The women in combat discussion continues
I’m still in my pajamas because I haven’t stopped on this discussion all day. Not that I’m complainin’, I’m just sayin’. But I’ve run across some real moron statements in my reading today. For example, Tammy Duckworth, the newest Congresswoman from Illinois and former VoteVets associate felt the need to endorse the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s decision to allow women in the combat arms specialties. Of course, there’s not much chance that she’ll get called back into the service due to her position and the fact that she’s a double amputee, but she makes the most moronic statement I’ve read all day in Stars & Stripes;
As a combat veteran I know the inclusion of women in combat roles will make America safer and provide inspiration to women throughout our country.
I’d like her to explain to her constituents how this will make the country safer. And in light of the two women who washed out of the Marine Infantry Officers Course, the only two who volunteered, how does that inspire anyone? But generally, the only people I’ve read who are whooping and hollering about this decision are women who will never serve as combat soldiers.
And, yes, she has a Purple Heart for wounds received in combat, but what does she know about real close up combat? She was wounded when the helicopter she was flying was shot down, so she never humped a ruck, never kicked a door down, never pointed her weapon at someone who was trying to kill her. Never maneuvered a squad or platoon in a firefight. So that “As a combat veteran…” thing rings a bit hollow.
Earlier today, when I read one of my Facebook friends of the VoteVets variety celebrating the decision, I asked if she was going to reenlist to take advantage of the new policy. I got the sound of crickets in return. Another, of the IVAW variety (not Army Sergeant), who I asked the same question, made several excuses as to why she wouldn’t.
And then I read, thanks to our buddy Adam Weinstein at Mother Jones, that idiot who calls himself the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marty Dempsey, says that allowing women in the combat occupations will cure the sexual harassment problem;
If the United States had previously allowed women to serve officially in military combat roles, including special operations forces, there might be fewer sexual assaults in the armed services, the Pentagon’s top general told reporters Thursday.
Having studied the issue of rampant sexual misconduct in the ranks, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that he has concluded that the phenomenon exists partly because women have been subordinated to men in military culture: “It’s because we’ve had separate classes of military personnel.”
Really? This ranks right up there with his conclusion that the green-on-blue attacks were the result of cultural insensitivity on the part of our troops in Afghanistan. How are we separate classes? I’ve seen women at all ranks, including General Officers.
Dempsey and Panetta went on to tell the media that the service chiefs were all behind the policy. They said the same thing about the DADT policy change, too. Then we found out that not all of the service chiefs were particularly happy about it. Then the Secretary and Chairman said that the services can request opt-outs for some jobs. I don’t see that happening. Demi Moore did a great job at BUD/S, so that’s proof that women can handle any job, right?
“We want to make sure we get the standards right, and we don’t overengineer them either,” Dempsey said.
What? The standards are already policy, what do you have “get right” if you’re not lowering the standards, either for the entire force or just women?
Asked whether the military’s elite Seals and Green Berets might soon see female recruits, Dempsey said he had discussed that with Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno and Marine Commandant James Amos, both combat veterans themselves. “I think we all believe that there will be women who can meet those standards,” he added.
Yeah, if you bring the standards to their level. It’s not the women’s fault, it’s the fault of the social scientists and the Tammy Duckworths who are going demand to see numbers that justify their efforts, and the military being under the command of civilians who don’t understand how important training standards are to the entire force, just collapse like a Kmart lawn chair. Again, the folks who are going to make the most noise are the ones who don’t have to do the job.
And, yes, I understand that women have performed admirably in the last couple of wars when they have “found themselves” in contact with the enemy, but, you know unintentionally bumping into the enemy and engaging in a firefight, is a damn sight different from actively seeking and pursuing an enemy hoping that it will result in a firefight. You’d think that Dempsey would be able to tell the difference and explain that to his boss.
January 24th, 2013 at 7:42 pm
As a female in the military, this is one of the worst decisions that has happened since I have been in. If they pull me into a combat job, which I do not want, I’ll be out. There are just some jobs we don’t need to be in. I don’t want a man to be distracted by a female and lose his life for it and if they think that sexual assaults will go down…yeah, I doubt it.
January 24th, 2013 at 7:43 pm
[i]there might be fewer sexual assaults in the armed services, the Pentagon’s top general told reporters Thursday.[/i]
Absolutely fucking insane.
I have no problem with the concept of a XX-er serving with XY’s in combat roles, that is if they meet the exact same physical standards. Sadly I suspect, as I’ve noted is the prevailing wisdom in these parts, the standards won’t remain the same for women as men.
Or worse. They’ll lower the standards for men too, just so they can say “No. See? They’re treated the same.”
January 24th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
APFT scoring is already gender normed. Will these be retained or dropped for combat arms applicants?
Just asking.
January 24th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
to paraphrase Snake from “Fields of Firs”- war is hell, but infantry is a motherf*cker”.
for Tammy Duckworth and her ilk, I recommend watching Restrepo, a la Clockwork Orange style. Then I would like them to clearly, logically and coherently explain why allowing women in ‘ground combat roles’ is a good thing
January 24th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Further beclowning from a local tv station in which a LTC in the Air Nat’l Guard tells us how being a medic on Bagram Air Base is just like combat.
http://tinyurl.com/aavpj66
January 24th, 2013 at 8:00 pm
#3 MAJMike – My argument to the media all day has been that there are two winners in marathon races – male and female.
January 24th, 2013 at 8:02 pm
This all reeks of scummery.
January 24th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Where did this idiot Dempsey go to get his brain removed and replaced with a non-functioning Anus?
January 24th, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Um, coincidence??
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/us-pregnancies-servicewoman-idUSBRE90N1B820130124
Unintended pregnancies on the rise in servicewomen
By Genevra Pittman
NEW YORK | Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:15pm EST
(Reuters Health) – Just over ten percent of women in the military said in 2008 they’d had an unintended pregnancy in the last year – a figure significantly higher than rates in the general public, according to a new study.
January 24th, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Stop!!! “Having studied the issue of rampant sexual misconduct in the ranks” — oh, don’t get me started on this!
Does Dempsey even have a clue that this is nothing new? Or that is was an issue back in the 1960s and 1970s? Has he been living underground all this time?
For pete’s sake, sailers have been bullying women since we put on the uniform. The worst offenders were guys coming in from 90 days out. I couldn’t figure out if they were just being obnoxious and rude, or stinking homosexuals who REALLY hated women, or just a bunch of horny-assed men who didn’t know how to act around women. Who the hell would want to date someone like that, anyway?
It was nice to be able to tell them to dry up and blow away, or I’d turn that wharf rat in the middle of the airfield loose in their barracks.
Of course, I have a different perspective now. And I would say other things.
January 24th, 2013 at 8:17 pm
#6 – The men’s world record for the marathon is 2:03:02, the women’s 2:15:25. To continue with your analogy, the average very fit male soldier might run, say, a 2:40 – 3:30. Using your metric, there are a lot of women with fitness levels as high or higher than the average male soldier. I know, I run into them in out here all the time, they just don’t happen to be soldiers. If they recruit from that pool at the top of the pyramid, the women will do just fine. In fact, they’ll keep some male soldiers honest.
