Women are too weak physically to serve in combat

[Tech_Esq]

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

Damned few!

Unless they are in combat arms units. Then it's typically crucial. A loader in a tank, better be able to get those rounds out and into the cannon butt fast and they ain't light brother. Same with arty you those rounds ain't gonna load themselves into the gun. Infantry almost goes without saying if you've looked at even one pic of the load they carry into combat.

 

[editec]

Its really quite simple.

Make their training test their ability.

Those women who make the grade get the assignment.

Don't we already so that for the men?

Hell yeah we do.

 

[Unkotare]

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

Damned few!

Oh yeah? What about the famous Battle of Benchpress Hill during the American Civil War? Or the massacre at Chinup-de-Mars during the French Revolution? And who can forget the bloody struggle to take Pushup Pass during the Spanish-American War?

 

[Katzndogz]

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
Soviet women in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: 8 Other Nations that Send Women to Combat

Bringing up the Soviet Union's actions during WWII and the benefit of women to that conflict with the Germans might be an exhibition of some ignorance. The presence of women wasn't determinative in the Soviet victory. Nothing the women did advanced the needs of the military. They turned no tide of battle. It was the devastating Russian winter.

Russian WWII Offensive of 1941 | Novelguide

 

[Katzndogz]

Its really quite simple.

Make their training test their ability.

Those women who make the grade get the assignment.

Don't we already so that for the men?

Hell yeah we do.

Those who don't make the grade can file a lawsuit on the grounds that the training has a disparate impact on women.

This has been done before. This isn't new. It's what happened in police forces and fire departments all over the country.

 

[High_Gravity]

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?

Women have been involved in combat since the war on terror started.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Its really quite simple.

Make their training test their ability.

Those women who make the grade get the assignment.

Don't we already so that for the men?

Hell yeah we do.

Those who don't make the grade can file a lawsuit on the grounds that the training has a disparate impact on women.

This has been done before. This isn't new. It's what happened in police forces and fire departments all over the country.

No, they can't.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's already happening.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814

The RTB has not been directed that all female candidates must pass regardless of performance, and Ranger Instructors will retain a limited ability to dismiss an individual underperforming woman from the course, as long as “enough” women remain to please the higher-ups. But they will have to justify every dismissal to the highest levels of command, who have made their intention clear. Regardless of performance, the majority of women attendees must pass — at least as high a graduating percentage as the men in the same class. For the first time in Ranger history, graduation will be guaranteed — for some.

There is no doubt that SOME strong women are the equal of SOME men, especially men that are weak to begin with. I have seen too many women kick male butt, myself included. But, women cannot maintain that strength over time especially in conditions that are not optimum. Eventually units with women will degrade. Either the women will weaken and have to be transferred out, or they will endanger the entire unit. There really has been no battle in which the presence of women has changed defeat to victory. Nor does it seem to matter because this is all about the feelings. It's not what's best for the military and their readiness, it's really all about opportunities for women no matter what the cost.

Unfortunately for us, will be likely be facing battle hardened men with no time for such niceties as the sensibilities of women and gays.

When asked if losing a war is an acceptable price to pay to satisfy the wish lists of specific groups, the left will say that it is. So it will be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's already happening.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814

The RTB has not been directed that all female candidates must pass regardless of performance, and Ranger Instructors will retain a limited ability to dismiss an individual underperforming woman from the course, as long as “enough” women remain to please the higher-ups. But they will have to justify every dismissal to the highest levels of command, who have made their intention clear. Regardless of performance, the majority of women attendees must pass — at least as high a graduating percentage as the men in the same class. For the first time in Ranger history, graduation will be guaranteed — for some.

There is no doubt that SOME strong women are the equal of SOME men, especially men that are weak to begin with. I have seen too many women kick male butt, myself included. But, women cannot maintain that strength over time especially in conditions that are not optimum. Eventually units with women will degrade. Either the women will weaken and have to be transferred out, or they will endanger the entire unit. There really has been no battle in which the presence of women has changed defeat to victory. Nor does it seem to matter because this is all about the feelings. It's not what's best for the military and their readiness, it's really all about opportunities for women no matter what the cost.

