Jump to content

Female Warriors


Recommended Posts

Swerve, Yama, Rocky... We're not talking a specific sporting event here, where a participant is going to be limited to a specific sort of physical performance, and can adapt their response to that performance based on their innate abilities and physical advantages. We're talking combat, with its attendant unpredictability and chaos.

 

Going back to one of my earlier "invalid" anecdotal experiences with this--I did not know, and had no way of knowing that the vehicle recovery mission I was sending three women and two guys out on was going to include a need to put a muddy, slick 400+ pound tire up into a cargo area above the participants chin level. But, the requirement evolved anyway. I thought I was sending out a mechanic team, and drivers to do a minor engine repair, and bring the vehicle back into the perimeter during an exercise. Instead, a change in weather left the roadside soaking wet, the truck sank in, and they tore the tire most of the way off of the rim on a culvert lip. The HEMMT has a tire lift to get the spare out, and get the damaged tire back into it, but the cable broke getting the spare off. Three attempts to get the damaged tire up into the cargo bed of the HEMMT left me with a Sergeant who'd irretrievably damaged his back because his partners in that enterprise collapsed under the load they put on their bodies.

 

That's what happens when you send teams containing the physically incapable out into the real world. There are consequences, and those don't stem from gender. They come from the fact that the bodies we're sending out to do the job do not have what it takes to perform the mission in the free-form, unpredictable chaos of the real world, which is compounded when you also include putting those missions into the House of War. Having an active enemy trying to kill you, and prevent you from performing your mission makes things even more unpredictable and chaotically lethal. The combat zone is not a football pitch, it's not the gymnasium, and it's not a skeet range. We don't put adolescent boys up against grown men in sports, either, and that's essentially what we're doing in terms of physical capacities. There's been a huge drive in recent years to outlaw child soldiers in the name of humanity, but we're simultaneously trying to put more women into harm's way? WTF?

 

Gender has nothing to do with my opposition to this, Abstractly, I take the view that it's high time the girls step up to the plate, and earn the right to suffrage by assuming similar risks to their male peers. Unfortunately, biology and culture conspire to create a set of conditions that have nothing to do with reproductive roles in this arena. Denial of those facts of life is delusional. My sergeant would still have been injured if we'd replaced those same women who contributed to the situation with grown men that had the same set of physical capabilities. Trust me, I know this--We used to have a running joke where I was in Korea, where we had KATUSA augmentees serving with us. The joke was that a given task was either a two-GI lift, or a four-KATUSA lift. For whatever reason, the KATUSA troops just did not have the same physical strength as the majority of our GIs. It wasn't quite as much of a contrast with the few women we had around to compare with, but it was there, and it was significant. My first experience of this was loading wooden bridge bent components on trucks during an exercise. Going to pick up one end of a 15 foot-long 8X8, I was able to get my end up to above shoulder height and onto the truck. I was nearly brained when the two KATUSA troops on the other end dropped it when they got their end up to their shoulder height. I'd been having issues with some of them, and I at first thought it was a deliberate act on their part, but I soon learned an unpleasant fact: They just didn't have the upper-body strength I was accustomed to working with. The fact was, I probably outweighed both those kids put together, and was about six inches taller. After that, I had to deliberately think before I started assigning tasks on job sites, and take that whole strength thing into account. And, it does matter, whether or not people want to admit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Like I said, we have females in combat roles. they go out side the wire. They get shot at, and shoot back. some live, some dont, some wish they had not.

 

Kirk, on your medic thing, sound to me that your national policy of not letting women do what they trained seems to be the problem not the women not wanting to go. Cant blame that on women

 

 

If you think pulling an injured man out of a vehicle hatch under fire is an easy task, here's what I suggest: Go fill a gunnysack full of rice or beans, until it weighs about 175lbs. Put it into a trash can, and put that next to a table. Now, standing on the table, try getting that bag up and onto the table. Have someone shoot at you with a paintball gun while you're doing this, while someone else starts a fire under the table. At that point, you've probably only replicated about a tenth of the difficulty of the task...

Thanks dude, but that is not only part of our normal training routine (ok it was before I retired 4 years ago), but I have had to pull two soldiers out of a rolled LAV..

 

Funny thing is, I always used two hands and lifted with my legs in training. In the real thing I did it with one hand...

