Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Letting The Girls Have A Go
SYSOP    2/4/2013 5:18:34 AM
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
TonoFonseca    This is utterly sick   2/4/2013 1:54:54 PM
Putting women into combat... the USA has fallen another four or five notches.
Quote    Reply

Skylark    In praise of our biased media   2/4/2013 2:20:34 PM
If the biased, agenda-driven press in this country hyper-focused on the captured females in the US armed forces who were raped by Iraqis during the Gulf War, in the same way they typically hyper-focus on their usual pet-causes, (like gun-control or the dangers of trans-fats, global warming and football.) we would not even be contemplating the idea of women in combat.
Quote    Reply

Toryu88    Wrong on so many levels...   2/4/2013 4:43:56 PM
One can argue against this on a lot of different levels:
The physical aspect. The majority of women cannot meet the current levels of physical strength demanded by the current programs, so the JCOS has already said that the services will have to justify the current fitness requirements or change them.  That means lowering the current levels and lowering the standards across the military all in the name of feminism and political correctness.  From what I have seen of most the fat assed women in the army, they could not carry thier share of the combat load (80 lbs).  If the combat load is predicated on the necessary equipment spread out across a squad, then it means the men will be carrying more weight, because the women can carry less.  The men will break down faster or the squad will leave behind equipment that until recently was considered essential.
The unit cohesion:  it is well known that the military is built along tribal lines.  Male bonding and acceptance is corner stone to a cohesion in a small combat unit.  It has been studied and proven that soldiers identify with and have loyalty to the men up to the squad level, and it rapidly drops off going to the platoon and company levels.  Men strive for acceptance within the group by proving themselves to their peers.  This is a male dynamic that goes back to the primitive man and his hunting bands.  You wanted to know the men around you could hack it and who you could rely on.  This dynamic will be sorely corrupted by the presence of women. 
Morale:  Both the previous sections touch on this, but what could be more corrosive to morale than training with someone and having them get pregnant to avoid deployment?  Its as easy as that for a woman, unless they implement draconian measures to prevent it.  Force abortion perhaps?  Chemical Sterilzation for the duration of assignement to a combat unit?  Having a fire team mate whom you have trained with suddenly taking a powder by getting knocked up to avoid service would piss many men off, especially when they have no such options.
My sister was a tanker pilot and no doubt could have hacked it as combat pilot.  Could she hack the infantry?  I doubt it and I am sure she knew she couldn't either. Lifting weights with me she was able to surpass all physical requirements for her at the USAFA.  She did 6 pullups.  I asked her how many the other women did, she said that she did six more than anyone else.  She also exceeded the pushups requirements.  Could she hump the combat load of 80 lbs? No, she couldn't.
I find it interesting that the article spends a lot of time talking about women in service roles, not much about their abiliity to combat patrol and I doubt you will.  I think the military will not rest until they lower the standards to whatever it takes to meet the number of women they feel is representitive or meet whatever quota the politicians have set for them.  This will mean more combat fatalities.  I for one would not serve next to a woman in combat, she couldn't carry me if I were a casualty.  I can see the motto revised, "No man left behind, Unless he weights too much to carry". 
Quote    Reply

Sty0pa       2/5/2013 9:52:02 AM
Like any military, the longer we sit at peace, the worse we get.
And we ARE at peace, when the only conflicts we're in are ones of our choosing from which we can exit at any time with no risk whatsoever to our country.  What we're in...well, call them 'hobby wars'.
You think what the insurgents did to the 'security contractors' in Fallujah was bad?
Wait until the videos hit the net of what they do to female prisoners. 
Quote    Reply