January 24th, 2013 at 8:23 pm
@6 – Dempsey and all but one of the service chiefs are graduates of their respective service academies. Perhaps before forcing this on the military as a whole, they can test their plan’s effectiveness by combining the male and female sports teams at their almae matres. The consequences of a woman not being able to hang in an infantry battalion are just a tad more serious than the consequences of a woman failing at linebacker for the Midshipmen or having to sit on the bench behind all the taller, faster, stronger basketball players.
I have a question that may have been covered elsewhere, but I haven’t seen it… What happens when a female E-6 requests an MOS change to 11B? There won’t be any issue with her becoming a squad leader, I’m sure. Or what happens when the difference in promotion points between a female E-4 and a male E-4 who can each do 46 pushups and run 2 miles in 15:36 (both max on the APFT for 22-26 year old women, low enough to be practically unacceptable for an infantryman) is the deciding factor in who becomes the new fire team leader? I can’t imagine that will foster any ill will.
January 24th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
That Dempsey quote must be one of the most ignorant things I have ever read! But Duckworth’s is not much better.
All this is just too stupid for words. Going back into the cave to attempt to get the BP down a couple of hundred points. (Not that this nonsense on top of yesterday’s nonsense has me upset or anything.)
Did anyone notice that while everyone was looking over here that they started talking about banning weapons and that Hillary didn’t say anything but did testify before Congress? Course not. Too busy being focused on this mess. There might even have been a couple of other appointments made, too. But who noticed?
January 24th, 2013 at 8:27 pm
Hey Joe, if your Army is running a marathon it means one of two things. 1) Our word for that is full scale retreat or 2) You’re French in which case you are trying to catch up to somebody to surrender to.
Being able to run a marathon don’t mean you can hump a ruck cross country.
January 24th, 2013 at 8:35 pm
@11 – I was going to say that perhaps a better example would be that there are separate male and female decathlon winners, because decathlon is a test of strength, speed, endurance and agility, which would probably be more analogous to the physical traits you’d look for in a soldier. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work either, because the women’s equivalent has 70% as many events, the shot and javelin are lighter and the hurdles are lower.
But yeah, incredibly fit women can be about as fast as really fit men.
January 24th, 2013 at 8:36 pm
Joe-the women’s world record in high jump, long jump, shot put and many of he sprints are all good boy’s high school times and distances.
January 24th, 2013 at 8:41 pm
I never had to do it myself, I was a helicopter guy so take my opinion for what it’s worth. Women in the infantry is a moronic idea. I think one quick reading of House to House” or “War” would convince anybody that hasn’t experienced it and has an open mind on the subject would quickly tilt them away from the idea. If you can’t read, what’s your opinion worth anyway?
January 24th, 2013 at 8:56 pm
I’m a woman and I think this is a terrible idea. And, if they make different qualification levels for the different sexes, I’m going to be downright livid. If I was a man I wouldn’t want some woman (<– see what I said right there, ha!) who couldn't physically perform her job to what the standard is and should be watching my back. That's a good way to get more soldiers dead. What were they thinking!?
January 24th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
I have never served, but I have become a true account junkie, having read at least a dozen books from guys who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have no doubt that there are women who can pass the PT tests and there are some who can probably get through training, but from what I’ve read, real life combat frequently demands far greater strength, speed, and endurance than those tests measure.
Throw in all the other issues like unit cohesion, distraction that gets people killed, and increased sex assaults and it’s just a bad idea all around.
I have yet to read one account from a woman currently serving who is interested in volunteering for combat. Every account I’ve read says it’s a bad idea.
January 24th, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Headline you’ll NEVER see:
”First, Women in Combat, Now: NFL to announce Women in the League”
”Roseanne to try out for Patriots center…”
January 24th, 2013 at 9:03 pm
They set their sites on this, as soon as they were sure they were going to push through the repeal of DADT.
The next iteration is to ask: Why are sexual problems soaring?
They’ll hide the fact that male Infantry are required to carry the load for the PC females assigned them but they won’t be able to hide (completely) the “overengineered” standards Dempsey changes.
I wonder if they’ll ban the question of PC females, of whether they are rushing for an 11B position, or if they’re going straight for the sexier 18 series.
January 24th, 2013 at 9:07 pm
And, what happens to the infantry company when a female squad leader or three ends up pregnant just before a deployment? Oh, that’s right, AQ is irrelevant, the wars are over, there won’t be any more deployments.
January 24th, 2013 at 9:18 pm
Given this policy, is there any reason why women should be excluded from having to register for Selective Service?
January 24th, 2013 at 9:25 pm
Once again, Comrade Joseph, GHRCGGSRD, your “shining intellect” shines through – glowing as brightly as a burned-out light bulb.
First: there is no generally recognized “world record” for the marathon, male or female. This is because marathons are run on road courses; there is thus no standardized course for a marathon. Each course has a different mix of hills, flat ground, etc . . . . . Instead, there are recognized course records for the marathon. So off the bat you’re wrong.
Second: as Tequila said above (and others have said clearly elsewhere), running a marathon tells little about one’s suitability to be a soldier in combat. The decathlon would probably be a better benchmark for comparison.
Well, it would be if the men’s and women’s decathlon were the same. As AndyN observed above, they’re not. The women’s version is substantially less demanding.
However, let’s go ahead and look at the 2011 NYC Marathon results anyway, just to see how they sort out. Results were obtained from
http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/results/results_topUSAFinishersMen.htm
http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/results/results_topUSAFinishersWomen.htm
Male winning time: 2:05:06
Female winning time: 2:23:15
That’s a difference of about 14.5% – which isn’t far off the conventional wisdom that men have 15-20% greater endurance due to biological differences than do women.
Number of male finishers faster than female winner: 19
Number of male finishers <2:20 - 16
Number of female finishers <2:20 - 0
Number of male finishers <2:30 - 30
Number of female finishers <2:30 - 10
Number of male finishers <2:37:25 - 100
Number of female finishers <2:37:25 - 16
Time of 100th male finisher: 2:37:24
Time of 100th female finisher: 3:05:44
Let me be clear: I'm not trying to slam anyone here except Joe the Idiot. I'm also not trying to denigrate the athletic ability of these ladies; I tip my hat to anyone, male or female, who can even finish a marathon much less do it in 3 hours or so. Rather, my point is that basic human biology gives males as a group a significant inherent advantage in cardio-vascular (CV) endurance. Ignoring that fact is, well, stupid.
And the average gap between CV endurance in males and females is probably smaller than in most other facets of athletic performance (strength, speed, explosiveness, etc . . . ). Flexibility is about the only athletic performance trait I know of in which women are generally regarded to be superior.
Basic biology dictates all of that. We ain’t gonna change that any time soon.
In most endeavors – to include most military specialties – that relatively smallish difference doesn’t much matter. But in direct combat, it does matter. Greatly. Such small differences often determine who lives and who dies.
Yes, Joe – there are a few women who can physically “hang with the boys” in combat. But we’re not likely to get too many world-class athletes to join the military of either gender. Counting on being able to do that is a fool’s bet.