 

Maybe it is a cultural thing. I know when we got pulled into hard standing to do maint and replenishment this one time I gathered the 4 female soldiers together and told them if they wanted to borrow my Iltis (Jeep) they could use it to get showers. To a T they also said they wanted no special treatment they would walk like all the rest of thier squadron.

 

Bravo I said, but the mens showers were 200 feet way... The female showers were at least 2 Km away on base... walk if you like but you still need to make my timings... the thanked me and took the Iltis

 

BTW good soldiers no issues with them. But I did have an issue with one of the boyfriends who had wanted her in his crew.. i killed that... and was upset she slept in the same tent as her crew.. but really who would want a woman after 5 days in the field smelling of who knows what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never post on this topic anymore because the last 50 threads on women in combat always ended up with me bing a neanderthal idiot who didn't know women and their capabilities. I was usually attacked by a large group of Tanknet people for being out of touch with reality. How dare I say a women couldn't fill a mans spot. So, I don't even bother anymore. Thekirk has done a fantastic job. I read deeper into the "women in combat" issue coming up and it STILL EXCLUDES Infantry, Artillery and I think Tanks. So they are still not really talking about real day to day combat. But, they are getting closer and closer to getting shot up for no good reason. Thanks Kirk for the nice read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, class . . . time for a little quiz on logics . . . find the common denominator amongst these examples:

 

1. On any golf course, there are men's tees, ladies' tees and pro tees. Pro tees provide the longest hole distance and difficulty. The men's tees are somewhat lessened in distance and difficulty. The ladies' tee is always shortest in distance. Men are normally allowed to tee off from the men's tee or the pro tee. Women golfers can choose any of the three.

 

2. There is a PGA (Professonal Golfing Association) and an LPGA. Men cannot play in the LPGA and women cannot play in the PGA.

 

3. There is a PBA (Professional Bowlers Association) and an LPGA. Men cannot play in the LPBA and women cannot play in the PBA.

 

4. There is a men's pro tennis circuit and a women's pro tennis circuit. Men cannot play in the women's league and women cannot play in the men's league.

 

All these things have one thing in common. What is it and why is it?

 

;)

I know men that should use the ladies T's, and frankly if a woman wants to play with men (I am all in favour of it) they should use the same T

 

Bowling? Maybe its the wifes not wanting women playing on the road with their men? Can't see any reason other than thats the way its always been done

 

Tennis? Didnt Billie Jean King beat whats his name? (OK she was a Dyke so maybe not 100% woman)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, we have females in combat roles. they go out side the wire. They get shot at, and shoot back. some live, some dont, some wish they had not.

 

Kirk, on your medic thing, sound to me that your national policy of not letting women do what they trained seems to be the problem not the women not wanting to go. Cant blame that on women

 

 

If you think pulling an injured man out of a vehicle hatch under fire is an easy task, here's what I suggest: Go fill a gunnysack full of rice or beans, until it weighs about 175lbs. Put it into a trash can, and put that next to a table. Now, standing on the table, try getting that bag up and onto the table. Have someone shoot at you with a paintball gun while you're doing this, while someone else starts a fire under the table. At that point, you've probably only replicated about a tenth of the difficulty of the task...

Thanks dude, but that is not only part of our normal training routine (ok it was before I retired 4 years ago), but I have had to pull two soldiers out of a rolled LAV..

 

Funny thing is, I always used two hands and lifted with my legs in training. In the real thing I did it with one hand...

 

Your point again was???

 

I wasn't necessarily addressing you for what I said, but the average reader coming across this thread. Most non-combat arms people, even those in the military, are astoundingly ignorant of what the actual requirements are, yet are more than willing to pontificate about what is and isn't required.

 

Adrenaline is an amazing thing. I've done things under it's influence that I would have thought were impossible. I've also screwed up my body doing so, not even realizing what the hell I was doing at the time. A friend of the family went out to the garage and found her teenage (and, yes, dumbass...) son pinned under his car that he'd failed to use jackstands under. She flipped it off of him. Granted, the car was pretty small, and there was a pivot point where the jack was under the differential, but it was still pretty astounding.

