Female Warriors

[Archie Pellagio]

Luke....you didn't throttle the kittens and shoot the dog. Fail.

 

No kittens or dogs, just chickens.

There is a funny story about the goat though. (and I'm actually not joking!)

[Max H]

It was actually a mossad operative in disguise?

[RETAC21]

Whatever women do, this point requires further elaboration:

 

As someone who less than 36 hours ago just got fireman carried up a slippery jungle mountain by a 5'2" 19 year old blonde who would be lucky if she...

 

And photos, forget about the text, just put up the photos. We want the imagery.

[LT Ducky]

Whatever women do, this point requires further elaboration:

 

As someone who less than 36 hours ago just got fireman carried up a slippery jungle mountain by a 5'2" 19 year old blonde who would be lucky if she...

 

And photos, forget about the text, just put up the photos. We want the imagery.

 

No photos = never happened

 

[TonyE]

Warriors! Army Strong!!

[thekirk]

Ah, the triumph of wishful thinking over reality. I dare say I may be the only person posting on this board who's actually been involved in trying to integrate women into a combat-arms unit in more than theory, and yet the usual suspects who've got no real experience are yodeling their usual chorus of "anecdote!!! anecdote!!!".

 

Well, hell... I must have imagined every one of the problems I had or observed with implementing this idea, because the accepted theory is that they didn't exist. I'll go stand in the corner quietly while my betters pontificate on things they've only known in theory. There's probably a philosophical lesson here, one that describes how it is that theory and wishful thinking overrule the reality of what I've observed and experienced.

 

It's probably that same one I should have learned when the Engineer School ignored what Floyd Rockwell and I told them for most of a decade, only to discover it's validity when a Reserve LTC with a Ph.D decided to make his OER by suddenly discovering the same set of facts about the AN/PSS-12 mine detectors: It ain't real until someone with rank and/or a prestigious academic degree says it is. It probably isn't philosophy, anyway--More than likely, it's actually quantum mechanics, with a Schrodinger twist: The cat isn't dead until the observer has high rank or a Ph.D.

 

Nonetheless, I'm going to keep to my positions on this matter. I eagerly await the inevitable "discovery" that my observations and conclusions are valid. Given the track record, that's going to be about the time I'm in my eighties, when someone who isn't invested in being politically correct in this fight finally notices the vast differences between what we're paying out through the VA for men and women, or we've lost a bunch of good men and women who had the misfortune to be on-scene for the next Chosen Reservoir campaign as Infantry in the Army and Marines. At some point, reality is inevitably going to intrude into this discussion. For some, it already has, in the form of 140lb combat loads at high altitude in Afghanistan.

 

The really funny thing, here? Twenty-odd years ago, when my military skill was still all-male, I was in general favor of the idea. That's one reason the battalion commander picked his junior-most promotable SSG to be the platoon sergeant for the battalion support platoon that most of our soon-to-be-assigned women were going to be in, when it usually goes to the most senior SFC who's getting ready for becoming a First Sergeant. Out of the entire mob of us, I was the only one who had an open mind on the issue. Experience may be the best teacher, and the bitch does hold her lessons dear, but the main problem is that most who haven't paid the price won't listen to those who have.

[Guest Jason L]

Ah, the triumph of wishful thinking over reality. I dare say I may be the only person posting on this board who's actually been involved in trying to integrate women into a combat-arms unit in more than theory, and yet the usual suspects who've got no real experience are yodeling their usual chorus of "anecdote!!! anecdote!!!".

 

Except, you know,T19, who has repeatedly provided counter examples for you. Which I can only assume you ignored because his posts didn't top out at at least 1000 words and weren't full of patronize lecturing.

 

Here, let me quote him for you:

 

My best Tank driver was a woman. She never got it stuck, she never put me hull up to the enemy and maint was always #1.

 

Some of the best Recce soldiers I commanded were women. they are cunning and quiet

 

I commanded mixed troops, my ability to get the job done was not effected by the sex or sexual orientation of the soldiers I commanded

 

You just need to have an open mind.

 

I can't possibly imagine why someone would value his personal experience over yours. No sir.

[Rocky Davis]

. . . and weren't full of patronize lecturing.

