Don't ask Don't tell anyone about the repeal

[Thorton_AP]

As I said, as long as they can hold up to the same standards for infantry, I have no issues with women getting involved with it.

[Orogun01]

As I said, as long as they can hold up to the same standards for infantry, I have no issues with women getting involved with it.

So it's the infantry the measure for all troops?

[213374U]

Give you an example, one of them made corporal in three years with a persistent nerve disorder that meant she was in constant serious pain. The other one was an officer who - on a weekend training exercise - got an iron rebar straight through her thigh infiltrating up a beach and refused to make a sound for fear of compromising the 'mission'. Super-organised, always on the go, full of jokes, knew all the procedures you name it. And that's only in the part-timers.

They must have been some hardasses alright. But as I said, I never met any really tough female infantry soldier. Admittedly, there were *no* women in any combat-ready positions that I saw, so maybe it's an army doctrine thing, rather than one of ability.

 

I see what you did there, btw.

[cronicler]

Orogun01: the topic has gone for the ground pounders and other specialities of grunts (more or less) as it is the hardest branch for women. I don't think anyone would argue that females can't manage it in (any) airforce or navy. (Well except for subs I guess... and that's more of a "can't mix genders" than what we are discussing here.)

[Orogun01]

Orogun01: the topic has gone for the ground pounders and other specialities of grunts (more or less) as it is the hardest branch for women. I don't think anyone would argue that females can't manage it in (any) airforce or navy. (Well except for subs I guess... and that's more of a "can't mix genders" than what we are discussing here.)

IIRC the whole argument began with questioning the effectiveness of service women. With colorful anecdotes of women not being held to the same physical standard as men and how they compromised the effectiveness of our armed troops. Not just as women's role on infantry.

[~Di]

Actually, a military advisory commission is recommending that the policy banning women in combat units and submarines. About time, I say!

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41083172/ns/us_news-life/

 

A military advisory commission is recommending that the Pentagon do away with a policy that bans women from serving in combat units, breathing new life into a long-simmering debate...

 

On Friday, a special panel was meeting to polish the final draft of a report that recommends the policy be eliminated "to create a level playing field for all qualified service members."

 

If it were approved by the Defense Department, it would be yet another sizeable social change in a force that in the past year has seen policy changes to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly for the first time in the military and to allow Navy women to serve on submarines for the first time...

[Monte Carlo]

The issue is not only about combat effectiveness (although it should be).

 

Western, regular armies have increasingly been subjected to civilian employment laws, this along with the Human Rights agenda (Frankfurt School, anyone?) means that:

 

Our fully-integrated infantry company needs to consider a diversity audit and childcare considerations (why did Corporal Smith get promoted, he's a guy? We've only got one female sergeant, but she can't deploy she's just had a child). Unit cohesion would soon suffer as the equal ops brigade dismantled almost every stress-breaking, non-PC area of the unit. What about other parts of the army? I hear you quite reasonably ask. Well, to a certain extent they've got atop these issues but the infantry is different. You want the tip of the spear to be sharp and lean and to hell with civilian social convention.

 

I'm sure some of the moonbats out there would find all this quite enervating, but seriously it's no way to run an infantry battalion. The sort of personal restrictions that would be required on female soldiers to ameliorate these issues would be unacceptable and unlawful, i.e. the issue of child-bearing (in the 1970s you had to leave the army if you had one, which is clearly unfair).

 

The Israelis have tried it. Israel is a far from perfect example, as theirs is a national defence force in a unique culture. Even there, the results have been mixed.

 

I say work to the gender differences that are obvious: women make excellent service personnel in many areas and in some are superior to men. The infantry isn't, I would contend, one of those.

[Thorton_AP]

As I said, as long as they can hold up to the same standards for infantry, I have no issues with women getting involved with it.

So it's the infantry the measure for all troops?

 

No, I was saying that as long as a woman is not allowed into infantry by anything less than the same standards, I have no issue with it.

 

I wasn't talking about armed forces in general.

 

Have you been actually following this thread because most people here don't seem to have an issue with women in many roles in the military. But infantry (and other combat roles apparently) often have very grueling physical requirements. This sets a standard of expectations for how physically capable they are, so you can take a look at any foot soldier's name and at the very least of a basic guarantee of the minimum capabilities of that soldier.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Thorton_AP

[Orogun01]

As I said, as long as they can hold up to the same standards for infantry, I have no issues with women getting involved with it.

So it's the infantry the measure for all troops?

 

No, I was saying that as long as a woman is not allowed into infantry by anything less than the same standards, I have no issue with it.

 

I wasn't talking about armed forces in general.