 

She's also got two fused vertebrae from that incident as souvenirs. Adrenaline enables some amazing feats, but it does nothing to reduce the consequences. And, right along with that, it's also damn unpredictable. I don't think that doing combat arms manning based on what someone might be capable of doing when in a state of excitement is a good idea, particularly when I've also observed people in a state of "adrenaline exhaustion" who are utterly useless until they recover. I really don't think we even know how to train for this sort of thing, or even fully understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swerve, Yama, Rocky... We're not talking a specific sporting event here, where a participant is going to be limited to a specific sort of physical performance, and can adapt their response to that performance based on their innate abilities and physical advantages. We're talking combat, with its attendant unpredictability and chaos.

 

Uh, I believe that was my point...

 

Do women belong into the frontline? "Frontline" is pretty broad term. So if we don't want women serve in say, line infantry, can they serve as snipers? Tank drivers? Door gunners? Fighter pilots...? Where is the line drawn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jason L

I have a friend who has two destroyed vertebral disks as a result of doing excessive heavy lifting as part of an engineering graduate program. Does that mean women should be barred from doing hands-on or field engineering research entirely? Fucking vapid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who has two destroyed vertebral disks as a result of doing excessive heavy lifting as part of an engineering graduate program. Does that mean women should be barred from doing hands-on or field engineering research entirely? Fucking vapid.

 

Quite. I agree--You are vapid.

 

The point was not that a woman did something and damaged her back, but that adrenaline short-circuited the mechanisms that would normally prevent someone from doing something that injured them--Which links back to T19's point about doing with one hand what he'd usually done with two and his legs, rather than back. Thus, relying on an adrenal response to enable performance under stress is not a good idea, due to the increased likelihood of self-damage.

 

Are you really this stupid, or do you only express it on this site? Sad to think that someone as demonstrably obtuse as you are in some of your posts has actually managed to attain academic credentials at a prestigious university.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jason L

Try again: answer the question. If engineering programs require significant quantity of heavy lifting, do you believe that women should be banned from working in applications where they might have to exert some strength?

 

Nothing you've prattled on an on and on about has anything of a uniquely military character to it afterall, so I mean, why stop at just banning women from ostensibly "combat" roles since, by your logic there are oodles of other things they are totally unsuited for as well.

 

I just want to know what you really think.

 

Do keep up with the insults though, it gives you oh so much more gravitas. Pathetic :rolleyes:

Edited by Jason L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try again: answer the question. If engineering programs require significant quantity of heavy lifting, do you believe that women should be banned from working in applications where they might have to exert some strength?

 

Nothing you've prattled on an on and on about has anything of a uniquely military character to it afterall, so I mean, why stop at just banning women from ostensibly "combat" roles since, by your logic there are oodles of other things they are totally unsuited for as well.

 

I just want to know what you really think.

 

Do keep up with the insults though, it gives you oh so much more gravitas. Pathetic :rolleyes:

 

The pathetic thing is "men", and I use that word advisedly, based on demonstrated behavior in your case, who seem to think that it's a trivial thing to deliberately put people into life-and-death situations based on some airy-fairy theory of what's "right". You seem to think this is some kind of game we're talking about, where the participants all get up at the end of the day, shake hands, and go home. That's not the way it works, and the idea that someone would send forth the physically inadequate to do a job that rightly requires the strength, size, and stamina of a thoroughly trained adult male is, frankly, both cowardly and ludicrous. If you've actually read anything I've said here, you'd note that I advocate not banning women on the basis of gender, but that we apply a program of realistically determining what is required, and then testing rigorously to ensure it is enforced. That's the ideal: The reality is, as I've said, that the US Army does not possess the institutional discipline and integrity to do this, which is why I've reluctantly concluded this idea is both impractical and dangerous to implement. Yet, you continuously assert I'm both sexist, and deluded.

 

You wonder why I have so much contempt for academia, my friend? It's people like you, who continue to insist that it is raining, all the while pissing on my leg. Based on your posts here, I have to conclude that you're a contemptible human being with limited honesty and even less integrity.

