The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

[jillian]

e

Ryan Smith @ The WSJ:


America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so

you really need to learn the board copyright rules. a link and a paragraph are sufficient. no one is going to read a post that long.

that said, women arr already in combat zones and dying and losing limbs. they just didn't get promoted because they weren't approved for "combat".

perhaps you should figure out why the joint chiefs unanimously supported this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Women don't need your fucking protection. They're more than capable.

Are you prepared for lawsuits when women realize their sterility came from contamination in battlefield and war conditions and were not warned by their COs that they might never be able to bear children as a consequence of their service? That could cost them a marriage, too, Cowman, if they didn't mention their sterility risk to their prospective spouse. Some men expect their woman to give them children to comfort them in their old age. Everybody has different requirements, and some people are traditionalists who have no interest in venturing out to the experimental lengths that liberals in Congress are foisting on all Americans. Others are okay with anything.

Nonsense, freedombecki. Men face similar problems, and have done so historically.

No woman need apply who does not want.

This is a volunteer Armed Forces that no one is foisting on all Americans.

 

[Katzndogz]

True. Women need not apply who does not want. So why should be even bother giving the "dangers" a second thought. They deserve their fate because they voluntarily chose it. It is unfortunate if these women put entire units at risk, But, again, this is an all volunteer service. If men do not want to face the risk posed by incapable women they don't have to join the service either.

 

[jillian]

Another reality is that most women will not be able to lug 100+ lbs of gear on a ten mile hike. PERIOD.

Prediction: At some point there will be a quota system requiring xx% of all combat troops be women which means standards will be lowered.... just like many fire departments have done.

many men can't either.

i don't think they should lower standards, fwiw.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I believe I would rather have any one of dozens of outstanding women I served with than have katzdogz at my side in combat. He exhibits the type of "only me" attitude that the unit knew how to take care of when necessary.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Another reality is that most women will not be able to lug 100+ lbs of gear on a ten mile hike. PERIOD.

Prediction: At some point there will be a quota system requiring xx% of all combat troops be women which means standards will be lowered.... just like many fire departments have done.

many men can't either.

i don't think they should lower standards, fwiw.

I know I can't...

 

[GodSaveAmerica]

Women don't need your fucking protection. They're more than capable.

Women are not endowed to be able to compete with men when it comes to physical confrontation. There is a reason why men and women still play in separate sports leagues, and we should not be putting women in an arena where they may have to engage in a life and death struggle in hand to hand combat against a man, anymore than you would allow a woman to fight a man in a UFC bout.

 

[GodSaveAmerica]

I'm all for women in the military. Women should have to take the same course of Basic trainng and be subject to the draft the same as men.
If this is what women seek, we should give it to them along with all the vagaries of the hardships of war interspersed with livng wth men of war.

If women want to do it and they are capable of doing it, then more power to them.

I thought the whole point of liberalism is taking away choices from people and making the good decisions for them. Allowing 18 year old girls the ability to choose to go into combat does not reflect well on liberals.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Women don't need your fucking protection. They're more than capable.

Women are not endowed to be able to compete with men when it comes to physical confrontation. There is a reason why men and women still play in separate sports leagues, and we should not be putting women in an arena where they may have to engage in a life and death struggle in hand to hand combat against a man, anymore than you would allow a woman to fight a man in a UFC bout.

One does not have to be a professional athlete to be an effective part of a combat team, so comparrisons to sports leagues are ridiculous.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The god of the NT and OT does not agree with GodSaveAmerica obviously.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Geesh. Nobody is saying that women can't be part of an effective military team. However, there are several ways in which women weaken certain types of combat units, and it's not really a matter of debate.

I was absolutely blown away when, in the months leading up to a deployment, the number of women in my command that would suddenly and mysteriously become pregnant. The spike in pregnancies was nothing short of staggering. Would men do the same thing to escape deployment? Probably, but that's not the point. They can't. Now, this type of thing doesn't really get reported, but I have spoken with folks from other branches, since I work with a lot of ex-military, and this was not unique to my command. Spikes in pregnancies among women in the military before a deployment is common. How does this affect combat units that need to be functional? Do they postpone deployment while they replace these people? No, they have to go, ready or not. And what of troops that they quickly replace them with? Are they part of a cohesive unit? No, they are FNGs, and anybody who has served in combat knows that FNGs weaken units.

Additionally, women has lower physical standards than men for a reason. They are not required to run as fast, nor required to have the same physical strength. So, units that rely on speed and strength are less effective. End of story. The majority of women I served with would be nearly if not completely incapable of dragging the average man in the military to safety. But if anybody brings something like that up they are a knuckle-dragger.

I happen to believe in the old Women's Suffrage slogan of "Equal Pay for Equal Work," but this concept does not apply in war. The bottom line is that women have a place in the military. They have many places, actually. Is the need to equalize the genders so important as to risk lives to make it happen? I guess we'll see how it plays out. If the government wants to push the issue, there's not much I can do about it, but it is a hell of a thing to risk for the sake of the grand social experiment.

 

[Ancient lion]

Additionally, women has lower physical standards than men for a reason.

what is the reason ?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Additionally, women has lower physical standards than men for a reason.

what is the reason ?

I have a missing premise there, don't I? Fair enough.

Because, statistically, women are physically incapable of the same physical performance as men. Because of this, a woman in a given age range is allowed a longer time to run a given distance than a man in the same range. Likewise, a woman is allowed fewer push-ups and sit-ups in a given period of time than her male counter-part.

Now, women that are the exception to the statistical averages are certainly out there, but as a general policy, combat units that rely on strength and speed to be effective are mathematically inhibited by the inclusion of women as a general policy.