January 24th, 2013 at 9:41 pm
Okay, Depmsey’s argument that opening all MOS/AFSC/RATES to both genders, will eliminate sexual assaults is so idiotic, that it questions his capacity to serve in his position. Here’s why
Over the last year or so, the Air Force has been blasted for it’s rampant problem with sexual assault. Between incidents and the Academy & Lackland, we’ve generated those studies Dempsey is talking about. But unlike the Army with Infantry, the number of jobs unavailible to female is TINY. PJ’s & Combat Controllers are about the only two I can think of, and they make up a small portion of the force. Please tell me how opening up these two small AFSC’s is going to solve the Air Force sexual assault problem? I know first-hand, some of the training instructors involved in the mess at Lackland, come from AFSC’s that have historically had high percentages of females. One issue has ZERO to do with the other.
January 24th, 2013 at 9:46 pm
Jonn: Wait a second! You wear pajamas?
January 24th, 2013 at 9:49 pm
EVERYBODY CLAM DOWN!!!!!
Jessica Lynch has released a press release that the announcement of this new change in policy is good for the US military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ex-pow-jessica-lynch-calls-announcement-on-women-in-combat-good-news-for-us-military/2013/01/24/db67c4ec-6657-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html
The same disgraced lynch whom didn’t fire a shot because her weapon was inoperable due to negligence all the while allowing the government to play up her non heroics. Marines died in her rescue to lure the enemy away from her position so SF/SoF could rescue her after a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
Apparently pilots are now ground combat NCO’s that are experts on the subject now too. They shot a scary looking gun during basic training and thus are walking battlefield terminators with ponytails that can birth children.
January 24th, 2013 at 9:58 pm
Follow Up to Cmt26:
Pajamas? (Say it like Jim Mora says “Playoffs” in the Coors commercial.) Pajamas? Pajamas? Are you kiddin’ me? Pajamas?
So, big boy, are they the short pants kind? Flannel? Silk? Button or pullover? Solid color? Matching slippers?
January 24th, 2013 at 9:59 pm
I think we all believe that there will be women who can meet those standards,
Dear General Dempsey,
As a former squid who managed to pull OUTSTANDING on all PFT’s from the time I was lowly E-4 all the way until I got out, might I suggest you’re out of your fucking mind?
I know even at the shape I was in during my mid-20′s, had I shown up at BUD/S in that condition I would have been bounced by the end of the first week, if not the first DAY. And to say that the women can meet those standards?
Surf entry mean anything to you? Or the Q-course? Hell Week…oh, that’ll be just AWESOME if your prospective SEALs are menstruating.
And what fucking color is the sky on YOUR planet?
January 24th, 2013 at 10:04 pm
@11 – I challenge you, Joe to look deeper into the reasons why the 2 female Lieutenants dropped from the USMC Infantry Officer’s Course. I’ll even get you started:
http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-challengesd-facing-women-in-the-marine-infantry-officer-course-2012-10?op=1
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-womem-infantry-officers-course-101512/
What the articles don’t specify is why one or the other dropped. I can tell you that one dropped due to her loosing an incredible amount of weight that was otherwise unhealthy for her, coupled with the fact that due to the physical rigors of the training, she also experienced buckling knees from the strain of the sheer weight of the gear she carried and the distances of the forced marches, coupled with a myriad of other ailments that precipitated her drop. While one of the female candidates was physically fit and (as you put it, had a “fitness levels as high or higher than the average male”), she did not have the physiological endurance or body strength to complete the course. While I’m sure she is a fine Marine officer who is also physically fit, it stands so far that the only way the Marine Corps will embrace females serving in this role is that future candidates will have to pass all the requirements, WITHOUT LOWERING THE STANDARDS.
Infantry training is physically demanding, and eventually takes its toll on the body beyond any initial school. Even MEN oftentimes cannot endure the training, as there is a high attrition rate for them as well.
Your arguement is moot, particularly since you have no idea what you’re talking about…which is usually the case. But since you keep coming back, we’ll continue to educate your dumb ass.
January 24th, 2013 at 10:06 pm
@29: Female military members are so fit they simply choose to overwhelming perform lower and thus have to require lower fitness results as to not make the males feel bad. Once they are allotted BUDs slots they’ll actually put out and meet the demands never before asked from them.
That was me being facetious.
January 24th, 2013 at 10:56 pm
As an aviator who serves in gender-mixed units, the idea that there won’t be mass f-cking on a biblical scale is insane. I’m sorry, but having male soldiers who…well…are horny bastards, and females who after a while of being away from big daddy back home… Yeah it’s gonna be epic. I’m so tired of these ass clowns who MUST know better just being willfully ignorant of what is GOING to happen.
I have flown with some great female aviators and I think there are absolutely combat roles for women. But agreed, the inevitable lowering of standards will be terrible, and flat out, there just ain’t places women need to be on the battle field. This, coupled with 18 year old joe who gets a crush on his new fire team member and then sees her head explode from an AK round… Yeah, it’s gonna be great for the unit morale. Have seen THAT last effect my damn self with male-female relationships in combat and one gets hurt… It’s a fucking mess.
January 24th, 2013 at 11:11 pm
A: I want my daughter to be able to be all that she can be and have the opportunity that I did.
B: IF the standards were kept high, the zin loi (sp) if she failed at Ranger school/ BUDs.
C. But alas, they will not be enforced so as to make their women/gay/lesbo quota (is that not PC?)
D. There are a whole bunch of pencil necked geek males (Manning comes to mind) who should have never passed out of basic who could not do what many women could.
E: If the women can pass a Ranger/Buds cycle without lowering the standards (that I could not meet…pull ups suck), then Hooah!
January 24th, 2013 at 11:13 pm
I’m SJ, not “Anonymous”. Don’t know why that happened.
January 24th, 2013 at 11:15 pm
I’ll put this in the same perspective as female firefighters. The number of female firefighters is low because they can’t meet the strength and stamina requirements. The women applicants want those standards lowered. Where safety is concerned — particularly mine — the standards should never be lowered.
Ditto for the infantry. If you can’t hack, that’s it.
January 24th, 2013 at 11:28 pm
I’m bored and feel like preaching to the choir. PT is not the end all be all for determing if females can hack in the infantry (or other combat arms). I went to Iraq last time around with an FSC. 20 females in the company. 1 outdid everyone on the APFT. More pushups, more situps and the fastest run time. And she would be an absolute disaster in the infantry. Mainly because she’s 5’3″ 115lbs. Her basic load would be more than half of her body weight. During our pre-deployment training we had a 6 mile road march. IOTV, SAPI plates basic load and assault packs. Out of the 20 females in the company, everyone of them was straggling. And yes I was setting the pace. I’m 45 y/o (at the time) and smoke (heavily) so if 20 something can’t keep up with an old guy, they sure as hell can’t hang with the younger ones. Talk amongst your selves…..
January 24th, 2013 at 11:36 pm
What has NOT been addressed here is the naturally higher level of aggression in males compared to females.
What is it we want grunts to do?
(Full disclosure: I was an infantryman before I became an aviator.)
I agree with Bam Bam–I, too know and served with great female aviators. Females are actually physiologically better pilots than men…greater tolerance to altitude, finer motor skills, in general more mature.
But, with a few exceptions (one is a great friend) they are much better lift/cargo pilots than gunship pilots. For the same reason i mentioned above: men are more aggressive.
January 24th, 2013 at 11:48 pm
I’m more worried about the women who will have the standards adjusted to allow them to make it in combat arms jobs. Yes I know, Panetta and JCS Chairman Dempsey said that wouldn’t happen, but I just don’t believe it.