 

Get off your ass, go down to a Canadian Forces recruiting center, join, and then pick a combat arms trade. Serve a couple years out in the real world, and (highly unlikely, in your case) then attain a leadership position over men and women. If you can still maintain your self-righteous attitudes on this issue after that, I would be happy to entertain your thoughts on this issue. As you haven't, and likely do not possess the necessary mental, character, and physical traits to enable you to do that, I'm going to continue to shower the contempt you've earned so well on your head on these issues. You have absolutely no moral authority to even be making a comment on these issues, let alone making the insinuations you have. Of course, that's about what I expect from your classless and contemptible ilk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The line is as always flexible and a reflection of the society in conflict. There is no inherent right to gender equality based either of physical or mental capability. Some societies simply do not have female combatants, period. Conversely, some organizations do, particularly those of a socialist color AND manpower demands. Examples of these would include the LTTE & FARC. Female combatants in many of these are officially regarded as equals but in reality most continue to play gender roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jason L

Kirk, I don't think you really have the faintest clue what I think, since you're responding to fantasy arguments I've never made. You've been waaaay too absorbed with listening to yourself talk and type to really bother reading anything I suspect.

 

The rest of your post is basically bordering on the insane, never mind the ignorant. I have no idea how you can even attempt to think you know anything about my physical abilities, having never met me, seen pictures of me, etc. etc. But if this is how you appraise people and deal with them in general, I fear its pretty indicative (at least to me) what the source of the problems you keep writing essays about was.

 

If you really bothered to do your research and put a modicum of thought before you decided to blather on about me joining the CF, you'd realize how utterly moronic it was before committing it to writing. I highly suggest you read up on how our direct entry officer program works for those with/working on higher education, and the CFs particular interest in people with my skillset. They even pay a bonus :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, since any actual discourse has long left this thread, I'm done trading insults.

Edited by Jason L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't necessarily addressing you for what I said, but the average reader coming across this thread. Most non-combat arms people, even those in the military, are astoundingly ignorant of what the actual requirements are, yet are more than willing to pontificate about what is and isn't required.

 

Yup, on average we're terribly ignorant on military reality on this here grate sight, and in desperate need of expansive revelations to be educated about it. Thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk, I don't think you really have the faintest clue what I think, since you're responding to fantasy arguments I've never made. You've been waaaay too absorbed with listening to yourself talk and type to really bother reading anything I suspect.

 

The rest of your post is basically bordering on the insane, never mind the ignorant. I have no idea how you can even attempt to think you know anything about my physical abilities, having never met me, seen pictures of me, etc. etc. But if this is how you appraise people and deal with them in general, I fear its pretty indicative (at least to me) what the source of the problems you keep writing essays about was.

 

If you really bothered to do your research and put a modicum of thought before you decided to blather on about me joining the CF, you'd realize how utterly moronic it was before committing it to writing. I highly suggest you read up on how our direct entry officer program works for those with/working on higher education, and the CFs particular interest in people with my skillset. They even pay a bonus :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, since any actual discourse has long left this thread, I'm done trading insults.

 

Good luck with a your military career as an officer. I'm sure you'll be a burden on your NCOs, wherever you go. Hopefully, someone manages to make a dent in your overweening self-confidence before you actually get people killed, but that's a risk we take with people that are direct commissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "warrior, gunfighter," talk began in the mid-80s for the US and could not be stopped. What was wrong with soldiering, military skills and the accepted military language used in tactics, operations, logistics escaped me, and it began to influence doctrinal pubs as well, becoming more worrisome, because there language remains important, if one wishes it to be learned, to spread..

 

It struck me as a macho effort to distance oneself from garrison soldiers and emphasize military skills which had always been there, begging for simple attention to details and proper training. As usual, a 'new' look making all else obsolete? Looking back, it might have stemmed from penis envy of the Israelis, contrasted without relevance with our foundering in Vietnam.

 

As if to make it more ludicrous, the first off in this particular 'style' [really, fad] was the US Air Force, with Project Warrior, designed in the mid-70s to energize military culture in a service that mostly did shift work.

 

Then again, every generation must see itself as truly unique and breaking through to some new imagined insight. As we grow more ahistorical, it can only increase, perhaps exponentially?

 

For your information, Mr. Amateur Mindreader, I named the topic "Female Warriors" so as to include female soldiers, sailors, Marines, and Air Force. This is not just an Army deal, and as I have already seen, those not of the Army ilk can and will use the occasion to throw darts at US Army Soldiers, while turning a blind eye to those of other service branches that are in the same situation regarding females. I'm not looking for a US Army-only topic. This topic goes far beyond that in scope. That way, people can keep their petty "We're better than the Army" penis-pulling comments to themselves.

Edited by Rocky Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't necessarily addressing you for what I said, but the average reader coming across this thread. Most non-combat arms people, even those in the military, are astoundingly ignorant of what the actual requirements are, yet are more than willing to pontificate about what is and isn't required.