Again, we'll see how things play out. It depends partly on how the military executes such a policy. My problem is that the overall effort at inclusion tends to ignore the practical problems that go along with it. It may be seen to the average American as a "victory" for women, but time will tell us the long-term costs.

I hope the best for our service men and women, as I always have. I just know that this issue is not a simple matter of equality. There is no equality in war. War zones don't have traditional black-and-white notions of right and wrong and equity. I commend women that want to serve and want to fight. If they are given roles for which they are suited as individuals and are a benefit to their unit, then I continue to be in support as I always have been. The inclusion of women into roles in the military to which they have been denied in the past is not a simple matter, it never has been and never will be. Things like deployment pregnancies or lesser physical capabilities are gender-specific factors that cannot be ignored.

 

[longknife]

Admission - I have NOT read all of the comments in this thread.

As far as I'm concerned, if a woman wants to serve in combat and can complete the training - let her got for it!

Women participated in our American War of Independence and the Civil War and performed as heroically as their male counterparts.

I would have no problem serving alongside qualified females.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Admission - I have NOT read all of the comments in this thread.

As far as I'm concerned, if a woman wants to serve in combat and can complete the training - let her got for it!

Women participated in our American War of Independence and the Civil War and performed as heroically as their male counterparts.

I would have no problem serving alongside qualified females.

Don't misunderstand me. I get what you're saying. I have every bit as much respect for women who serve as I do men. I just don't see the issue as so simple. Men and women have certain gender-specific strengths and weaknesses, and these cannot be ignored. I would be the first to acknowledge that women tend to make better nurses than men, including in military environments. If a woman meets the requirements of the post, then it should be hers. However, I draw the line if the requirements of the post were to be lowered for the sake of making a general policy happen, and it wouldn't matter if it were lowered for a man or a woman. Like I said, we'll see how things play out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Admission - I have NOT read all of the comments in this thread.

As far as I'm concerned, if a woman wants to serve in combat and can complete the training - let her got for it!

Women participated in our American War of Independence and the Civil War and performed as heroically as their male counterparts.

I would have no problem serving alongside qualified females.

Don't misunderstand me. I get what you're saying. I have every bit as much respect for women who serve as I do men. I just don't see the issue as so simple. Men and women have certain gender-specific strengths and weaknesses, and these cannot be ignored. I would be the first to acknowledge that women tend to make better nurses than men, including in military environments. If a woman meets the requirements of the post, then it should be hers. However, I draw the line if the requirements of the post were to be lowered for the sake of making a general policy happen, and it wouldn't matter if it were lowered for a man or a woman. Like I said, we'll see how things play out.

Show us where "the requirements of the post were to be lowered for the sake of making a general policy happen".

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Admission - I have NOT read all of the comments in this thread.

As far as I'm concerned, if a woman wants to serve in combat and can complete the training - let her got for it!

Women participated in our American War of Independence and the Civil War and performed as heroically as their male counterparts.

I would have no problem serving alongside qualified females.

Don't misunderstand me. I get what you're saying. I have every bit as much respect for women who serve as I do men. I just don't see the issue as so simple. Men and women have certain gender-specific strengths and weaknesses, and these cannot be ignored. I would be the first to acknowledge that women tend to make better nurses than men, including in military environments. If a woman meets the requirements of the post, then it should be hers. However, I draw the line if the requirements of the post were to be lowered for the sake of making a general policy happen, and it wouldn't matter if it were lowered for a man or a woman. Like I said, we'll see how things play out.

Show us where "the requirements of the post were to be lowered for the sake of making a general policy happen".

All of them if you consider that women have lower physical requirements across the board.

As for specific combat posts, I am posing a hypothetical to some extent, so bear with me, but it's not as if it is not being discussed or considered.

Army chief signals lowering of standards for women in combat - Wilmington Conservative | Examiner.com

From the article:

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, admitted that if women cannot pass the stringent requirements of serving in Combat Arms MOSs (Military Occupational Specialties), then the Armed Forces will have to ask itself if the standards "really have to be that high," as reported by CNSNews.com on Jan. 25, 2013.

So, yes, it is being considered and discussed.

I respect you, Jake. If we have a mild disagreement here, I won't hold it against you. But please don't try and paint me as some knuckle-dragger who wants to limit women's opportunities. That's not the point. Combat is combat. That is my primary concern. I'm not "against" women serving in combat. In fact, I consider the issue something to be seriously consider. However, gender-specific factors cannot be overlooked for the sake of the grand social experiment, and lowering the requirements of specific roles is something that is being discussed. This worries me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a knuckledragger, and I apologize if it came across that way. I simply think your assumptions are wrong and time will tell. My own personal experience was that we had ways to get rid of folks in our infantry units that could not pull their weight. I doubt the informal procedures have changed at all.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You are not a knuckledragger, and I apologize if it came across that way. I simply think your assumptions are wrong and time will tell. My own personal experience was that we had ways to get rid of folks in our infantry units that could not pull their weight. I doubt the informal procedures have changed at all.

Fair enough. I was just a REMF in the Navy, and had plenty of experience on a large command where female sailors were routinely excluded from certain duties that were physical, chilling while the men had to do the hard work, and most of them were perfectly fine with that arrangement. Therefore, I don't doubt that my view is skewed. Likewise, I was absolutely shocked at the number of sudden pregnancies that cropped up right before a deployment. It was something that I truly did not expect to see, and it saddened me.

I am interested to see how things play out. Conservative sources are trumpeting the conversation with General Dempsey, and that is typical, but the conversation still happened and we cannot ignore that this is being considered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Women are just as self concerned are as men. If some of our men could have become pregnant to avoid deployment, the would have done it. I had to put one of our female E5s in a holding cell over night to catch her attention that she would do it the right way or she would separated from her family for a considerable time.

I agree that we have situations that will need to be worked through until we get it right.