Currently the services are reevaluating their Physical Fitness Standards as well as the physical fitness standards for each Military Occupational Specialty to justify what standards should be required for each military job. I’m pretty sure the standards will be tweaked until the Pentagon can get what they consider the right number of women into combat arms jobs.
January 24th, 2013 at 11:57 pm
Never been infantry, just an MP. In Iraq, we lost 4 females. Not to combat, but pregnancy. In cuba, we lost five. Those jobs still had to be done. How is that fair to the guys? I
January 25th, 2013 at 12:05 am
One of 1000 meets current standards. One of 100 of those wants a combat assignment. One of 1000 of those has the right attitude to fit into the unit. Not worth the effort expended. Unfortunately, they will lower the standards, encourage (bonuses) women to apply, and refuse to screen for psychological fit. (And I was a female in the SO community.) This is a stinkingly bad idea.
January 25th, 2013 at 12:08 am
Register for selective service.
January 25th, 2013 at 12:25 am
“Declaring that it would strengthen both the military and the country, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday lifted a ban on women in combat and said that it was “the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation.”
Selective service.
January 25th, 2013 at 12:42 am
Well yah, on the draft registration bit. The reason for exclusion was their ineligibility for combat roles. Now that reason is gone, so…
Look, if they can do it exactly as is, great. Let them join selected units. But don’t lower the standards one iota. Hills don’t get flatter for women. Bullets don’t hit softer for women. Bayonets (LOL) don’t get blunter for women. Standards shouldn’t get any easier.
January 25th, 2013 at 12:58 am
This is going to be an expensive experiment that is most likely to fail. Women are an integral part of the military these days, but I doubt many will want to be combat arms and most that try will probably drop out.
January 25th, 2013 at 3:22 am
If Gen James Conway were still the CMC, he would have told SECDEF Panetta and GEN Dempsey to stuff a sock in it. Oh yeah, thats basically what he did to fmr SECDEF Gates and CJCS ADM Mullen at a congressional hearing over DADT. The WH got their dander up and Gen Conway would be offered no further assignments. I’m sure this JCS will be very compliant…no rocking the boat dammit!!!
January 25th, 2013 at 4:22 am
I knew guys who scored 300 on PTs who couldn’t hack it road marching at Drum. And who couldn’t hack it in Iraq.
Being good at PT doesn’t equal combat effective.
Sad that the people making these rules are going to set up the few women who try for failure.
January 25th, 2013 at 4:24 am
Looks like Barry and Panetta watch Starship Trooper too many times.
January 25th, 2013 at 4:24 am
WATCHED.
January 25th, 2013 at 5:44 am
Can’t wait for my first batch of female 13Bs. I’m sure they will do just fine lifting the 155 rounds up to the loading tray with no issues.
If they can’t, I’m sure I’ll be able to negatively counsel them like I do the male 13Bs who can’t complete the task.
January 25th, 2013 at 6:53 am
1st woman to lead in combat ‘thrilled’ with change
http://news.yahoo.com/1st-woman-lead-combat-thrilled-change-094600818.html
“The Army refused to grant her and other female soldiers who fought on the ground in Panama the Combat Infantryman Badge. She was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for Valor, an award for meritorious achievement in a non-combat role”.
Note: Most of you already know this…
https://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/Awards%20and%20Decorations%20Branch%20-%20Combat%20Infantry%20Badge%20CIB
January 25th, 2013 at 6:56 am
Oh goody…so now ANY woman in a combat zone thinks they’re entitled to a CIB?
January 25th, 2013 at 6:57 am
Back in the day we used to ask … when the shit hits the fan (real combat-not convoy snipes)which do you want to come to your rescue:
1. a leg infantry company
2. a Marine infantry company
3. an infantry company from “Division” (82nd)
3. a company from “Battalion” (Ranger)
Now in tomorrows “nice military” if you could pick… which would you choose?
1. 100% male infantry company
2. 50/50 male/female infantry company
3. 100% female infantry company
I’m going to watch some high school basketball (basketball=non contact)tomorrow night. I wonder how many girls will be on the boy’s team? If there are none…why is that? Sexism of course!
January 25th, 2013 at 7:17 am
Well, Jonn- Personally, I loved sexual harassment cause I gave as good as I got!! This is partially true. I never felt threatened by my male peers who liked to make silly remarks about my voluptuous ta-ta’s as long as they never touched them…
And of course, women never strapped on their proverbial balls then,and put the offenders in their places…no. NOW,though? hooo-eee!! They are gonna roll over assholes who think it’s cool to drop the innuendo because NOW they’ll have a combat patch or something…Jesus H. That is the single most ridiculous thing I have heard besides Panetta’s retarded decision.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:01 am
I don’t think there is anything surprising in the big, ignorant EO experiment that they have announced. Our job as Soldiers in the Army is now obviously to pander to the minority decision to integrate Females in ground combat units. I have had a female tell me she couldn’t do what I do after doing Battle Drill 1A for only two hours. This is all ten kinds of stupid. Thanks Army.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:59 am
@53, The female civilian that works in my office has a sign on her desk that says “sexual harassment will not be reported, but it will be graded on a scale of 1-10″.
January 25th, 2013 at 9:30 am
Have there been any female Posers outed here? Maybe this will be the year, if not.
January 25th, 2013 at 9:48 am
Anonymous: ask, and ye shall receive.
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=32709
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=32193
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=29849
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=23649
There may be others, but these are all I could remember and find quickly.
There was one other questionable case, but I don’t know if we ever resolved Tiffany Ginger’s actual rank in the US Army Reserve.
January 25th, 2013 at 9:53 am
I had forgotten about her, Hondo. Thanks for the memory. But now we can expect females with Ranger Tabs, SEAL insignia, etc.
Don’t know why “SJ” doesn’t stick and it keeps reverting me to Anonymous.
January 25th, 2013 at 9:55 am
SJ: if you’ve got your browser set to refuse all cookies, that setting seems to cause it. I haven’t been able to find a way around it yet other than to reenter the screen name the first time you access TAH each day.
January 25th, 2013 at 10:15 am
I am going to throw this out there as part of the discussion, all though it’s fairly unlikely to happen now.
During WWII, Infantry unit were “created” by the stroke of a pencil by simple re-designation while en-route to the combat zone. While it’s unlikely to happen now, since women can now fill any combat role it can happen.
January 25th, 2013 at 10:22 am
jerry920: if I’m remembering correctly, pretty much effectively the same thing happened in Iraq in 2007-2008. If memory serves, a fair number of artillery units ended up doing dismounted patrolling vice fire support because their guns weren’t needed – but their bodies were.
January 25th, 2013 at 10:39 am
Now that is a Marine!!!! (#29849)
January 25th, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Twist…now that IS a classic and one I will use!!
January 25th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
DefendUSA: be sure to put a large magnifying glass next to the sign. (smile)
January 25th, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Defend, didn’t you tell them that if they liked yours so much, they can get an operation to have some of their own just like yours?
I got hit with the ‘you’ve got really great boobs’ more than once. That was my response.
Does register for selective service mean I’m going to get a notice from the draft board to finish my six? I could use the extra money.