 

Have you been actually following this thread because most people here don't seem to have an issue with women in many roles in the military. But infantry (and other combat roles apparently) often have very grueling physical requirements. This sets a standard of expectations for how physically capable they are, so you can take a look at any foot soldier's name and at the very least of a basic guarantee of the minimum capabilities of that soldier.

But why should they be held to the same standard when we are two different creatures biologically? A compromise can be reached where their effectiveness in combat isn't compromised but they are not discriminated because of their sex.

[213374U]

But why should they be held to the same standard when we are two different creatures biologically? A compromise can be reached where their effectiveness in combat isn't compromised but they are not discriminated because of their sex.

Monte's spot on. There can be no compromise, as there is no effectiveness that is acceptable for a military unit below the degree of "maximum effectiveness". If allowing women into units likely to be deployed on frontline combat duty or similar decreases -or allows for the possibility that it may decrease- combat readiness and performance, but women are still allowed in, that's no compromise, that's a doctrinal blunder on the basis of a fallacy - that gender equality means that there are no differences between men and women. Edited January 16, 2011 by 213374U

[Orogun01]

Monte's spot on. There can be no compromise, as there is no effectiveness that is acceptable for a military unit below the degree of "maximum effectiveness". If allowing women into units likely to be deployed on frontline combat duty or similar decreases -or allows for the possibility that it may decrease- combat readiness and performance, but women are still allowed in, that's no compromise, that's a doctrinal blunder on the basis of a fallacy - that gender equality means that there are no differences between men and women.

Maximum effectiveness it's hardly an argument, when most troops where requisitioning for a thousand and one things necessary for maximum effectiveness. Most notable; remember the US troops scraping metal to armor their vehicles. Very effective against IED, ain't it? Or let's recall the first issued M16s? There is no proof that allowing women may decrease combat readiness. Just a bunch of speculation about the "effect on the psychology of men" and whatnot.

Fact of the matter is that there are women on our armed forces, that casualties do reach them and despite this they still have to deal with discrimination because of their sex. Not even based on proof.

 

I'm sorry but if women have enough balls to run to the thick of combat, bullets fired, surrounded by mortar fire, and against order to save lives they can definitively handle the frontline.

[~Di]

Indeed. Women are already on the front lines. They are involved in firefights, they are fighting and they are dying (273 females killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, many more wounded and maimed). The military simply insists that they are in non-combat positions while acknowledging that combat does come to them anyway. How disingenuous and insulting. It's okay for them to drive a humvee over an IED, or chopper troops into the heart of battle, or hunker down, surrounded, and fight the enemy close enough to see their faces... but it's not okay to admit that women are now and for the past decade have been in combat.

 

Women are held back on how far they can advance because they are prevented from commanding combat troops, dispite the fact that they are qualified to do so... or would be, if allowed. The military commission has studied this at great lengths, and strongly recommends that the Pentagon repeal the ban on women serving in combat.

 

As for the physical differences, not every woman is a 5'3 100-lb delicate flower. There are plenty of 5'8 160 lbs of muscle females out there. I say that if they can match men of their size in strength and endurance, they should be allowed infantry experience. There may not be many women who can compete on the infantry playing field, but if they can they should not be prevented from doing so because of their gender. I'm glad the military commission agrees with me. If the US can handle seeing lines of coffins of our dead sons, then it can damned well learn to handle lines of coffins of our dead daughters. They are all our children. They should be treated equally by our government and our military. Perhaps when enough have died, both the government and the military will decide that pre-emptive invasions and nation-building is not worth the blood of our children.

[Monte Carlo]

Women are held back on how far they can advance because they are prevented from commanding combat troops, dispite the fact that they are qualified to do so... or would be, if allowed.

 

Tough. You don't risk lives and the success of the mission to help someone's career portfolio.

[~Di]

Women are held back on how far they can advance because they are prevented from commanding combat troops, dispite the fact that they are qualified to do so... or would be, if allowed.

 

Tough. You don't risk lives and the success of the mission to help someone's career portfolio.

 

Way to ignore the revelant points in my post.

[213374U]

Maximum effectiveness it's hardly an argument, when most troops where requisitioning for a thousand and one things necessary for maximum effectiveness. Most notable; remember the US troops scraping metal to armor their vehicles. Very effective against IED, ain't it? Or let's recall the first issued M16s? There is no proof that allowing women may decrease combat readiness. Just a bunch of speculation about the "effect on the psychology of men" and whatnot.

So because maximum effectiveness can't be realistically achieved, you shouldn't aim for that? Is that an excuse to implement a measure that could potentially have further negative effects on the warfighting ability of certain units?