Unfortunately for us, will be likely be facing battle hardened men with no time for such niceties as the sensibilities of women and gays.

When asked if losing a war is an acceptable price to pay to satisfy the wish lists of specific groups, the left will say that it is. So it will be.

Give us competent evidence: government law, regulations, rules, pamphlets.

You can't. You fail again.

 

[aplcr0331]

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

Damned few!

Yep, and we refer to those Soldiers as Infantrymen. Exactly what we are talking about in this thread.

If a woman can pass all the same standards we have in place now, let them serve. Plus, make all women sign up for Selective Service as well.

I'd like to see the numbers that make it through Infantry training though. It's much more than lifting someone in a firemans carry or pressing the trigger on your service weapon. A lot goes into being an Infantryman (person). Mindset being one of the biggest. Can woman do it? I think some can, but the pool is mighty small.

 

[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?

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.

A Spruance class or Aegis class warship IS a combat arms unit.

Same thing with a carrier.

All of those ships have women on them.

 

[regent]

I think the living conditions in some combat situations would be most stressful. We spent months on end sleeping in slit trenches, going to the bathroom in that same slit trench in a k ration box, no clean clothes, no hot meals, never clean, a drinking water shortage, skin rot, constant threat of disease, and a maximum of five hours sleep at night. Finally there was the enemy trying to do us harm.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

But the very fact that you have hips adapted for giving birth is a great detriment to trying to fulfill a role in the Infantry.

Let's see you put on 100+ pounds of gear, and keep up with men in their prime in a grueling 25 mile forced march (or even keep up with me on a 10 mile march). Every single combat Marine is expected to do that every year.

I am 48 years old, and in 5 years in the Army have never met a single female that can even come close to keeping up with me, even with the much-reduced standards of Air Defense (no body armor, no helmet, 35 pound pack).

Heck, many times I have even taken the pack from a female and still beat her to the end of the 6 mile march by 5-10+ minutes. And remember, I am well over 2 decades past my prime.

 

[Godboy]

my wife's serving. she could kick your ass

Im sure your wife is real tough for a chick, but no, she cant beat men up. Im 40, and while im not fat, i am out of shape, and id crush your girl in a fight.

 

[Unkotare]

my wife's serving. she could kick your ass

Im sure your wife is real tough for a chick, but no, she cant beat men up. Im 40, and while im not fat, i am out of shape, and id crush your girl in a fight.

So, you really thought it was a good idea to pursue this line of argument?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

But the very fact that you have hips adapted for giving birth is a great detriment to trying to fulfill a role in the Infantry.

Let's see you put on 100+ pounds of gear, and keep up with men in their prime in a grueling 25 mile forced march (or even keep up with me on a 10 mile march). Every single combat Marine is expected to do that every year.

I am 48 years old, and in 5 years in the Army have never met a single female that can even come close to keeping up with me, even with the much-reduced standards of Air Defense (no body armor, no helmet, 35 pound pack).

Heck, many times I have even taken the pack from a female and still beat her to the end of the 6 mile march by 5-10+ minutes. And remember, I am well over 2 decades past my prime.

So you are a super trooper. I bet you max out most guys as well. As far as women not being able to keep up with you, maybe so, but if they can keep up with Army standards, good to go. Remember that your prejudices are not the standard.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Glad you brought that up. Before modern medical care, giving birth was the most common cause of female death. It would be today, but they use C-sections before it gets that bad. As as you know. A woman can't spend two weeks or a month giving birth. It would kill her, and has. It doesn't take that long either. Comparing a battlefield to giving birth is a very poor analogy.

From what women have said about serving in the infantry and the training that goes along with it, the first thing to go are the knees. If a woman and a man both have to carry the same weight of equipment, the bigger knee structure and thicker bones of a man will perform and a woman's knees will break down. Even when the knees are gone, women will still be expected to carry the same weight, for the same amount of time and distance.

 

[Mushroom]

So you are a super trooper. I bet you max out most guys as well. As far as women not being able to keep up with you, maybe so, but if they can keep up with Army standards, good to go. Remember that your prejudices are not the standard.

