Women are too weak physically to serve in combat

[Truthmatters]

Top 10: Chicks Who Could Kick Your Ass - AskMen

 

[longknife]

Tell that to the thousands of Israeli women soldiers who kick butt every day!

 

[Katzndogz]

When people talk about violent women it's true and it's something that I thought myself but it's isn't about capability. It's about longevity. A woman, no matter how bad the biker chick isn't going to be a very bad biker chick after two weeks without a shower and a vaginal infection burning out her uterus, or living off MRE's while carrying a 50 pound backpack for days on end.

That's why Isralie women are not permitted in front line combat. They are required to be in the military, but they are not fighters.

Experience from foreign countries is not very enlightening on the matter of women in combat. Contrary to popular belief, women in Israel, which is the only country with a female draft, are not assigned to duty as combat soldiers; they played only a limited, mainly defensive, role in the War of Independence, in 1948. A ruling by Canada's Human Rights Commission last year held that women could no longer be excluded from any military role except in submarines. The Canadian experience has not been heartening for those who seek to end the combat-exclusion rule in this country. Only seventy-nine women were recruited into the infantry training program and only one completed the course. She has since requested a transfer out of the infantry.

'The Most Counterproductive Policy in the U.S. Army': Servicemembers on the Women-in-Combat Ban, 20 Years Ago - Eleanor Barkhorn - The Atlantic

It might be more productive to listen to someone like Katie Petronio who was capable, did volunteer, and thought herself the equal to male fighters and she was, just not for long.


By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment.

Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that she’ll be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette

Women can indeed be lab rats for the special interest groups that imagine they can impose equality but it will ultimately be to their detriment and the detriment of everyone around them.

 

[PegLegGuy]

.
Forget strength already.

What about mindset?

We're raised differently than girls.

Can you imagine a rifle squad with 3 or 4 women?

Men have that bond with each other that I don't think women really have.

PegLegGuy
USMC 1967-71
FDNY 1971-99

That feeling in the gut that comes before imminent combat, is not so much from the fear of injury or death, as it is the fear of proving inadequate as a man, in front of men


.

 

[Meathead]

Probably been said already, but if women can pass the same standards as men for combat deployment, and those standards are not reduced to accomodate them, then why not? The only objection I might have are the tensions, sexual and otherwise, which could result in claims of harassment both frivolous and valid.

 

[Katzndogz]

Probably been said already, but if women can pass the same standards as men for combat deployment, and those standards are not reduced to accomodate them, then why not? The only objection I might have are the tensions, sexual and otherwise, which could result in claims of harassment both frivolous and valid.

Standards are always lowered. There isn't an instance in the police or fire departments where the standards haven't been lowered to increase the participation of women. When standards are lowered, they not only allow in unqualified women, but unqualified men as well.

 

[Mushroom]

Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that she’ll be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette

Women can indeed be lab rats for the special interest groups that imagine they can impose equality but it will ultimately be to their detriment and the detriment of everyone around them.

And this is really what it all boils down to. A lot of people just do not seem to get that men and women are built completely different.

God, or Genetics, or Evolution, or whatever you call it has provided women with one muscle and bone structure, and men with another. For women, it tends to be lighter bones, with the type of muscles that can to low impact repetitive tasks with ease, or for a short duration high impact task. For men, they have denser stronger bones, and muscles that are better tuned to longer term high impact chores.

And it is not only that, the bones are arranged slightly different. For men, our hips tend to be narrower, and the leg bones go in more of a straight-down configuration. In women, the hips are wider, and the bones tend to connect more to the side.

Now people seem to think of combat, and only think of picking up a gun and shooting. And yea, women can do that task just as well as men. But for Infantry, there is a lot more involved.

I was a grunt for 10 years, and as I like to joke I got the knees to prove it. In the Marines, all Infantry is "Light Infantry". In other words, there are no helicopters or APCs or anything else permanently assigned to transport us from one location to another. So everything is intended to move the Battalion or Regiment from one location to another on foot.

And this is where things really start to show the difference. Every Marine Infantry Battalion does a combat evaluation on steroids called a MCCRES every 1-2 years. And in addition to the usual combat drills (respond to ambush, set an ambush, single envelopment and movement to combat), it is capped off with a 25 mile "forced march". 40 kilometers with full combat load (50-75+ pounds) in 8 hours. Typically 50 minutes of hard non-stop marching, 10 minute break, then another 50 minutes of marching.

Now I have served for over 15 years now, 10 in the Infantry (combat role, only men) and 5 in Air Defense (combat role, co-ed). And I am far away from my prime, but even at 48 I have yet to find a female that can come anywhere close to keeping up with me in even a little 6 mile forced march. Because of evolution, bones and muscles are just so different that very few could meet the demands of the job.