 

I'll remember that the next time that somebody agreeing with your outlook on a subject does so using patronizing lectures ot the next time OR the next time you have some sort of patronizing lecture packaged up in a post. I think, to a degree, we are all guilty of it at one time or another.

[thekirk]

Ah, the triumph of wishful thinking over reality. I dare say I may be the only person posting on this board who's actually been involved in trying to integrate women into a combat-arms unit in more than theory, and yet the usual suspects who've got no real experience are yodeling their usual chorus of "anecdote!!! anecdote!!!".

 

Except, you know,T19, who has repeatedly provided counter examples for you. Which I can only assume you ignored because his posts didn't top out at at least 1000 words and weren't full of patronize lecturing.

 

Here, let me quote him for you:

 

My best Tank driver was a woman. She never got it stuck, she never put me hull up to the enemy and maint was always #1.

 

Some of the best Recce soldiers I commanded were women. they are cunning and quiet

 

I commanded mixed troops, my ability to get the job done was not effected by the sex or sexual orientation of the soldiers I commanded

 

You just need to have an open mind.

 

I can't possibly imagine why someone would value his personal experience over yours. No sir.

 

Because it conforms to your prejudices? And it satisfies your fantasies?

 

I note that his examples don't speak a whit to my objections, which all have to to with raw physical strength and endurance. You'll note that T19s examples do not include hauling the heavy loads we routinely saddle our "light" infantry forces with, nor do they cover the little exigencies like having to haul casualties a couple of miles to MEDEVAC pickup points. It'd be nice if we could chop up the big guys so as to make "fair" loads for the girls, when the guys become casualties, but that's not the way it works. Invariably, it's never the little bastards that go down to injuries, or get wounded: It's always the biggest one in the squad when you have to go hauling them a couple of miles. All the tiny people seem to get hurt on the ambulance's doorstep.

 

And, yet again, you're arguing from the specific case to the general: Ability to perform at one task does not imply or include performance at others. Sure, a woman could probably do very well with the sort of tasks required of a vehicle driver or a gunner. Can she effectively cross-load ammo trucks? Can she be as useful as a male, putting a lost track back on? Care to compare the length of time it takes between an all-male tank crew to put a track back on, with a crew that's got two females on it?

 

Hell, can you even comprehend that these aren't issues you can just "norm" away? Slower times mean lives lost in combat, period. Take longer to get a bridge built, and you're sacrificing that much time to the enemy so he can get his artillery onto you, and kill more of your men and women. This isn't a situation where you can have an LPGA versus a PGA--All you accomplish is weakening your own side.

 

Find yourself managing those events a few times, and you'll rapidly conclude that the raw physical strength difference between the average man and woman is not a "nice to have" luxury item--It's a damn necessity. It's also something rare enough in the female population so as to be nonexistent for military manning purposes. Again, you don't get the triathletes and 90th percentile of the world volunteering for the military. You get Suzy Fiftieth-percentile, if you're lucky. If you're really unlucky, as I was on several occasions, the fiftieth percentile would be a friggin' dream come true.

 

You and your fellow fantasists keep insisting that the circle is a square, when you claim that since a woman can do one specific task in combat, that means she's fit for the role in every other respect. There's far more to it than just one or two tasks, however--You can't predict from one minute to the next what you're going to be called on to do, nor can you overcome the problems that stem from having physically inadequate people on hand when you're suddenly and unpredictably tasked with things that require comparatively vast amounts of individual strength and work effort. You're also discounting the damage that having significant numbers of weaker soldiers on hand does to routine team efforts like cross-loading trucks and vehicles. Materials handling equipment is a luxury item that you don't always have available, and if you tell me that you're thinking there's no impact to switching out a bunch of men with women when you're cross-loading vehicles at an airhead, as an example, you'd be wrong. They can't lift as much, they can't move as much, and any task winds up taking much more time than it would with an all-male crew working it. And, as a side effect, you wind up working what men you do have to exhaustion while the women on hand run around ineffectually trying to help. There are only so many tasks that are appropriate for the weak, and once you pass that level, you're crippling your teams. And, by extension, your whole effort. Do let's go onto the battlefield with two hands tied behind our backs--It's so much fairer to the enemy.