 

Yup, on average we're terribly ignorant on military reality on this here grate sight, and in desperate need of expansive revelations to be educated about it. Thanks for that.

Remember, when discussing anything with thekirk anectdotal evidence is the strongest evidence and only his has any weight. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I know men that should use the ladies T's, and frankly if a woman wants to play with men (I am all in favour of it) they should use the same T

 

2. Bowling? Maybe its the wifes not wanting women playing on the road with their men? Can't see any reason other than thats the way its always been done

 

3. Tennis? Didnt Billie Jean King beat whats his name? (OK she was a Dyke so maybe not 100% woman)

 

1. I know some myself. They should surrender up their Man Card before doing so. :D

 

2. The ladies Pro Bowling Association supports the current organization of same-sex competitions.

 

3. Yes - she beat an old fart blowhard named Bobby Riggs. Again, the women's pro tennis circuit supports the current organization of same-sex competitions.

 

Here's the deal, Andrew - all of these things happen for a reason and the Powers That Be making decisions on behalf of these professional sports have done so themselves, without undue exterior pressure and still support their decisions. There is a common reason that both the Women Powers That Be and the Men Powers that be agree on the same thing in numerous sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't necessarily addressing you for what I said, but the average reader coming across this thread. Most non-combat arms people, even those in the military, are astoundingly ignorant of what the actual requirements are, yet are more than willing to pontificate about what is and isn't required.

 

Yup, on average we're terribly ignorant on military reality on this here grate sight, and in desperate need of expansive revelations to be educated about it. Thanks for that.

 

And, yet, there are people posting here that evidence complete ignorance of the realities. So, what would you propose to try to open their eyes? Osmosis? I didn't write that as a direct comment (although, maybe it could be read that way, when I look at it, again--I probably should have said "If someone..." instead of "If you...") to T19, who I already know has the background. If I've unintentionally offended you, I apologize.

 

This entire issue is enough to make my head explode. Politicians and decision-makers put policies into place based on ideals, and then leave the people out at the coalface to try and work through them, often without consultation or even any real investigation. I've never had an issue serving next to women, and have had great experiences working for female leaders and leading female subordinates. But, at the same time, there have been issues that arose out of the implementation of putting the general case servicewoman into situations that were rationalized based on some 90th-percentile ideal. I probably could have coped with having a 90-lb, 4' 10" female supply clerk assigned to me, if I was in a rear-echelon unit that didn't have to train for direct combat.

 

Putting her into a unit like that, with no recourse for either of us? Disastrous, in a long term sense, for her physical health, and damned difficult to have to cope with when she was constantly having to go off to physical therapy for issues directly related to her being overloaded physically. She did great work as a clerk, but whenever she had to participate in things like ten-mile road marches, she wound up breaking herself. Until you've done it, you have no idea what kind of angst that causes, as a leader--That girl would do anything asked of her, and just did not have an ounce of "quit" in her makeup. After about a year of that, I felt like someone luring kittens to jump off a tenth-floor balcony onto the pavement below... I really don't have words to describe the guilt I felt after I ran into her when she was a civilian, either. You don't see too many 26 year-old women who need canes to move around an office. Oh, I was a proud, proud man to see that, and know I was a part of that travesty. Which goes a long way to explain why this idiocy pisses me off so much. I felt, and still feel, a strong sense of betrayal on a personal level that the Army put me into that position.

 

Put women into the Infantry and other combat arms, and what I've described is going to be the norm in the US Army, at least. Other military service cultures may avoid those specific rocks and shoals, but they're probably going to find others. And, in the final analysis, for what? Do we really need that many Infantry? Is there a real crisis of personnel that we need to deal with, which requires this? If so, why are we not reinstating the draft, and dragging the physically fit and capable young males in, instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't necessarily addressing you for what I said, but the average reader coming across this thread. Most non-combat arms people, even those in the military, are astoundingly ignorant of what the actual requirements are, yet are more than willing to pontificate about what is and isn't required.
Yup, on average we're terribly ignorant on military reality on this here grate sight, and in desperate need of expansive revelations to be educated about it. Thanks for that.
Remember, when discussing anything with thekirk anectdotal evidence is the strongest evidence and only his has any weight. :lol:

 