 

And no, it's not speculation. It's a well documented fact that females get pregnant while males do not. The protective instinct that males have towards females is not speculation either. But let's assume for a moment that the psychological effects are at present unexplored (which they aren't - you might argue that evidence available in cases where it's been allowed is insufficient or anecdotal, but there aren't any statistical studies on the effects caused by women serving in infantry regiments). If in the future they were shown to be grounded in fact... who's going to see to it that the reform is repealed? That would pretty much be a career-ending move for any politician, given the climate of gender fundamentalism we live in.

 

 

Indeed. Women are already on the front lines. They are involved in firefights, they are fighting and they are dying (273 females killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, many more wounded and maimed). The military simply insists that they are in non-combat positions while acknowledging that combat does come to them anyway. How disingenuous and insulting. It's okay for them to drive a humvee over an IED, or chopper troops into the heart of battle, or hunker down, surrounded, and fight the enemy close enough to see their faces... but it's not okay to admit that women are now and for the past decade have been in combat.

Yes, because that's how, among other things, Occupational Specialties are assigned. Someone with an artillery specialty isn't going to see the same kind of action as an infantry soldier in the 75th Rangers, so they get different, specific training. Not everyone in the military is an infantryman, just like not every infantryman has a SF tab. They may get shot, but then again, journalists, NGO workers and pretty much anyone else in a warzone is liable to, and often is, blown to pieces. That does not mean they had a combat role.

 

 

As for the physical differences, not every woman is a 5'3 100-lb delicate flower. There are plenty of 5'8 160 lbs of muscle females out there. I say that if they can match men of their size in strength and endurance, they should be allowed infantry experience.

Funny, because physical ability is usually quite low on the concerns list for this issue, assuming it's mentioned at all. Because basic infantry duty isn't something that demands of soldiers much more than a basic level of physical fitness, and most women should be able to make the cut, I think, provided they have the right mindset (something which applies to men as well).

[Orogun01]

So because maximum effectiveness can't be realistically achieved, you shouldn't aim for that? Is that an excuse to implement a measure that could potentially have further negative effects on the warfighting ability of certain units?

No, but i'm saying that it shouldn't be used as an excuse to exclude a perfectly body able group out of voluntary service. Women are already deployed, there really is no reason for them not to have combat roles since there is no proof that they will in fact hinder combat capabilities.

And no, it's not speculation. It's a well documented fact that females get pregnant while males do not. The protective instinct that males have towards females is not speculation either. But let's assume for a moment that the psychological effects are at present unexplored (which they aren't - you might argue that evidence available in cases where it's been allowed is insufficient or anecdotal, but there aren't any statistical studies on the effects caused by women serving in infantry regiments). If in the future they were shown to be grounded in fact... who's going to see to it that the reform is repealed? That would pretty much be a career-ending move for any politician, given the climate of gender fundamentalism we live in.

So we shouldn't give women the chance to join combat because they can bear children? Something easily solved by an honorable discharge or relegation to a non-combat duty (which may benefit from actual combat experience) The protective instinct you speak of it's quite natural and it's also true for men and men. Or will a soldier abandon a fallen comrade just because he is a man? If it was in fact true then it's something that should be investigated beforehand, a simple series of test groups could do that nicely.

 

 

Funny, because physical ability is usually quite low on the concerns list for this issue, assuming it's mentioned at all. Because basic infantry duty isn't something that demands of soldiers much more than a basic level of physical fitness, and most women should be able to make the cut, I think, provided they have the right mindset (something which applies to men as well).

And what would the right mindset be?

[Thorton_AP]

But why should they be held to the same standard when we are two different creatures biologically? A compromise can be reached where their effectiveness in combat isn't compromised but they are not discriminated because of their sex.

 

Because you've now begun to discriminate by sex. You're saying that compromises should be made for women where the effectiveness in combat isn't compromised. You end up implicitly saying that a man is not eligible for the same compromise simply because he is a man. Creating separate standards for the same role is systemic discrimination. Say a woman that meets 90% of the criteria for physical performance is deemed an acceptable compromise. Why should the male that meets 95% of the criteria (including the same 90% the woman is able to achieve) not be accepted, even though he is actually a superior candidate than the woman?

[Walsingham]

There's been talk for two pages now about compromising combat effectiveness.

 

Anyone care to tell me what the f*** that actually means?

[Malcador]

How easy the morale check is, I assume.

[Monte Carlo]

There's been talk for two pages now about compromising combat effectiveness.

 

Anyone care to tell me what the f*** that actually means?

 

It means getting your merde together on a two-way range, switching on, winning the firefight. Killing, stabbing, shooting at point blank range, blowing stuff up. Then doing it all again. For days.

 

Could women do that? Possibly, even probably. Could they do that consistently and integrated into male combat units without degrading the ability to do all that better than the other side?

 

I don't know. Do you want to be in the experimental unit?

[Monte Carlo]

Women are held back on how far they can advance because they are prevented from commanding combat troops, dispite the fact that they are qualified to do so... or would be, if allowed.

