However, it only takes one woman to take advantage of the status they will receive from the fawning men to destroy an organization. If a male did something to put the unit in jeopardy, they would be harshly disciplined and removed from the unit. It isn't so easy to do that with a female who is willing to game the system in a discrimination charge in order to protect themselves from the consequences of there actions. I have seen it many times.

Call me what you want, but I still think it has no business on the battlefield. Equality or not, it isn't the women who will pay...it is the men who will when they have to pick up the dropped slack because she will never be the one to carry the M240 up a mountain with over a thousand rounds of 7.62-51 linked ammo. Along with 70 other lbs of gear...she will never be the one carrying a soldier on a stretcher for miles to an evacuation site AND carry all her gear...she will never have the upper body strength to pull me out of a burning hatch because with all my gear on in the turret I weigh over 250 Ibs...something the average guy can easily do. It will be the men who have to assume more risk, endure more pain, carry the heaviest loads longer, all for the privilege of having female company in combat...if this all makes me a misogynist...so be it.

July 26th, 2016  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
Is this really what we should be doing as a military force? Although this is one example, it demonstrates the aggression difference. The male actually toned it down on his next two hits because she simply didn't have a chance...something the males didn't afford each other and something the enemy certainly won't afford either.

How are feminists going to take men hitting women with their full force during training...leading to injuries, because professional armies train like they fight? Or women for that matter? How are men going to resist the temptation to protect the women the same way four men jumped in to protect this female when she got obliterated in one shot?
1) Who cares what feminists think, the military is a voluntary career what you are describing is an individual unsuited to the role they are trying to fill and no different to someone wanting to be a butcher but wont handle meat.

2) Dusty is correct, we have been nagged into accepting equality between the sexes and now that they have equality (and I am all for it) there is no reason why they can not be soldiers and serve in combat units as long as they meet the training requirements.

I also think you are understimating women as there are a lot out there that are just as tough as their male counterparts and will pass training, hell I live in a country full of the angriest females in the known universe who if you bolted a 120mm smoothbore to their arses could pass as an MBT (roughly similar size, weight and shape) and are just as hard to stop.

As to whether there should be mixed units I am not as convinced but with time and exposure I believe a professional force can over come that as well.
July 26th, 2016  
brinktk
 
 
It was feminists who lobbied for preferential treatment and have insisted on separate standards since this all began. The Marines have conducted numerous tests to see what effect integration would have on unit combat performance...which to no surprise, integrated units in competition with their all males counterparts were not just beaten by a little....they were beaten by a lot...in almost every category tested. They were ignored and told to carry on. The women who passed ranger school were not only afforded a several months long train up prior to attendance, they were also allowed to recycle EVERY SINGLE phase of the training. Something that is NEVER afforded to their male counterparts. That's why I care about feminists, because their lobbying dictates substandard performance as acceptable and if you protest it you're silenced and are briskly dealt with by a chain of command unwilling to risk their necks, careers, and livlihoods because even if they did stand up to it...the results would still be ignored.

Also, it isn't a question of toughness, it is a question of sustainability. We are a sexually dimorphic species and women are simply not built to endure sustained combat conditions without a lot of extra help. Even the fittest who pass training...the minumum to even go to combat...will still only perform physically as well as the bottom third of males. Once in the austere conditions that sustained combat operations tend to happen in, they will be the first to deteriorate because THEY DON'T HAVE NEAR ENOUGH TESTOSTERONE. The hormone that allows men to recover from exertion much faster with minimal food. This has been tested time and time again. Why are we sitting here pretending that men and women are the same...they aren't and that is ok. GI Jane does not exist. This is about winning, not simply participating. Simply participating in combat will get you killed. If you want the strongest teams, with the best sustainability, best fitness, best unit cohesion, it is going to be aggressive, testosterone filled men who will WIN when you need to assault a trench or fight to the death in a small building.

Angry women can be a badass as long as men won't fight them. We put up with stuff from women we simply wouldn't put up with in a man...or I do at least. Men go their whole lives with the understanding that if you cross another mans line you may well have to deal with that man in a fight...women have no concept of that and they KNOW it. They know they aren't to be hit and if they ever are they know other men will come crawling out of the wood work to defend them. If you're about equality, then hold them to the same standard as men when they are disrespectful or become violent.

It is no different than having middle school boys playing football compete with professionals and pretending that they even have a shot. Some of those boys will inevitably be tough, but it would be unthinkable to even consider them able to contribute in a meanigful way to a professional team. Those same boys would on average have a much better shot of passing real combat training then the average woman...PERIOD!
July 27th, 2016  
MontyB
 
 
But what I am trying to say is that the fight is not about what sexes can and cant do as equality has made that redundant, it has to about maintaining a single standard as it should not matter whether the person is man or woman as long as they can meet the standard required to do the job.

Now if the requirements to fill a role mean that only one woman (or man) get through out of 100 applicants then so be it, as long as it is a fair standard then there can be no argument.

Trust me I understand the sense of entitlement that women have in the work place, the number of times I have had to hear "I'm not doing that, it is a mans job" is to numerous to count (Although offering to bring the laundry in to give them "womens work" is apparently an insult) but the reality is we do live in a world pushing equality and if someone is capable of filling a role then they should be able to fill it and not be held back by gender.
July 27th, 2016  
JOC
 
 
2016 USA is not 1940's USSR or early Israel where they were in danger of extinction. Only in such extreme examples should the military turn to supplementing there ranks with women in combat roles.
 


Similar Topics
Modern combat and PTSD?
Combat Engineers
Army is considering adding women to its new 'units of action
Women in army and deployed in combat units
Should females be in combat units