 

It's amusing to hear you, though--So, keep on chittering away like a rabid little squirrel on this issue. You're convinced of your own cleverness and open-mindedness, invested in your Wonder Woman fantasies. I'm going to keep trying to inject a note of opposition to your foolishness, out of concern for the real women and men who are going to have to live through the fantastical idiocy you and your co-fantasists want to put into place.

[Guest Jason L]

Kirk, you keep spinning wheels trying to argue against a point of view that no one in this thread has espoused. The point everyone has been trying to make is that all men and women who can pass a unisex fitness test should be allowed to serve in whatever MOC/MOS/whatever they want. No more, no less. Unfit men should be turned away just like unfit women, the fact that the rejection rate will be much higher for women doesn't especially bother me.

[thekirk]

Don't get me wrong. I think women have a place in the military, and they can do a lot of things very well. It's just that when these idiots implementing things insist on ignoring very real differences in physical capability that things start to go wrong. For that lack of discipline alone, on their parts, I'd ban women from the military entirely. Culturally, we can't seem to cope with the idea that boys and girls are inherently different, and apply common-sense solutions to that problem. And, it's not the men and women in the military who are the problem--It's all the assholes and idiots on the civilian side who are the problem. I've talked to some of the people making these decisions, and they're utterly blind to the problems their idealized visions have in the real world.

 

Please support this assertion with actual references. Or even better yet, simply list exactly what these differences are.

 

This should be good, I'll even pre-make the popcorn.

Kirk, you keep spinning wheels trying to argue against a point of view that no one in this thread has espoused. The point everyone has been trying to make is that all men and women who can pass a unisex fitness test should be allowed to serve in whatever MOC/MOS/whatever they want. No more, no less. Unfit men should be turned away just like unfit women, the fact that the rejection rate will be much higher for women doesn't especially bother me.

 

Really? Where do you make the case for a unisex fitness test, up until this last post of yours? You've steadily been arguing that the average woman is just as fit for combat duty as the average man, and now you're not? Your first mocking post ridicules the assertion that I make that there are differences between men and women, and now you acknowledge that the rejection rate for women would be much higher. What changed your mind between your first post and your last?

 

Did you read where I suggested that very thing, a performance-based test, only to sadly conclude that the US Army would likely never implement or enforce such a thing? You've thus been arguing against a straw man this entire time, since I've already taken the position that in an ideal world, such a policy would be the only way to make a gender-neutral system like this work. The majority of what I've been arguing here has been in refutation of your (and other's...) assertion that the physical differences don't matter, which is the current system that I'm saying doesn't work.

 

Either you can't think straight, you lack reading comprehension, or your integrity is lacking. Which is it?

[Archie Pellagio]

And photos, forget about the text, just put up the photos. We want the imagery.

 

There's a couple on facebook of us out on the town.

 

Edit: Since its already public domain:

Edited May 29, 2012 by Archie Pellagio

[Guest Jason L]

Kirk you really can't read can you?

 

Let me quote myself:

 

Incidentally, the whole strength thing is somewhat bunk, since men and women can exert similar strength after military specific training commiserate with their frames. So really the issue is that you shouldn't allow small/skinny women and small/skinny men (or ones who can't build lots of muscle mass, of which there are plenty) into the military, or really if you just had a sane PT test it wouldn't be a problem for either gender: http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7469950

 

and again:

 

Let me re-paraphrase just so we're clear: if you have realistic standards for both men and women, you will select only men and women who meet your standards, the gender is unimportant. There are plenty of women who can pass current PTs using male criteria, and there are plenty of males who would fail using female standards. The difference is that you discriminate against the males for sucking while you are trying to discriminate against the females for merely being female. If it means a larger rejection rate of women, so be it.

 

I never once said that "the average woman is as fit as the average man for combat". In fact, given the lack of fitness of the average person in the US, it's a spurious issue either way since the average cannot pass the PT minimum for either gender.

 

You really ought to type less, and actually try reading more. It looks really bad when you get caught out not being able to follow a conversation.