January 25th, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Oh god, I’m going to regret getting involved in this. But flat-out question;
If the standards remain the same (and I don’t want to hear any “But they won’t”, or “It’s obvious what’s going to happen.) IF the standards remain the same, and any female wanting to join a set unit needs to meet the standards for inclusion there, and maintain said standards…
Is there really any beef? I see a lot of “Of course women are going to want lower standards” but I don’t actually see any women ASKING for lower standards.
That may mean there would be about five infantrywomen, and they’d all be volunteers, but eh, I don’t really see that being such a huge problem.
January 25th, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Army Sergeant: I don’t believe anyone said that women would want lower standards above. And, frankly, that won’t be the source of any changed standards.
What will happen is some high-level political appointee or politically ambitious GO at HQDA will see the initial numbers, have a cow, and say, “Fix this.” That will lead to either (1) separate gender-normed standards, or (2) new unisex standards that “enough” women can pass, or (3) outright falsification and paper qualifications. I’ve personally seen each happen in the last 35 years (mostly the first, but occasionally the other two as well). And I’ll guarantee you’ve seen at least the first – if nowhere else, on the back of DA Form 705 (the APFT scorecard) in the form of the scoring tables.
I don’t personally give a damn who the person next to me is if it’s hitting the fan, or whether they’re male or female – provided they’re competent and capable. And selected women will be able to “cut it”.
But my fear is not enough will initially. And what I’ve seen during the past 35 years leads me to believe that I know exactly what will happen next.
January 25th, 2013 at 3:34 pm
@ 61 – it happened a lot back in 04-05 as well. Got to theatre and it was “verily, though art now doing a dismounted infantry mission. Go forth and break things.”. It was an experience, and while I spent a year doing it, doesn’t make me think I am now infantry.
January 25th, 2013 at 4:09 pm
What percentage of females will meet “the standards”? 10%? 1%? More? Fewer?
If 80% of males will meet those same standards, why are we spending our declining defense dollar on a group that is going to wash out at a proportion of x:1?
Further, since the puzzle palaces’s own studies show that females suffer a much higher rate of stress fractures when subjected to more strenuous physical exertion why should we subject them to those higher standards when they will not, as a group, prove as durable as males. Meaning that they are more likely to be physically incapacitated earlier which will cost us both in terms of training a replacement and the likelihood of paying them a higher percentage of VA disability for a longer time than a male counterpart?
The better question is how does this change in policy enhance our combat effectiveness in any way?
January 25th, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Hondo – actually there was a stray comment in one of the other threads susggesting exactly what AS said here. I chose to overlook it until having had time to digest it. When I got back to it, it was so far back that I opted to continue ignoring it. But, will go back and find it, after nap time. (teehee)
It did irritate me that current female members of the military are accused of pushing this. Since I have been retired for a while, I can only hope that it is not now so. Historically, it never was so.
January 25th, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Remember, General Dempsey is the one who told Congress critters he has no problem paying more for TRICARE. His statement about women in the infantry is political, nothing more.
As my Sergeant Major from our last deployment stated elsewhere (Facetube): “Take emotions out of it, this is not a game or some type of equality experimentation. We have tried this before and it did not work, other countries have tried it and it did not work. There is not one country in the
world that includes women in their infantry units.
This issue has nothing to do with “can females do infantry work”, it has to do with males getting faster promotions, achieving higher ranks and greater opportunities for advancement because of front line combat duty.
The solution is not to put soldiers in infantry units that cannot meet the rigorous physical requirements of daily combat in austere environments . Now it’s time to fix the issues I mentioned above not create more problems that
we already have the answer for.”
However, for those of us that remember the Army in the ’70′s, BOHICA.
January 25th, 2013 at 5:06 pm
OWB: I must have missed that comment; if you find it and post the link, I’ll owe you one.
There are always a few out there of both genders who want the “brass ring” but think the standards required are too high, and push to have them lowered to something more “reasonable”. The overwhelming majority don’t.
IMO they’re typically not the ones who make the decisions or the primary ones pushing for this kind of change, either. That is almost always coming from others.
January 25th, 2013 at 5:17 pm
When you read comment #23 you will see what I meant, and why I elected to ascribe a lack of understanding what the word appease means. This decision was not to appease 14% of the force, unless the poster is suggesting that that 14% of the force (male and female) are uber-idiots. I really can;t see 14% of the force supporting this lunacy at all.
Oh, the link! http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=33775#comments
In my experience, both in and out of the military, whiners come in all shapes, sizes, and ages, more or less equally devided between the genders. Same with slackers, although it seems lately that most of them tend to be obese, for some reason.
January 25th, 2013 at 5:42 pm
OWB: thanks. Owe you one.
January 25th, 2013 at 5:54 pm
If the issue that concerns you guys most is combat-zone sex and pregnancies, then have the women get their tubes tied, and/or have the guys get vasectomies.
Alternatively, add more women to the roster to balance things. Instead of 7 men and 1 woman, make it 4 each.
And while I’m at it, explain to me how you stay alive under fire if the only thing you’re thinking about is sex.
January 25th, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Ex-PH2: you’d be surprised at what guys can do while thinking about sex.
Answer: Everything!
January 25th, 2013 at 6:27 pm
I’m going to expand on my last post (which I put forward as more or less a joke) because I do believe that sexual behavior is one of the areas where there are real differences between the genders.
I’m not particularly interested in discussing this WRT the topic at hand where I think other issues are more important, but there are studies that show that men have a much higher desire for sex than females.
Not long ago I read the research of a psychologist at Florida State who was interested in this issue. He tried to develop some metrics to measure whether or not there were differences between men and women and he found that men masturbate much more often than women, report that they think about sex more than women and were much more receptive to offers of sex from complete strangers (i.e. were more likely to engage in risky behavior to get sex).
I think it’s not too controversial to say that women use sex as a means to control men, as Dr. Frasier Crane once said “how can we use sex to get what we want? Sex is what we want!”
January 25th, 2013 at 6:41 pm
68W58, I’ll accept your responses — all of them, since I watched “Harry’s Heroes”, where CAPT Wales hiked for 2/3 of a trek to the North Pole with a bunch of wounded Brit vets, and one of the guys said “I think about sex a lot” in the most matter-of-fact way.
BUT — and this is my point — while men may think about sex a lot more than women do, and while women can and do go for long periods without it, frequently by choice, thinking about it under fire and doing it under fire are two entirely different things. (I’m serious about this. I’m just trying to understand this.)
So my question is, if someone is shooting at you and you’re in a mixed company of male/female infantry, what is more important? Staying alive, or getting laid? (Not meant in a crude manner.)
January 25th, 2013 at 6:44 pm
And you’re quite right: sexual behavior in women is a lot different from sexual behavior in men. It isn’t that we don’t do the same things. It’s more that we choose when, where and with whom.
January 25th, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Dempsey’s asinine sexual assault statement is yet further proof that this idiot does not have the judgement required for his current billet. He is just another in a long line of 4-star politically correct ass kissers. Good men and women are going to die and the unit cohesion of God knows how many teams, squads, platoons and companies will be destroyed if women are assigned to combat arms & SOF positions.
January 25th, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Reinforcing sexual stereotypes isn’t going to help matters. As one writer on another blog put it: ‘Men have frontal lobes; They are capable of controling their impulses.’ And if a woman uses sex to “control men,” she’s a cold-blooded sociopath, just like a man that uses anything, physical or mental, to “control” a woman.