When experience refutes theory, what do you propose? You and Jason continually snipe from the sidelines, saying "anecdote, anecdote...", as if that refutes everything someone else has actually experienced. The fact is, however, that your theories and ideals do not magically create the reality you want. And, what do you do, when someone tells you the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes? You mock, and attack the messenger. That still doesn't square the circle, or turn the average woman into the Hollywood fantasy of GI Jane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Put women into the Infantry and other combat arms, and what I've described is going to be the norm in the US Army, at least. Other military service cultures may avoid those specific rocks and shoals, but they're probably going to find others. And, in the final analysis, for what? Do we really need that many Infantry? Is there a real crisis of personnel that we need to deal with, which requires this? If so, why are we not reinstating the draft, and dragging the physically fit and capable young males in, instead?

 

Bingo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider here: A lot of the argument seems to be based on the idea that because some women can do these things, or analogues to the requirements for Infantry, then we ought to allow and enable all women in general to be assigned a job where they will be required to do so.

 

Here's the issue with that idea, as lived out in the US Army. When I got women assigned to me, I didn't get the ones who would be suited for utilization in a combat-arms unit where they'd have to keep up with the men. I got a fairly random cross-section of US society, and not the ones from the minority who participated in high-school or college athletics. I got women who literally had not walked or run further than a mile before they joined the Army. I got women whose body types were manifestly unsuitable for service alongside US-average males. I did not get triathletes or marathon runners, and I did not get very many "country girls" who'd done much in the way of physical labor growing up.

 

Once I had them assigned to me, there wasn't a damn thing I could do, short of throwing them out of the Army entirely, to put them in a slot they were more suited for. The system does not work that way, period. The recruitment/training/reassignment pipeline pumps out personnel, and you get what you get. You do not get to go down to the replacement company and "pick out the strong ones", like some kind of latter-day slave market. The personnel and assignments people don't even have a mechanism by which to discriminate between "Big, strapping woman who would do well in a Combat Engineer unit" and "Tiny, petite woman who should be assigned somewhere she's not going to kill herself trying to keep up". If the MOS matches, you get the body. And, then you're stuck with what you get, as a leader. You cannot say "Hey, this young lady isn't capable of doing what she needs to, here--Give me another, please...". It does not work like that, at all. The mechanisms for managing this sort of thing just do not exist. The only way you can get around it is by cheating, and then essentially screwing everyone else. For part of my tenure as a Support Platoon Sergeant, I had a woman who was a fuel supply specialist assigned to me--Sort of. See, she was always pregnant (literally--She had three kids in the four years I know of when she was assigned the unit), and as a result, could not work around or with hazardous materials when she was pregnant or nursing. Since I was only authorized one fueler at her skill level, that left me with exactly nobody to supervise my fuel section. I can point at that fact to explain why we never passed an inspection on the first try at our fuel point, and for why my Skill Level One fuelers nearly burned down Yakima on one exercise: The woman who should have been supervising and training them was instead working at our personnel office, and/or on maternity leave.

 

What were my options for dealing with that? None. I got what the personnel gods gave me, and I had to live with it. That's how it works, out in the real Army. Now, I could probably be angry with that NCO, but I really can't be: What the hell do you tell someone at mid-career, who wants to have kids? "Sorry, SGT Smith, you can't have your kids while you're here...". Not only is that a little inhumane, it's also completely against regulations. Yet, it left me and my unit without a critical low-density skill, simply because some damn fool thought it was fine to open the unit up for female assignments. What should have happened was that the people at post assignments should have given us the option of transferring her to another unit where it wouldn't matter much, but that's not even envisioned as a potential possibility with the way the Army assignments system works. Our only option would have been to discharge her, but since she was a pretty good Soldier and NCO, we never had even a slight justification for doing so.

 

And, that's where the entire concept breaks down: In application. Open the Infantry and other combat arms up for women, with the rest of the current policies in place, and you're going to see slot after slot filled with the general-case woman, as opposed to our idealized super-athlete who can compete on the male physical level. On top of that, you're going to have to cope with women who fill those slots ghosting away to non-productive roles, while their female-unique needs are accommodated. The average combat arms unit quite simply does not have the "float" for this not to be disastrous.