[nitin]

Pertinent to the topic, though very culturally local to Indian/developing zones perhaps. But the part in bold incidentally backs up what thekirk said:

 

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlight/Women-in-the-Armed-Forces.html

 

The Indian Experience

Earlier, entry of women was limited to the Army Medical Corps, the Army Dental Corps and the Military Nursing Service. It was in 1990 that a decision was taken to induct them into the non-combat wings of the armed forces as short-service commissioned service officers. They are inducted into Engineers, Signals, Army Service Corps, Ordnance, Education, Intelligence, Legal Branch and EME (Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers). Presently, the Indian Army counts 2.44 percent women in its ranks, the Indian Navy 3.0 percent and the Indian Air Force 6.7 percent.

The Indian experience has been too short to facilitate conclusive appraisal. The initial feedback has been varied. New insights are being gained into the complete gamut of related issues.

Four categories of people are intimately connected with women’s presence in the services – women officers themselves, their commanding officers, colleague male officers and the soldiers. Their views and response should be seriously considered while moulding policies to address all concerns.

Women Officers

Women who are mentally robust, physically fit and highly motivated resent preferential treatment being meted out to them. They want to be treated at par with their male colleagues so that they get a fair opportunity to prove their worth. They demand same selection criteria, same training standards and same work schedules. They do not want to be treated as weaklings as it offends their sensitivities and self-respect. They take exception to some women seeking kid-glove treatment to escape hardships.

However, most of the women opting for a career in the services belong to families where their upbringing has been in a highly sheltered environment. A career in the military is at the other extreme. They admit having limited knowledge of military life at the time of joining. Subsequently, life in the military comes as a big shock to them. While some adapt to it well others find the task to be too daunting. Additionally, many women officers are unsure of their identity – they want to be officers and yet be given the deference of service wives. It has been a cause for despair for many.

Women normally get commissioned at the age of 23 to 25 years. Soon, thereafter, family pressures start building up on them to get married. Many women confess that managing married life with military service is difficult, though marrying a service officer helps. Subsequent pregnancy and motherhood prove very demanding.

Commanding Officers

The first posting of all newly commissioned officers is to their assigned units. It is for the Commanding Officers (COs) to induct, mould and employ them. Therefore, views of COs carry utmost importance as they indicate an objective appraisal of actual position on ground.

Most of the COs find women officers to be highly committed and sincere. They admire them for their enthusiasm despite the environmental difficulties faced by them. Safety of women under their command becomes their primary concern and they find it quite taxing, especially in field areas. The second common problem faced by them relates to their useful employment.

CO of an engineer regiment recounted – “My unit was in Punjab when a young lady officer was posted to it. Soon thereafter the unit was ordered to move to insurgency affected Poonch area. I did not know how to employ her and where to house her. Ultimately, I had to send her on long leave to tide over the problem.”

Another CO of a services unit said – “All young officers have to train, exercise and play games with their respective platoons. They are also required to visit troops’ barracks at lights-out to ensure that all mosquito nets are down and even check the cleanliness of latrines. I could not ask or expect the lady officer to do any of these duties”.

By turn, every officer is detailed as a duty officer and has to visit the Quarter Guard and all sentry posts at midnight to ensure their alertness. All unit commanders rue the fact that lady officers cannot be assigned any of these duties. Thus the male officers have to undertake additional work load, which they resent.

Referring to the recent increase in women’s service, some COs pointed out that at 14 years of service a lady officer will be second in command of a unit and will officiate as its commanding officer. In an Engineer or Signal unit she will be an advisor to the Divisional Commander. Without having commanded a platoon or a company and without having attended essential professional courses, it will be unfair to expect her to be able to deliver the goods.

Some COs also expressed concern about the physical fitness of women officers and their being highly prone to back problems, pelvic injuries and stress fractures.

Many COs showed reluctance to have women under them due to concern for their safety and dignity. They also tend to be over-cautious in assigning duties to them lest they be exposed to any harm.

Male Colleagues

Almost all male colleagues admire women officers for their courage and determination. They understand and appreciate challenges faced by them in trying to adapt to an environment which is totally male dominated.

However, they want the women officers to do their share of work and duties. They resent preferential treatment given to their women colleague. One officer was outspoken enough to state – “They have joined the military on the plank of equality of sexes but this plank vanishes the day they join the training academy. Thereafter, they again become the weaker sex needing special dispensations.”

