Chase vs. Hanson debate on women in combat

| January 20, 2011

Since many of you had this discussion with Eve Chase last week, here’s the video of her discussion with Uncle Jimbo on Russia Television last night in case you missed it.

I think Eve needs to back off from the “Boys Club” line. Seriously. I think she’s taking the whole issue too personally. The discussion isn’t about sex, it’s about who is entirely capable of completing the mission, EVERY TIME, regardless of the circumstances. Like I’ve said before, bullets don’t discriminate.

This discussion shouldn’t even involve a mention of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – it has nothing to do with “Women in Combat”. That calls for a whole new subject; “Dan Choi and Other Girls in Combat”.

Category: Military issues

Comments (36)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. War On Terror News | January 24, 2011
  1. Old_Grunt says:

    I say let them join and put them through the rigors of Infantry BCT. Treat them as equals as they want to be treated and level the playing field for EVERYONE men as well as women. Erase the gender differences in PT and other areas and make it all equal. I say this only because once the women begin to complain that what is going on is to rough, to tough, and they cannot handle it we can tell them to either STFU and drive on or prove our point that women are in some ways unable to be the equal to a man and thus we can end this fracking debate.

    If they want to be equal prove that they can be and no coddling or hand holding when they break down because the mean old DI was in their face screaming that they are a pathetic failure and that they should go back home to their wet nurse. When the bullets start flying and they watch their best friend get shot because they froze they will have proven the point that being ATTACHED to a combat unit and being ASSIGNED to one are 2 entirely different situations. Being ATTACHED gives you some maneuver room in regards to the chain of command but being ASSIGNED takes that maneuver room out of the equation.

  2. Old_Grunt says:

    I should mention that the above comment is in regards to regular military units only. SPECOPS units fall into a different category and women should not be allowed into that club. SPECOPS live in a world above the normal regular military unit and failure in a situation with one of these units could be catastrophic at the very least.

  3. Kanani says:

    So far Jim has met his two life’s purposes: he’s stayed alive and he’s procreated!

    However, he came up short on this debate by only focusing on his one aspect of the overall question.
    If what Ms. Chase says is correct: that women are already “attached” to combat units and they’re not getting the same tools and training, then this needs to be corrected as it doesn’t make any sense.
    Dragging all these issues in –DADT, the boys club isn’t really hitting the mark.

  4. Old Trooper says:

    Kanani; the problem with not getting the same tools and training isn’t so much to do with gender as it has to do with mission requirements. For example, a person attached to a combat unit isn’t going to be humping the 240B, because that’s not their job. She is being way to general in her argument and somewhat dishonest since she should know the difference.

    As Old Grunt says; there is a big difference between being attached to and being a member of. Those screaming for combat and equality wouldn’t be the ones signing up for infantry and combat units, anyway, because, as I have stated in other threads, there are very few women who could do the mission and those that can are the exception, not the rule. There are men that can’t hack it, either. So, would the correct way to proceed be gender neutral training and quarters in combat units? Leave the standards where they are and let those that wash out, wash out? I’m not being a smartass, just asking the questions that need to be answered in order to move past this.

  5. ponsdorf says:

    Caveat: My service is 40 years in the past.

    Her argument is a pantload. And I have to wonder if UJ was bending over backwards to be ‘fair’. Either way she ‘won’ this debate.

  6. PintoNag says:

    I am a female who probably couldn’t fight her way out of a paper bag, so any opinion I state here would have to remain fairly limited. There are women who can perform in hard and dangerous jobs such as heavy construction and firefighting. Long before a women attempts to go into any field that will push her to her physical, emotional, and mental limits, she needs to take a long hard look at herself and ask the questions she will face every step of the way into that field: “Can I do this? Am I performing to the set standards, or not? If not, why not?” In any dangerous job, other peoples’ lives are on the line along with the person in question, be they male or female. Any person in that job has to be able to perform.

  7. WOTN says:

    UJ’s point is the same one I’ve made for years. Paraphrased: “There is no room for sexual tension in combat units.”

    Involuntarily, as if to accentuate the point, watch his eyes as he tries to hide the fact that he’s checking her out every time the other two turn their heads. It is not purposeful. It is natural reaction.

    Ladies & Gentlemen, Human (animal) instinct is not overcome by Congressional Legislation. There will also not be any set standard for Infantry. If Combat MOS’s are opened to females, only one of two things will happen: physical standards will be lowered for everyone or dual standards will remain.

    There is no inequality in records, awards, or promotion capacity. Women have attained the highest ranks in the military, in officer, NCO, and warrant corps. Records reflect their units assigned and attached. Women are eligible for the CAB/CMB, medals of valor.