Men and women are physically and psychologically attracted to each other. We’re also thinking creatures, that should and do think ahead and plan ahead for situations where sexual behavior is not safe or warranted.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Ex-PH2: There is an interesting thread over at the libertarian blog “hit and run” http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/24/two-cheers-for-lifting-the-ban-on-women#comments where one of the posters told the story of being downrange for Desert Storm and the scouts catching a male and female Marine going at it while they were supposed to be guarding the perimeter against the Iraqis. Take that for what it’s worth, but I think it speaks to what we are talking about.
I wish I could explain this better for you, but I don’t think I understand it myself, I just know that it is so.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:03 pm
PintoNag-would you have preferred if I would have said “influenced” or “manipulated”. Women have certainly gotten me to do things I otherwise would not have with the promise of sex, I don’t think this is an unusual circumstance for a guy.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:04 pm
68W58 — Fair enough. Thank you.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
@83 I have no doubt you are correct. I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here. So I’ll ask one more question: At what age do we expect men to take responsibility for their actions where sex is concerned? You’re either a stud horse, to be controlled until needed for breeding, or you’re a man, with intelligence and thoughts and feelings, who can be counted on to make informed decisions at crucial moments. Your intelligence and your libido are NOT mutually exclusive. Or, if so, at what age does that change?
January 25th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
@81. PN:
Two single people, one a man and the other a woman. They both get close, no one else is around and the hormones begin to buzz. One says, “No. Stop. We can’t do this here or now.” My question is, which one said that, the man or the woman.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:20 pm
PintoNag-that’s a fair question. I’ll say honestly that I’m not as susceptible to those sorts of influences as I once was (I’m 46). That’s partially because I don’t produce as much testosterone as I once did, which is also part of my diminished physical capacity in comparison to my younger self.
Oh, and I’m not saying that people are incapable of controlling themselves, but it is a lot more complicated than it seems to me than it is currently being argued.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Now my question was directly related to being in a firefight under live fire and what was more important.
Boinking each other while you’re on guard duty is dereliction of duty, plain and simple.
AirCav, she says, “If you really love me, you will.”
PN, that question is directly related to mine: what is more important: hormones or bullets?
January 25th, 2013 at 7:24 pm
@86 It’s a valid point, and the answer would probably be the woman. My gripe is that I don’t accept excuses for men for casual sex, anymore than I accept excuses for an unplanned pregnancy. We’re (supposed to be) adults, it’s the 21st century, and we really need to start acting like it. We are, each of us, responsible for our behavior.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Let me clarify that last comment a little-it seems to me that the turmoil over whether or not to obey one’s “libido” or “intelligence” or the extent to which the one variable can confuse the other is at least a dangerous distraction.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:33 pm
The direction these posts are going makes me ponder the strangest circumstances under which everyone might have engaged their urges, but since this is neither the place nor the time for it, I will refrain from asking the question.
No, if I were to either ask the question or answer it, the space shuttle would not have been involved.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:40 pm
“…the space shuttle would not have been involved.”
Hey, it’s not too late-it’s on display somewhere in California now.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:42 pm
I read a person responding to fellow commenter’s question on another site. I think the exchange speaks to the level of disconnect between the military and the civilians on anything military related. Said commenter responded to the question “do pregnant females get disqualified from deployments?” Apparently unshakably convinced that they are knowledgeable in any and all things, the commenter responds “no, to do so would be a discriminatory and against the law”. We are dealing with people who have no inclination what it means to be an infantry soldier. In their mind a pregnant team leader in an infantry company would be able deploy to the Hindu Kush at 12,000 feet, and perform the job with no diminished ability as if it were a desk job at a telemarketing firm. While they I can sorta forgive these civilian types for their ignorance, I cannot forgive the Dempsey’s or the Odienero’s (sp?) who nod and smile when these horrendously bad ideas are dropped off by the PC fairy only to salute and move out smartly. Everyone both male and female who are rah rah-ing this are the same people who will never lace up boots and have to live (and die) with the consequences of a decision like this. Nor do they know anyone who does.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:43 pm
If humans had evolved beyond their basic animal instincts (including the desire for sex, ie. reproduction), then 10% of military females would not have had an “unplanned” pregnancy last year.
The difference between humans and most other animals is that humans have sex for recreation, while other animals have sex solely for reproductive purposes.
And every Soldier that has served in “co-ed” units, knows stories of Troops being derelict of their duties, in order to have sex. Would that occur while under fire? Probably not very often. Would it occur while they were supposed to be in a guard post, protecting the unit from attack? Quite often. Would a Soldier be more protective of a lover or desired lover than others in a unit? Yes, that has happened.
While it is more often stated that it’s the males that can’t keep it in their pants, there’s many examples in current co-ed units of “deployment princesses” that are taking full advantage of the variety of men they can get in a “target rich environment.”
That’s not sexism. That’s reality. And it hasn’t been prevented by lawful orders, or General Order #1. It hasn’t been prevented by wedding rings, or lack thereof. It hasn’t been prevented by the threat of eternal damnation by Churches, or by threat of death by States (such as stonings by the Taliban & Iran) The human ANIMAL will find a way to have sex, particularly those in their sexual prime: 18-21 year olds, which are often Privates and College students.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:43 pm
@90 68W58 – Here’s what I think you’re saying: in the unfortunate event that you’re under heavy fire and feeling the “urge” rather a lot, you (a man) would feel compelled to do — well, something — to relieve that ‘urge’, whereas the person next to you (a woman) would be more interested in staying alive and may possibly consider you to be a looney-tune.
The three strongest instincts in any member of the animal kingdom (including humans) are thirst, hunger and reproduction. If the first two are satisfied, the last one takes precedence, regardless of the circumstances.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
WOTN, ferrets have recreational sex. So do horses, especially geldings, and I had a neutered adult male cat who was always after my spayed queen cats.
January 25th, 2013 at 7:50 pm
Ex-PH2: I don’t know that “compelled” is the word that I would use. I think it is fair to say that the emotions that I would feel for a female counterpart would be different from those I would feel for a male because of sex and that that would probably influence my behavior towards her.
I think what you say about natural instincts is true enough.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:02 pm
What’d I miss? Folks talking about rubbing one off in a foxhole or something? (I haven’t read any comments since about #35…)
January 25th, 2013 at 8:06 pm
In asking the question I did in cmt 86, I had hoped to inject a little humor into this sometimes flaccid discussion by asking what amounts to a rhetorical question. Of course it was the woman who said no! Despite what young, single men are capable of doing (e.g., declining the advances of an alluring and desirable female), they have a supernatural kill switch that prevents them from turning that “No” into something audible. Exceptions exist but, as the saying goes, “Most men are pigs.” My personal fav is, “He’d do the crack of dawn.” None of this is to say it’s anything other than what it is.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:11 pm
@98 – USMCE8 Ret, you owe me a keyboard!
January 25th, 2013 at 8:13 pm
(@100 – Sorry.)