 

Tough. You don't risk lives and the success of the mission to help someone's career portfolio.

 

Way to ignore the revelant points in my post.

 

What, Di, like this bit where you appear to suggest that the deaths of women is a new and interesting metric for pursuing a WAR IS EVAL agenda?

 

If the US can handle seeing lines of coffins of our dead sons, then it can damned well learn to handle lines of coffins of our dead daughters. They are all our children. They should be treated equally by our government and our military. Perhaps when enough have died, both the government and the military will decide that pre-emptive invasions and nation-building is not worth the blood of our children.

 

Usually you are a overflowing spring of common-sense, but alas on this one I think not.

 

Edit: I realise my post might appear harsh, I'm not trolling Di but that really is how I read it.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Monte Carlo

[Calax]

There's been talk for two pages now about compromising combat effectiveness.

 

Anyone care to tell me what the f*** that actually means?

Basically, it's the ability for an infantry unit to carry out combat. At minimal combat effectiveness you've probably got walking wounded led by a guy with wall eye, at maximum is the movie standard "tough as nails and cares only about his gun" sort of thing.

 

In general one of the things that people are trying to say would destroy combat effectiveness is that the average woman can't carry as much or move as much so if a team is ordered to move from point a to b as fast as possible they're gonna be a little light weight wise and moving a bit slower because of the female.

 

Also there's the inherent problem of what happens when men and women get close to each other. I heard one person that I used to talk to griping because her husband (a part of the personnel department on a base) was having to deal with newly pregnant females on a base in iraq, and sending them back to the States while requisitioning new troops.

 

And yeah, you don't get kicked out but you do get instantly thrown on a plane and sent back to the states if you're pregnant. Hell, some women are even getting knocked up to prevent deployment.

[Walsingham]

That's pretty much the definition I was expecting. But with due respect you sound like a bunch of bootnecks. I wouldn't say this if I didn't think you'd agree with me because I know about war like I know about sex in zero gravity. Well, maybe I read about the former a bit more... but I digress.

 

I think if we've learned something in the last fifty years it is that warfighting isn't some Medal of Honour gun festival. There's a lot more to winning the operational objectives in a campaign than stabbing people. Particularly, but not only in counter-insurgency.

 

I'd go so far as to suggest that an excellent corporal or sergeant, even, is going to have other skills than chucking grenades. Relating to others, commitment to a team, honesty... what is it again? Selflessness, Respect for Others, Loyalty, Integrity, Discipline, Courage. And none of those things are measured out by the container size.

 

I have a further point, but don't want to hit tldr.

[Orogun01]

I have a further point, but don't want to hit tldr.

Please, do go on.

[Guard Dog]

I think if we've learned something in the last fifty years it is that warfighting isn't some Medal of Honour gun festival. There's a lot more to winning the operational objectives in a campaign than stabbing people. Particularly, but not only in counter-insurgency.

 

Yes there is a lot more to it. Including running fast for long distances while carrying very heavy loads. Being able to run without stopping until told, then fighting without stopping until told. Infantry is a VERY physically demanding business. I knew a lot of Women Marines during my time in and many of them were excellent marines in that they could do their jobs well and with professionalisim, but not one, not a single one of them could have hacked it as a grunt.

 

Just as an example, you are a Marine platoon commander. You have been ordered to double time (that means run to those of you who have never served) over six miles of rocky terrain to relieve another platoon that is pinned under heavy fire. A Marine Rifle Platoon is roughly forty Marines and keeping with the percentages if it was integrated five of those would be women. Every platoon has one heavy weapons team (in my day it was the M-60e3 don't know what they use now) and every squad (three in every platoon) has a SAW team. Everyone in the platoon from the commander down to the newest boot private carries their own gear, their own weapons with ammo for them, plus a spare battery for the radio or 1000 round belt of ammo for the M-60 or two 500 round drums for one of the SAWs. The women would be expected to do this too. Now they will have to carry all of this while running six miles over rocky ground then at the end of that they will be expected to engage the enemy in a firefight. Every male marine can make that run, they do it in training ALL the time. That is the Combat PFT I told you guys about. Every male Marine has to pass it twice a year. What would you do as the commander if your five women can't complete the run? What do you do if even one of them can't? Not only do you lose her but whatever assets she is carrying. You can't stop because there is a besiged platoon waiting for your aid.

 

You guys see the problems here? I'm sorry but there are some things that women just can-not-do. Failing to realize that is just politcally correct foolishness.

 

Don't take this the wrong way guys but 99% of you never served in the military. And unless I'm wrong, Gfted1 and I are the only ones on this board regularly who have ever served in combat. You just don't fully understand what you are talking about. I do not say that to be confrontational or nasty, it's just how it is.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Guard Dog