    This is not to say that women can’t be every bit as ferocious as men in combat, but that neither men nor women are well-served in putting sexual tension into the mix of combat situations.

  8. Adirondack Patriot says:

    I don’t even argue with women about it anymore. I invite them — as equals — to join me in pushups. I promise to listen attentively to their argument as long as they continue to do pushups with me.

    Once they stop doing pushups, the debate is over.

    They never make it past 30 seconds.

  9. OldSoldier54 says:

    Yeah, I hate to say it but, looks to me like UJ threw that one. Take a tactical loss for a possible strategic win with drinks later?

  10. PintoNag says:

    Adirondack Patriot:
    You are one cruel dude.
    You have just GOT to get that on YouTube…

  11. melle1228 says:

    @Adirondack Patriot

    Okay but in the baby having contest.. I have you beat 😉

  12. Stonewall116 says:

    Okay, I’m sorry but I have to laugh at this! Jim was quite obviously ambushed in this “debate” but did anybody else notice how he kept checking out Eve Chase’s butt and chest throughout the shoot? I’d say that wasn’t fair but, as the old saying goes, all is fair in love and war! LOL!

    • Jonn Lilyea says:

      Yeah, actually, Hanson demonstrated perfectly what the problem with women in combat is; He was too busy being polite and a gentleman to focus on the reason he was there.

      Meanwhile, two ruthless women with an agenda took advantage of Jim, who is really a nice guy and very respectful of women, and stomped the living shit out of him. It was painful to watch.

      This comes from experience; Eve takes no prisoners. TSO can tell the story about the first time Eve and I met while she was still at IAVA.

  13. ROS says:

    How exactly does she know what men are “programmed” to think in this training if she isn’t privy to it?

    It’s. Human. Nature- not training.

  14. melle1228 says:

    >Yeah, actually, Hanson demonstrated perfectly what the problem with women in combat is; He was too busy being polite and a gentleman to focus on the reason he was there.

    Exactly! And had he metaphorically gone for their throat in the debate- he would have looked like the jerk, because culturally men shouldn’t treat women like that. Confidentially I think women like Eve like that double standard. It allows them to win arguments like this.

  15. ROS says:

    “Confidentially I think women like Eve like that double standard. It allows them to win arguments like this.”

    Nail, meet hammer. Bingo.

    And welcome to the feminist movement.

  16. DirtyMick says:

    No but fuck no. Women can’t hack it and should never be allowed in any combat arms MOS. It comes down to being physical. When we did dismount patrols in Kunar I had a gun team with me and my gunner would be humping the 240B plus a thousand rounds of 7.62 and body armor for 8 klicks in 115 degree weather. That clear cut example should end the debate right there. I had female navy personnel I worked with and when we would be out at the range doing gunner down drills I couldn’t even get any of them to be able to charge the 50 or the mk 19.
    Do truck drivers (I don’t even think women should do that) get hit by IEDs and get into fire fights? They sure do and I’m not denying that but there’s a big difference between driving from point A to B and leaving your COP in the korengal (or wherever) and doing a 3 day patrol humping, not getting any sleep, and expected to fire and manuever on the enemy (which in most cases requires bounding for 400-500m) to find fix and finish them.
    First DADT and now this… When are these stupid motherfuckers ever learn

  17. DaveO says:

    It’s all well and good, but the battlefield for this argument ‘women in combat’ isn’t a talk show, or the parade deck doing pushups. Uncle Jimbo’s fighting the wrong battle on the wrong battleground. And hopefully he got free drinks from Ms. Chase out of the deal.

    The battlefield is the legal concept of egalitarianism. Women already serve as police officers, firefighters, construction workers, and in combat. Women attend West Point, VMI, Citadel, and can rise as high as 4-star general.

    What legal argument can be made to prevent women from being 11B? As a non-lawyer, I know that in the world of civil law there is something called a remedy.

    Can’t do pushups? The remedy is lower the requirement. Can’t hang with the weight in the ruck? Army says 30% of bodyweight is the most that can go in a ruck. So the remedy is either the Army adheres to its standard, or the court will set the standard. The threat is made to be worse than the implementation.

    Egalitarianism as practiced in our great Nation focuses on equality of opportunity, while ignoring that outcome is wildly unequal. Combat is similar in that respect.

    So long as folks such as Ms. Chase control the site, tempo, and substance of battle, they’ll always win.

  18. WOTN says:

    Hmmm, not too many people saying UJ won the debate, but all must admit the cards were stacked against him and in the battle of wits, he was clearly distracted.