It is really as simple as that. I do not doubt the ability to do many of the jobs, but when it comes to simple brute force and the endurance to carry large weights for prolonged periods of time, nature did not give that ability to women. Men (grunt-grunt-grunt) go and kill the antelope, and drag it back to camp (grunt-grunt-grunt). Women skin the antelope (remember the low-impact repetitive I mentioned earlier), grind the grain into flour (same low impact repetitive), and other similar chores. Plus the men lift the heavy things, and carry them from one camp to another. Women have babies, hence the wider hips and slightly different bone angles which makes that chore harder (not the lifting, the walking with the weight for prolonged periods of time).

This is how nature and evolution programmed our bodies tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. And it is not the routine tasks that I see a problem, it is the things we do like the training for combat that prepares us for the unusual things that I see the biggest problems.

 

[regent]

Women in combat is a fine idea, but the combat conditions must be changed. No more extended service in the field with no toilets, no sleeping in a slit trench every night for three months on end. And now some of the military are being accused of complaing about no hot breakfasts. Yeah, the whole thing has to be changed, but maybe combat will become a little more civilized?

 

[Katzndogz]

Great idea. Change cimbat. Get the enemy to agree.

Units with women will be at a disadvantage to units that do not have women. The Taliban is not noted for their reliance on female fighters.

 

[Againsheila]

For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat: Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.

 

[Unkotare]

For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat: Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.

Um...you know that doesn't...um...make sense, right?

 

[High_Gravity]

Great idea. Change cimbat. Get the enemy to agree.

Units with women will be at a disadvantage to units that do not have women. The Taliban is not noted for their reliance on female fighters.

They use women too, for suicide bombers.

 

[Unkotare]

Great idea. Change cimbat. Get the enemy to agree.

Units with women will be at a disadvantage to units that do not have women. The Taliban is not noted for their reliance on female fighters.

They use women too, for suicide bombers.

You mean they send them on blind dates with del?

 

[High_Gravity]

Great idea. Change cimbat. Get the enemy to agree.

Units with women will be at a disadvantage to units that do not have women. The Taliban is not noted for their reliance on female fighters.

They use women too, for suicide bombers.

You mean they send them on blind dates with del?

 

[aplcr0331]

For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat: Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.

Over 60% of woman use an epuderal. If I was a woman I would too, no sense in being a faux tough lady. Of course, then you can't spin th' ole yarn about difficult birth is.

I'm sure you, however, had your baby in the fields standing up with no modern medical aids at all.

 

[Againsheila]

For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat: Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.

Over 60% of woman use an epuderal. If I was a woman I would too, no sense in being a faux tough lady. Of course, then you can't spin th' ole yarn about difficult birth is.

I'm sure you, however, had your baby in the fields standing up with no modern medical aids at all.

Actually, I got my epidural after 2 days of labor and more than 2 hours of transition...finally, on the 3rd day, I got a c-section. I would have taken that epidural a lot earlier but some idiot told me natural birth was the way to go. Meanwhile, my neighbor had her child in her living room with 17 minutes of labor, before the fire department got there. I hated her.

My 2nd was a scheduled c-section and I'm here to tell you the recovery time from a scheduled c-section is a heck of a lot faster than recovery time from a c-section after 3 days of labor.

 

[Munin]

What a bunch of morons on this forum, the only arguments for women not serving is just pure superstition

I agree that you should have objective reasons for being able to join in a combat unit and not lowering the standard because of your sex. I also think you shouldn't waste the skills of people who want to serve just because superstitious nonsense

Many other armies already have women in combat units, in WWII the soviet Union for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II
And if I m not mistaken: the Soviet Union won the war against the Germans despite the use of women in combat roles

Also, I d rather think it s the other way around: if you as a country deny half of your manpower and are at war with a country as big as yours that doesn't, you re already at a disadvantage. And I also think some women are better at shooting or even stronger then some men in combat, it just depends on your individual skills

Or maybe you should take a look at this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/

 

[ABikerSailor]

Women who are currently serving on U.S. Navy warships (Spruance class among others) actually DO go into war zones on a regular basis.

And the arguement is what again? Women can't serve in war zones?

 

[editec]

Very few soldiers ever find themselves in a situation where their upper body strength was vital to survival.

Damned few!

 

[Tech_Esq]

Women who are currently serving on U.S. Navy warships (Spruance class among others) actually DO go into war zones on a regular basis.

And the arguement is what again? Women can't serve in war zones?

I don't think there is an argument that they shouldn't go into war zones. I think the argument is that they shouldn't be in combat arms units.