I’m all caught up now. Thanks for waiting for me.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:15 pm
Why is it I get the feeling that any woman who would make the cut to get into a combat unit isn’t the one I would like to see in her skivvies drawers?!? Ex-PH2, you would have been more than welcomed on Amtrac C-25!!!;)
January 25th, 2013 at 8:17 pm
I can’t attest to the sexual habits of ferrets, but I can point out that while many humans believe canines attempt recreational sex, the humping of one by another is a demonstration of dominance (as demonstrated by the fact females do the same to males).
Regardless of any animals that might be non-conforming to the norms of the rest of the Animal Kingdom, the point is that Humans have sex for purely recreational purposes, AS WELL AS, instinctive reproductive purposes, and that is occuring in the military despite orders by NCO’s, LT’s, General Officers, Chaplains, etc, in and out of combat zones, in porta-johns and guard towers, as well as on fan-tails, and in storerooms.
We can say that we should be acting like adults, in the 21st Century, but the fact is that adults in the 21st Century are having sex, regardless of consequences, or orders to the contrary. And they’re doing so, under threat of death in Iran, under threat of eternal damnation, in the church, and under threat of UCMJ and court martial, in the military and in combat zones. Even the General Officers are doing it, and getting caught in the aftermath.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
YatYas-ahem http://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?term=desert%20dime&defid=1556683
January 25th, 2013 at 8:19 pm
@102. “Why is it I get the feeling that any woman who would make the cut to get into a combat unit isn’t the one I would like to see in her skivvies.”
Yeah, that is an issue and assumes heterosexuality just for starters. Still, I earnestly believe that, men being pigs, by and large, she would have her admirers and bedwarmer volunteers.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:23 pm
@102 – Because, YatYas, you’re a normal, horny man. And thanks for the offer!!
January 25th, 2013 at 8:25 pm
AirCav, I noticed you left out the word ‘flaccid’ this time.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:26 pm
@107. Nice of you to notice. You could imagine what else I was thinking of including but, being neither young nor single, I thought the better of it!
January 25th, 2013 at 8:28 pm
Leave it to the retired E8 to put things back in proper perspective. Bravo, USMCE8Ret. Well played, sir!
January 25th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
What can I say, Hondo? I love you guys and gals.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
(….not in a gay or dry humping domineering way, either. Got it?)
January 25th, 2013 at 8:37 pm
This was fun. Thanks. I’m not certain anything was resolved but, what the heck, the world isn’t listening to us anyway.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:43 pm
I got quite a…memorable…bit out of it.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:53 pm
2/17 Air Cav:
@105. Can pretty much guarantee some Jarheads would hit it regardless how fugly. Did 4 UDPs to Camp Schwab Okinawa and the old pros on BC Street and Whisper Alley always had some Jarhead customers. Semper Gumbey…any port in a storm.
January 25th, 2013 at 9:04 pm
@85
At what age do we expect men to take responsibility for their actions where sex is concerned? You’re either a stud horse, to be controlled until needed for breeding, or you’re a man, with intelligence and thoughts and feelings, who can be counted on to make informed decisions at crucial moments. Your intelligence and your libido are NOT mutually exclusive. Or, if so, at what age does that change?
PintoNag, with all due respect, that’s not the question that should be asked.
The question is “What are the consequences of failure, and are we willing to live with it?”
Two consenting supply clerks engaging in sex in the back of a warehouse on Camp Pendleton pose little risk to safety and adequate defense.
Two consenting adults banging away in a OP/LP outside the wire ups the ante.
Men and women will have sex under stupid circumstances. Look at all the teachers getting caught banging their students. Those are women who should know better having sex with boys. You’d think after the first dozen or so got caught, and the DA used text messages and photos against them, they’d at least learn to pick boys who keep their mouths shut and not send anything incriminating.
But no. People do stupid shit over sex all the time, and it seems to be getting worse.
January 25th, 2013 at 9:10 pm
@114
Can pretty much guarantee some Jarheads would hit it regardless how fugly. Did 4 UDPs to Camp Schwab Okinawa and the old pros on BC Street and Whisper Alley always had some Jarhead customers. Semper Gumbey…any port in a storm.
Yah, when I was in Phase I at MCRD San Diego, there was this WM PFC who worked the entrance to the chow hall. When I first saw her, I thought she was strictly ok.
As I got through Phase I, then out to the field and Edson Range, then back for Phase III, she started looking better and better. Of course, she was literally the only woman I saw from the time we got out of receiving until graduation.
It’s probably a good thing we were effectively under a code of silence, or I’d probably have fallen all over myself proposing to her.
January 25th, 2013 at 9:44 pm
@Nik, this bit: “Look at all the teachers getting caught banging their students. Those are women who should know better having sex with boys.”
You ought to know by now that male teachers are just as bad as women. It’s in the news on a regular basis. If you change that to “men and women who should know better than having sex with children”, I could not agree more.
January 25th, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Oh, I absolutely agree, Ex-. I’m just pointing out that both genders can let their libido replace logic.
January 26th, 2013 at 1:56 am
Make no mistake that there are many women who would make excellent trigger pullers. The problem is that pulling the trigger isn’t the hard part of the job — it all of that God forsaken rucking, slogging, lifting and general toting. The good lord made men and women different. I personally appreciate this fact.
I can do any job intellectually a man can do. Get me a good manual, some good beer, and enough time and I could figure out nuclear physics. As HR will tell you, not being aggressive enough has never been my problem. The truth is that even before I got old, out of shape and overweight, I could never lift and carry what the average physically fit man could ruck. It isn’t sexist, it’s physiology. Thus, the younger male cousins are in the infantry and I do logistics (care packages).
I think what they have overlooked is what a friend of mine who graduated from the USMA, was airborne and gung-ho said when I asked her why she was getting out after her deployment in the early days of OIF. The type of men who are drawn to combat arms type jobs are protectors by their very nature. They will screw up the mission or get themselves killed to protect a woman even if she can do the job and doesn’t need help. She got out because her very presence put her men at unnecessary risk and as a good officer she could not let that happen again. Heard the same story from some former NCO contractors I met.
Of course none of this takes into consideration what the Israelis figured out. The type of shithead who is our enemy WILL NOT surrender to a unit with women. While killing more of them is good, is it worth the extra losses on our side to be PC? I don’t think so.
January 26th, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Woke up this a.m. to my husband telling me about the “let’s lower the requirements for enlistment to accomodate women” issue. I Googled “who was the idiot who…” & found this forum. I read all 119 comments on the page before I decided to add my 2c & found most of my thoughts ‘dittoed’.
But I have a couple of addtl. observations that I think are crucial, regardless of any disagreements they might raise from the “we’re supposed to be adults” faction.
Physiologically speaking, I don’t care how strong a woman is, she’ll never be EQUAL to her male counterpart in a combat OR combat training situation and in combat, physical equality IS crucial!
Now this comes from a woman who is convinced that anything a man could do, so could I, & proved it time after time as a girl, young woman & even now, as an old fossil. I was the most tomboyish female I ever met & to this day, at age 59, I’m still the one who helps the boys move that washer, dryer & fridge during a household move in our family…not my husband. But my physical strength works HERE, in the everyday world, & doesn’t require any hard core decisions.
We must always remember that, generally speaking, men are logical (no snickering remarks please!) whereas women are emotional, even in this day and age. Now I know that women are capable of SELF-sacrifice equally with men, but there is one point in particular, that I haven’t read in the comments. I’ll address a different point first, though.