An officer recounted that a lady officer posted to an Ordnance Depot declined to carry out periodic stocktaking of stores lying in isolated sheds unless provided with escort for security. Other officers had to do her job.

When told about women making up shortage of male officers, most young officers scoff at the speciousness of the argument. According to them, there is no shortage of male volunteers to join the services but the required number of candidates do not come up to the standards laid down. The services do not want to dilute the standards even marginally in the fear of compromising the quality of intake. But when it comes to women, standards are reduced to extremely low levels.

In army there is a concept of field and peace postings. Every officer looks forward to a good peace posting to be with his family and sort out family issues. But a large number of peace postings at junior officers’ level are held by the women, thereby depriving male officers of their due share. It has become a sore point with many.

Soldiers

Most soldiers view women’s induction as a fall-out of Government policies and generally take it lightly. They are convinced that women can never lead them effectively. Some Junior Commissioned Officers were blunt enough to state – “An officer, who cannot run with us, cannot train with us and cannot exercise with us can barely be expected to lead us”.

Notwithstanding the above, India is proud of the fact that women in the Indian services are being treated in a manner befitting their dignity and self respect, despite the fact that the Indian soldier is drawn from rustic stock where women to date are confined to household chores. In this regard, India can rightfully claim to have a record which is far better than that of any advanced nation in the world.

[TonyE]

[There's a couple on facebook of us out on the town.

 

Edit: Since its already public domain:

 

Now this is the Luke we know and love!

Edited May 30, 2012 by TonyE

[Simon Tan]

So....who is the goat?

[Ken Estes]

You are kidding. India?

[EchoFiveMike]

Some of the best Recce soldiers I commanded were women. they are cunning and quiet

 

I'd like to hear some details about this. My experience with reconnaisance would tend to counterindicate women being successful, let alone an advantage. The radio and battery loadout alone is typically crippling. S/F....Ken M

[RETAC21]

On the other hand, and let me be clear that no insult is being proferred, could it be a failure of leadership?, by not taking into account the differences between men and women? part of leading is making do with you have rather than trying to do more than you are able to?

 

Ah, the triumph of wishful thinking over reality....

[BansheeOne]

 

You have saved this thread.

 

Uhm, that's your squad? What branch are you in, Gundam Mobile Suits? Where are the ugly ones? The shy? The butch types?

[Archie Pellagio]

Uhm, that's your squad? What branch are you in, Gundam Mobile Suits? Where are the ugly ones? The shy? The butch types?

 

Only the other dude and the chick in the purple I work with, the rest of them were some random birthday party I convinced to join us...

[BansheeOne]

I was thinking the dark-haired one front left, while good to grab and elastic on impact, was probably exceeding military weight ratio requirements ...

[Ken Estes]

On the other hand, and let me be clear that no insult is being proferred, could it be a failure of leadership?, by not taking into account the differences between men and women? part of leading is making do with you have rather than trying to do more than you are able to?

 

Ah, the triumph of wishful thinking over reality....

 

+1

 

Bingo!

[Archie Pellagio]

I was thinking the dark-haired one front left, while good to grab and elastic on impact, was probably exceeding military weight ratio requirements ...

 

I'm sure she has a lovely personality...

[BansheeOne]

Who am I trying to fool, I'd do her even if specifically because she was a foul-mouthed dirty-minded nymphomaniac.

 

On cue: The first two female army mountain guides graduated from Mittenwald Mountain Warfare School on Friday. The school commander specifically stressed the course level stayed the same as "the challenges of nature make no difference between man and woman" (of course the cynical might wonder why he feels the need to stress this). But then SSGT Beatrice Soyter, pictured below, is an Eurocup-level biathlete.

 

 

[The mountain guide course consists of a summer part and a winter part of four months each. The summer part includes several multiple-week mountain tours in the German, Austrian and French Alps and the Italian Dolomites with theoretical and practical elements of climbing (including waterfalls), orientation, guiding, meteorology and mountain rescue (including by helicopter). The winter part adds qualification as a ski instructor, snow assessment and avalanche control (including blasting).]