    Perhaps, the loss was the biggest argument for his position. Imagine if the ammunition had been bullets instead of words, because that is the battlefield reality and UJ is not deficient of battlefield abilities nor wit, even with the spare tire.

  19. BooRadley says:

    Idiots. Your friend could not have made a worse case. Women just don’t see how once they screw with things- you just can’t go back. I could see the number of female enlistees declining. And everything that’s been said about lowering standards and what not is the truth.

    UGH. I hate when people use their ONE experience with something to decide their an expert.

  20. Cedo Alteram says:

    1)”Barrier to promotion”, equal oppotunity argument, not combat effectiveness, we’re discussing again.

    2)”14% of armed services are women.”
    a)They are not distributed equally amongst the services.
    b)Yes, there are more women then in the past, but in mostly expanded roles of their traditional branchs(Medicine[doctors not just nurses] and intell for example).

    How many women are actually MPs? There are for sure women MPs, but that branch is still over whelmingly male. How many females in an MP platoon or company? The same with transportation or aviation. How many female pilots are there? My point is there numbers are tiny or small.

    3)”… Then we herd the men… to perceive women differently.”-Ms Chase. This is classic feminist nonsense, that nuture not nature teachs the sexes to be different. This has scientifically been disproven by studies of preschool children.

    4)a)Ms Chase’s point about the training is mute. Some men don’t get that training either, it goes by unit, mos, time, resources, and frankly a commander’s priorites. You can’t possibly be ready for every situation. Which is the most likely.
    b)”We all go to school equally”- Ms Chase. Yes during instruction, but there is a reason we have two teams defined by sex for most sports.

    4)Ms Chase states a unit wouldn’t take a qualified soldier on deployment because of gender. What is the unit and Mos? What mission were they expected to perform? Out of curiosity what exactly was Ms Chase’s MOS?

    Men are physically utilitarian, women are not. “…and thats the bottom line because STONE COLD SAID SO!”.

  21. BooRadley says:

    ** they are they’re….


  22. DirtyMick says:

    Also another thing I would like to mention. I don’t know if UJ did it on purpose or what but he could have definitely pumped the breaks on scoping out ms tits and ass on that interview. It was blatently obvious and embaressing. UJ talks a lot of game and chews a lot of ass on the blogs and his youtube clips but he got shit stomped by two women running their sucks about shit they know nothing about. All he had to do was talk about the physical difference in women and men and bring up the fact that most men can’t even hack the Infantry (much less ranger battalion or SF). The reason why is if you bring the sexual tension aspect into a debate it’s going to get shot down because a woman or some liberal dem (who doesn’t get laid often) will say thinking like that is immature and childish and that if these men are put in those positions of responsibility they should control themselves and grow up (even though I had 20 year old kids who killed people and watched dragon ball still).

  23. Old Trooper says:

    Cedo hammered it home. I wonder how long Ms. Chase would last in a hockey game against male counterparts with the rules being equal to what the males already have? Women have written that, in this thread, that they could be hell on wheels in certain instances and I’m sure a firefight would probably qualify, however, it’s the getting to the firefight and being prepared for any eventuality by having to hump that 240B, along with enough ammo to keep you in the fight, as DirtyMick pointed out? War and warfighting is not the place to attempt to satisfy the desires of a select few that think they can withstand the rigors of infantry life just because they were “attached” to a combat unit. GI Jane was a movie, this is real life. I’m sure Eve saw the grunts walking with their packs and weapons, but there’s a difference between seeing it and experiencing it for yourself.

    Operationally; DaveO says the Army req is your ruck has to carry 30% of your body weight, max? That seems a little light even for men. Ok, let’s look at the math of that, just for shits and giggles: A male weighing 180 lbs. will have a ruck that weighs 54 lbs and if the Army calculates off of that exactly what the TO&E needs to be for that unit and manpower to fulfill the mission based on that calculation, it would determine what the actual manpower requirements are to hump the max weight. Now, throw in a 120 lb. female and her calculated max ruck load would be 36 lbs. which is 33% less than her male counterpart. So; do you take that 18 extra pounds per female and re-distribute it amongst the males, which would increase their ruck load over the max of the Army req. and reduce their fighting ability and increasing their burden just to say “look at us, we’re diverse”? What happens if a male goes down and the closest person has to take up their load burden and that person is a female? Could she do it? Is combat the place to find out? Granted, your overall load is much heavier than that. That’s why the standards are where they are, not because it’s some macho thing, but because of the requirements found out through the history of combat.