 

There are a lot of ways this sort of thing could possibly be compensated for, and worked around. But, I can guarantee you one thing: The US Army will not even begin to entertain the idea of doing so. I raised that issue of my fueler at a gender-related sensing session, and it was about like suggesting the Catholic church integrate with Wiccans. Even making the suggestion that the Army implement some kind of career tracking so that women could be put into non-critical assignments for periods when they wanted to have children got me raked up one side, and down the other by three female Sergeants Major and a couple of female Colonels. I think I'd have gotten a better response if I'd have asked permission to sell their kids into sex slavery, to be quite honest.

 

Ideally, a lot of things work. The problem is that when idealism confronts actualization, things don't quite happen the way we think they ought to. I think everyone ought to serve, and that everyone has the obligation to do so. But, I also know that there are a lot of people out there who are entirely unsuited for military life, and who are physically incapable of serving. Nobody blinks when someone over-rules having adolescent boys serve in the military, but when women with similar physical capacities are suggested, all of a sudden there's no issue with it. Political correctness is going to be the death of western civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider here: A lot of the argument seems to be based on the idea that because some women can do these things, or analogues to the requirements for Infantry, then we ought to allow and enable all women in general to be assigned a job where they will be required to do so.

 

You know, you keep reinventing this argument which as far as I can see nobody else has brought up, then spending a dozen paragraphs to refute it. Otherwise the debate would have been finished on the last page.

 

Not that I'm going to tell you how to spend your time, since there seems to be a lot in your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider here: A lot of the argument seems to be based on the idea that because some women can do these things, or analogues to the requirements for Infantry, then we ought to allow and enable all women in general to be assigned a job where they will be required to do so.

 

You know, you keep reinventing this argument which as far as I can see nobody else has brought up, then spending a dozen paragraphs to refute it. Otherwise the debate would have been finished on the last page.

 

Not that I'm going to tell you how to spend your time, since there seems to be a lot in your life.

 

What, pray tell, do you then see as the topic under discussion here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've followed this thread, I am convinced that thekirks's points carry. He is describing a career-long pattern of problems, not just a few incidents. I have also seen several mentions of increased VA claims and reports of injuries to women, but it seems that the Powers-That-Be are letting things go along, for whatever reasons. It reminds me of the US military's unconcern about mine and IED injuries until negative publicity from Iraq and Afganistan forced Command to adopt protective measures.

 

As far as the studies mentioned, when reality doesn't match the studies' conclusions, the problem has to be with the methodologies employed. To say otherwise is, bluntly, unscientific.

 

Thekirk, with due respect to those who disagree with you, I think you are hitting the problem squarely. I applaud your willingness to state your convictions and observations. Though you have retired, you continue to serve.

----

Ken E., sorry for taking so long to answer; the "LtCol" was a mental crossover from an op-ed of a father remembering his fallen son with Memorial Day approaching. I had indeed read that the Marine Corps invitation to women to attend the IOC was for evaluation purposes; I didn't link the relevant article to avoid clutter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "warrior, gunfighter," talk began in the mid-80s for the US and could not be stopped. What was wrong with soldiering, military skills and the accepted military language used in tactics, operations, logistics escaped me, and it began to influence doctrinal pubs as well, becoming more worrisome, because there language remains important, if one wishes it to be learned, to spread..

 

It struck me as a macho effort to distance oneself from garrison soldiers and emphasize military skills which had always been there, begging for simple attention to details and proper training. As usual, a 'new' look making all else obsolete? Looking back, it might have stemmed from penis envy of the Israelis, contrasted without relevance with our foundering in Vietnam.

 

As if to make it more ludicrous, the first off in this particular 'style' [really, fad] was the US Air Force, with Project Warrior, designed in the mid-70s to energize military culture in a service that mostly did shift work.

 

Then again, every generation must see itself as truly unique and breaking through to some new imagined insight. As we grow more ahistorical, it can only increase, perhaps exponentially?

 

For your information, Mr. Amateur Mindreader, I named the topic "Female Warriors" so as to include female soldiers, sailors, Marines, and Air Force. This is not just an Army deal, and as I have already seen, those not of the Army ilk can and will use the occasion to throw darts at US Army Soldiers, while turning a blind eye to those of other service branches that are in the same situation regarding females. I'm not looking for a US Army-only topic. This topic goes far beyond that in scope. That way, people can keep their petty "We're better than the Army" penis-pulling comments to themselves.

 

Somebody piss in your corn flakes? Who said I was replying to you? Stay loose!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...