Women have another issue that leaves them lacking more than the testosterone needed for agression, already mentioned: a monthly one. I would not be surprised, if this “more women in combat” actually happens, to see womens’ monthlies being medically controlled…it’s been known to happen with some female Olympians. What both sexes, especially females though, must realize is that the consequences for that course of action is far reaching, whether with reproductive abilities or general health, including cancers of the reproductive organs. All I’m saying is that to truly accomodate the desire for more females in combat, MORE CONTROL WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN OVER WOMEN! Tied tubes for males or females may stop “unplanned” pregnancies, but it won’t stop the “down time”…or the scent that can give away a company’s position (men in some countries still retain that sense of female’s scent) that can get them killed.
But for my initial point, I have had grandfather, father, uncles & cousins, 2 husbands and one son…all with years of combat under their belts. All of them have been put in the situation of making an horrific decision: the sweet, angelic faced toddler – giggling and running toward them with arms outstretched to receive the chocolate bar he’s used to getting from the American soldiers…strapped with explosives that will be detonated as soon as he or she is close enough to kill as many soldiers as possible.
“The sacrifice of the one for the safety of the many”. My grandfather was young, my dad 19, my 1st husband only 17, my son 19 & married with an infant himself…that’s how old they each were when faced with that choice.
My 1st husband, a jarhead, did what he had to do to protect 23 men. The stress of that memory gave him a fateful heart attack at 49. My son did what he had to do to protect his 15 or so brothers-at-arms; 8 yrs later his nightmares still awaken him. I defy any woman to be able to push aside her emotional nature & make that horrible choice…and follow through.
Men are protectors by historic and genetic nature. Women are brutal, perhaps, when they are put in that position…but are, by historic and genetic nature, nurturers…otherwise men would be the childbearing homekeepers & women would have penises.
Just sayin’
January 26th, 2013 at 1:41 pm
I know,obviously, there are exceptions to “historic/genetic norms” (including my eldest daughter who served for 6 years & did see a bit of combat just before she got out); I was speaking in general.
January 26th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
Miss Peggy: Your addition to the conversation is appreciated. However, I take issue with your assertion that women are more emotional than men. Some of each gender are much more emotional than I care to deal with on a good day much less in combat. It really isn’t gender specific. In reality, if you consider thinking with the little brain instead of the big brain to be anything other than intellectual, a case could be made that men (assuming a significant number are so driven) who react with what they want instead of what is needed in the moment are more emotional than women who are not so driven.
Personally, I think that there are entirely too many “adults” in this country who are driven by emotion rather than intellect – many of these are men and many of them are women. My opinion is that both genders are well represented, with not enough differance in percentages to matter.
January 26th, 2013 at 4:41 pm
OWB, perhaps I should have been more specific! In no way did I mean that the depth of emotions are any less in men than women. To the contrary, most men that I know are every bit as likely to become visibly emotional as women about love, family, friendship, patriotism or even a smell, sound or situation that brings back strong memories.
I was referring more to the way the brain works under certain circumstances, as the subject is the differences in how one might acquit him/herself in combat situations.
There was a fairly recent study between men and women, showing measurable chemical differences in the subjects, including (dopamine??) levels in the brain during intensely stressfull situations which demanded snap decisions. The study explained in detail which chemicals showed more prevelance in emotional decision making as opposed to those more prevelant in logical decision making. In this study the chemicals involved in emotional decision making showed an increase more in women than in the men who were subject to the same situation. Altenatively, those chemicals more commonly present during logical decisions showed more of an increase in men than women.
I wish I could recall the program for you (I’ll try to research it) but I don’t, only that it was either PBS Nova or one of the Discovery or NatGeo series.
Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule, as well as, for lack of a better term, “learned responses” which will negate any heretofore accepted “norm”. Determination to overcome a perceived norm will generally succeed if the desire to do so is sufficient. I was speaking of basic historic and genetic tendencies, however…exceptions aside.
Point being, most men AND women I know would prefer a man by their side in combat (or even walking down a dangerous street at dusk in the ‘hood). Men, generally speaking, tend to engender a sense of safety more than do most women…unless, of course, it’s a child with his mother.
Again, general representations while acknowleging exceptions and for a specific situational circumstance.
January 26th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
This subject really is much too complicated for us to come to a serious conclusion in this medium, Miss Peggy. Much depends upon the definitions used. My simplistic brain sees anything based upon “I want” as emotional while “I think” tends toward not being emotional. Even that only scratches the surface.
In any case, I do not think that the “too emotional” argument will ever be effective to justify keeping women out of combat or anywhere else. I prefer letting anyone try anything they are first physically qualified to do, show some aptitude (that measure would vary a lot depending upon the vocation) for doing, and have whatever personality traits it takes to do the job. We hope, for instance, that medical schools accept their students from a pool of persons with high IQs and a willingness to learn a bunch about the human anatomy. If they fail at it, they should be washed out of medical school not practicing their mediocre (or worse) skills on sick people.
All just to say that I really don’t care whether my doctor, the firefighter who responds to my house fire, or auto mechanic is a male or female as long as they can do the job physically and mentally.
I would further caution you to take a lot of those studies with a grain of salt. (Which should in no way imply that I think them all to be invalid, but perhaps not complete.) Just because we do not now have the tools to measure it does not mean that instinct or intuition does not exist. It could be that much of what many of us call situational awareness is based on intangibles which have no apparently rational explanation. Ever do something, or not do something, because the hair on the back of your neck signalled that it was time to consider or to reconsider your decision, or to make one?
One last thing – while we each get to choose which doctor to see based upon whatever criteria we wish to use, we seldom get to choose who serves beside us in the military. If standards remain what they have always been, the very few women who might try the infrantry and the even fewer who actually make it through training would have little trouble being accepted by her peers. If they screw around with the standards, this whole thing is just one more pc driven failure done for all the wrong reasons, to our national detriment.
January 26th, 2013 at 9:18 pm
So, we’re done talking about sex now?
Well, crap! That’s no fun!
January 30th, 2013 at 3:42 pm
The proposal to include women in combat is the new hot topic. Unfortunately America has spent countless hours through TV, Ads,and movies to perpetuate the idea that women are equal to men in all aspects. Equality is a good thing for all, however the reality of this proposal is that more men will die in combat trying to protect the new “superwoman”. We are misled by pictures and articles of the few women who have achieved success in the armed forces. They deserve credit for their accomplishments, BUT that does not mean that all women are capable of reaching the same levels of success. All men cannot pass military training. Our enemies have already demonstrated that they know us quite well. They could make it a point to capture the females in order to lure the men into action. What if a male commander decides that the life of one soldier is not worth the lives of so many, and if that one soldier is a female? Listen we have built such an artificial platform for females that this would only ad to the delusion. Women have outstanding skills and abilities as do men. Neither women nor men are born as the superior gender that is pure rubbish. Individuals within those genders have made outstanding contributions to society and the world, but it is on a case by case basis not across the board. As a former combat soldier I would not want a female in my patrol as they are subject to misplaced emotions that could result in the death of many. Don’t let the accomplishments of a few women be exaggerated to engulf the many. When the first group of women arrive home without arms or legs what will society say? Despite the “macho attitude” women try to bring they, in the end, will bring more problems then solutions.