Haha, not hardly! I got "RIF'ed" last year from Active Duty because I am at best marginal when it comes to the physical part (all they look at for promotion boards and packets is the PT test). I barely pass my height-weight requirement, and have a permanent profile which prevents me from taking the run portion of the PT test. But even when I did the 2 mile run part, I only passed with maybe a minute to spare from my minimum qualifying.

And excuse me, I am not showing prejudices here, I am giving my real life observations. I am not sure of your qualifications or experience, but I was in the Infantry in the Marines for 10 years, 14 years as a civilian, then for the last 5 been in the Army (formentioned Air Defense). My experience in this is from direct first hand experience and observation.

Most of the women had absolutely no problem running circles around me during the run portions of PT. I am old, heavy, and have the knees of a long time grunt (and 2 motorcycle accidents have not helped either). But I am still able to "ruck march", and we were not anywhere even close to the "Army Standards" for doing such a march.

In fact, my last Platoon Sergeant was a former instructor at the Air Assault School there at Fort Bliss. And he said the failure rate for females in that course is 3-4 times higher then it is for men. Lack of upper body strength for passing the obsticle courses (specifically the rope climb), and also the required forced march (12 miles, 50 pound pack, 3 hours or less). And that is even less of a requirement then I saw as expected minimums for Marines when I was in.

So if I put out a challenge, and have 30 women meet me for a 10 mile ruck march and I then beat all of them, is it still a "prejudice"? Heck, find 30 military females, they should be in much better shape, right? Because over the course of 4 years I have easily done ruck marches with at least 100 females. And not a single one could keep up with the fat old fart that was old enough to be her father.

I am not talking from some kind of bias here, my wife is a nurse and is stronger then I am, for short durations. She can move around a 200 pound patient with little problem. But she would not be able to carry around 60 pounds on her back for any length of time.

Of course, there are many other things involved here. Why not actually do some research into the physiological differences between men and women (you are aware there are some, right?) before simply trying to claim I am "prejudiced".

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...A46_WOP_3InNX3JWA&sig2=f7Zrgc1iLMD5xbtMXChepA

In fact, when doing a little bit of research into this a while back, I became aware of something new to me, "Female Pelvic Stress Fractures". Apparently in the last 20 years the military has noticed a sharp link to pelvic stress fractures, mostly because it is almost exclusive to females, and that it is commonly directly linked to ruck marches. And the military medical community is researching it now to try and find out what is causing it, and how they can prevent it.

So excuse me if I call you full of it, when even the military recognizes some of these problems, and they are not just some kind of "bias", but actual medical injuries.

 

[Mushroom]

From what women have said about serving in the infantry and the training that goes along with it, the first thing to go are the knees. If a woman and a man both have to carry the same weight of equipment, the bigger knee structure and thicker bones of a man will perform and a woman's knees will break down. Even when the knees are gone, women will still be expected to carry the same weight, for the same amount of time and distance.

This is very true. Get a group of 30 grunts and former grunts together, and the first thing we will normally joke about is how shot our knees are. My old 1st Sergeant in my last unit was a former grunt, who was moved to Air Defense after his knees were blown out. I was Medically Discharged from the Marines for having bad knees. It is a very chronic condition, most especially in "Light" Infantry units (like The Marines, or Army Mountain Infantry). This is because we move from place to place during training 95% of the time on foot.

In my 10 years as a grunt, I can probably count on 2 hands the humber of times I have moved to my destination by means other then foot (and most of those times it was because I was moving from a ship, those are really hard to march from). Go to Camp Pendleton or Lejeune, and you see companies and battalions of grunts marching all over on Monday morning (going to the field) and Friday afternoon (going back from the field).

 

[JakeStarkey]

I respect both of you your service and experiences. As well, my knees and ankles and hips suffer 12 years active duty in the infantry on airborne status. Like you, I know of what I talk. Women I knew in the service were capable of serving in the infantry, in terms of general strength and ability to pound the ground day in and day out.

We can argue all we want, but the fact remains the DOD has decided the women will get the chance.

Time will tell.