    Has anyone advocating this actually looked at the physiological differences, other than the inny and outy argument? Women are designed with a smaller upper body and less upper body strength. There is the estrogen and testosterone thingy, too. Will Eve go to infantry school and line up head to head with her male counterparts? She wants this, so I expect her to be first in line to lead by example. Then, the next time she goes into combat, she won’t be “attached” to a combat unit, but will actually be humping the load for 8 kilometers instead of watching someone else do it and thinking that by watching, she is actually doing.

  24. DaveO says:

    OT: that is the argument. Take a combat-loaded ruck, and have any female the other side volunteers to carry it, and set her, or them out on a timed march. Second phase: same ruck, same time and distance, and add body armor, weapon (call it an M4 – a minor gallantry) and standard-issue boots.

    That works for the Infantry, and Special Forces. What about the Field Artillery and Armor? Short-tracking a launcher is a sonuvagun. A woman can’t move rounds around like a cannoneer.

    Point being, the tactic must be to force the other side onto your terrain, so to speak. Make ’em carry the ruck. Don’t let ’em off the hook – if they decline you declare victory and be loud to the point of being obnoxious.

  25. Finrod says:

    Y’all know what really sucks about this whole argument/discussion? Its pointless. Woman will be in the Infantry and in my beloved Cavalry, its just a matter of when. The people behind all this are not remotely interested in what we think or what we have experienced. They have their own goals and the fact that those goals are not in keeping with good combat effectiveness is immaterial. Woman will have different standards and we will just have to take it. If you complain or question the first female 11B CSM’s quals, you will be denounced as a neanderthal and chauvinist who is probably a closet racist and homophobe.

    I really should be more optimistic, its Friday, but fuck it.

  26. Tman says:

    I thought Uncle Jimbo nailed the biggest reason why women in infantry units is in general a bad idea. I don’t care how ‘politically correct’ people try to be, I don’t care how ‘fair’ and ‘open minded’ an environment is supposed to be, you just can NOT override human nature.

    Males will be males and females will be females. There will always be that tension and distracting issues no matter how professional soldiers are or try to be. Who needs that?

    By the way, loved Uncle Jimbo’s roving eyes, I was quite distracted too.


  27. Cedo Alteram says:

    “They have their own goals and the fact that those goals are not keeping with good combat effectiveness is immatierial.”- Finrod. Exactly, I’m going to have to steal that quote.

  28. BooRadley says:

    I don’t know– but I do think, based on the way they were lined up that way, Jimbo had to look past the tits to see the chick “reporter.” he was sooooooooo ambushed. UNPREPARED. LOL

  29. ROS says:

    Not to mention the reporter was certifiably a midget. She was wearing 3″ heels and was still only up to Jimbo’s ankles. It was kind of necessary to look down.

  30. DirtyMick says:

    Back in 2007 I went to WLC (PLDC for you old timers) at Ft. Knox. Anyway at the end of our final FTXs we had to do some mickey mouse 3 mile walk to where transpo was. Anyway our rucks weighed about 50 pounds and myself and my 3 other buddies (we were the only 11Bravos in teh whole class) ended up walking back with another females ruck on top of ours because a woman couldn’t walk 3 miles down the road with a ruck and IBA on. Case closed.

  31. Doc Bailey says:

    Jimbo got stomped. Sorry to say it. Look, lets be clear there are a lot of things that if you were to explain it would make you look like you’re trying to be immature. like or not Females cause and in some cases are ALL ABOUT drama. FOBits do not Infantrymen make. and even when they are “attached” there are problems. God alone knows how many females I saw sent back to the rear for pregnancy. and in the end, you know, it denies men one of the last places to truly act like MEN. yes we can be boorish, but also we can be gallant and noble.

  32. WOTN says:

    It’s great to be first into a debate, but more often we come along later in the debate, with ideally, a more thoughtful and rational discussion. (It’s the ideal, not the claim.)

    So, though I’ve had an opinion on this debate for decades, let’s start with the claims made FOR a change in policy:

    I plan to follow it up with a discussion of the points against it, but let me know if I missed any of the talking points, for it.

    I probably should have included links here and to B5 or at least the video above, but I was being lazy and will try to get some of that in, when I put it into the mainstream of the site. For now, everyone reading it likely has already seen all of that.

  33. Cedo Alteram says:

    Yeah, I can’t wait for that crap.

  34. My spouse and i were quite comfortable when Chris could do his survey by way of the ideas he grabbed from your web page. It is now and again perplexing to simply always be giving for free hints others might have been selling. We remember we have the blog owner to give thanks to for that. The entire illustrations you made, the simple site menu, the friendships you will give support to instill – it is all overwhelming, and it’s really facilitating our son in addition to us reason why this matter is excellent, and that’s seriously important. Many thanks for the whole lot!