RE: Women In the Infantry (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

jwarrenw13 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/12/2015 4:12:49 PM)

Today Army plays Navy, two of the US military academies, that is, in American football. Why will there be no women on the field? Why indeed are collegiate sports still segregated by gender in the US military academies? This seems to conflict with US policy regarding gender integration of women. Before I reconsider my position on women in infantry roles -- and I was an 11b infantryman during the first part of my military career -- I want to see women competing successfully with men in collegiate athletics. It seems like a reasonable proof of policy.



chaos45 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/12/2015 5:23:54 PM)

Key point on American military forces----this is politics plain and simple.

Women in the US military are not held to the same physical standards as men period. They have to complete a PT test just like males but they have much, much lower standards for a pass/successful test.

So a woman that barely passes a PT will be much weaker than any male that barely passes the Army PT Test....that is really the big problem with this.

If women are equals in roles in the military then they need to be held to the same physical standards. They do that and im happy with the decisions. As some woman in the military are extremely capable physically others barely pass the standard which would get almost all but the eldest men in the military kicked out.

So you start lumping women into infantry units that barely pass female PT standard and it will bring down the performance in those units. Leadership will be unable to do anything about it because by regulations they meet the minimum female PT standards which are a far cry from the physical standards most infantry need to be able to do their job.

There are females I do believe capable of being infantry dont get me wrong, many though I dont believe could do it from what I have seen in my years service.




Kuokkanen -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/12/2015 5:42:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

So you start lumping women into infantry units that barely pass female PT standard and it will bring down the performance in those units. Leadership will be unable to do anything about it because by regulations they meet the minimum female PT standards which are a far cry from the physical standards most infantry need to be able to do their job.

Really? Is leadership so incapable it can't lump weaker women to logistics to maintain and drive cargo trucks? Or keep them working in mess hall or whatever else?



chaos45 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/12/2015 5:55:13 PM)

Matti- A Soldier is a Soldier if they meet the standards you can do nothing against them basically. The Army has rules and regulations that command is bound to follow.

So anyone that passes their respective PT test based on Age/sex is a fully capable Soldier by the Army's standards.

Logistics has had Female Soldiers for a long time, Logistics however is typically much less physically demanding than being in the Infantry, Armor, or Combat Engineer fields.

Equal work should equal, equal standards----thats what the military really needs for something like this to actually work and not just be political BS.



parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/13/2015 12:12:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

Calm it down with the interpersonal attacks or the thread will need to be locked.

Cheers

Pip


You are correct that personal attacks are unnecessary. Everyone on this forum has a right to their opinion...as long as it agrees with MINE![;)]



Orm -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/13/2015 8:29:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski


You are correct that personal attacks are unnecessary. Everyone on this forum has a right to their opinion...as long as it agrees with MINE![;)]

Hear, Hear. [:)]



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/13/2015 11:14:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

So you start lumping women into infantry units that barely pass female PT standard and it will bring down the performance in those units. Leadership will be unable to do anything about it because by regulations they meet the minimum female PT standards which are a far cry from the physical standards most infantry need to be able to do their job.

Really? Is leadership so incapable it can't lump weaker women to logistics to maintain and drive cargo trucks? Or keep them working in mess hall or whatever else?


Why Matti, that would be sex discrimination? [;)]
Isn't it easier to stay politically correct and just lower the standards for just the women who cannot meet the standards?
For some reason someone somewhere believes in 'that' is "fairness". All those years of "if the boys can do it girls can too" mentality. [8|]
Maybe for management, trash collecting, and other things but in the combat zone peoples lives are continuously at stake? Sadly, no one higher up makes that argument in public. [:-]
Maybe then you can get the support from the mothers who watch their sons go off to war? Instead of saying "I hope that Sally will be able to keep up with my Johnny" they might say "hell no, let Sally stay at home or somewhere where she won't get Johnny killed." [:(]

Not to say that Mary or Sue cannot get the job done if they pass the common standard that men do. But, just maybe Sally should be held to the higher standard too?

Just sayin'.

RR



Kuokkanen -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/13/2015 2:11:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

Really? Is leadership so incapable it can't lump weaker women to logistics to maintain and drive cargo trucks? Or keep them working in mess hall or whatever else?


Why Matti, that would be sex discrimination? [;)]

How so? If Mary can carry her own backpack while hiking up the hills and mountains but Sue can't, why should Sue come along and have her bag carried by Mary? Would leaving Sue to cook back in the mess hall really be sexual discrimination?



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/13/2015 3:29:10 PM)

Matti: According to the feminazi's (among others) in the US, yes, that would be discrimination. You would be surprised how many people think the military is about government run job creation. I remember back when the Iraq war began, there was a woman who refused to be deployed (I think she was arrested and court martialed) she said that she joined the Army as a job and never thought she might have to be deployed or fight.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/13/2015 3:50:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

Really? Is leadership so incapable it can't lump weaker women to logistics to maintain and drive cargo trucks? Or keep them working in mess hall or whatever else?


Why Matti, that would be sex discrimination? [;)]

How so? If Mary can carry her own backpack while hiking up the hills and mountains but Sue can't, why should Sue come along and have her bag carried by Mary? Would leaving Sue to cook back in the mess hall really be sexual discrimination?


Matti you just fell shy of the point. It would be sex discrimination if the lesser standards are adopted as OK standards.
If Mary and Sue can meet the men's standards (or, infantrymen standards) let them fight and (maybe) die along side the rest of the combat infantry soldiers. If Sally is given a pass on lesser standards she needs to do something else.
The heck with political correctness in this case. At that point Sally would be a liability that any unit could not afford to hump?

RR



Karri -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/13/2015 6:37:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


Matti you just fell shy of the point. It would be sex discrimination if the lesser standards are adopted as OK standards.
If Mary and Sue can meet the men's standards (or, infantrymen standards) let them fight and (maybe) die along side the rest of the combat infantry soldiers. If Sally is given a pass on lesser standards she needs to do something else.
The heck with political correctness in this case. At that point Sally would be a liability that any unit could not afford to hump?

RR



Well that's the thing, giving women the chance to fight in infantry is not only "right" but it is essential. If they can they will. If they can't then they serve somewhere else, just like men.



chaos45 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/13/2015 8:53:18 PM)

Many of you seem to miss the point--I currently still serve in the US military.....

Male and Females have different standards period. Female physical fitness standards are lower than men to get a pass on the physical fitness test period---its a fact there is an Army PT regulation you can look it up.

There is no different standard for PT for different jobs in the military again a fact. If you pass the minimum PT standard for your age and sex you are an acceptable Soldier for any job.

Yes Special forces gets to be picky but no-one else does.

So you could have women now in the infantry meeting the minimum PT standard and be far under performing and command would be unable to do nothing by Army Regulations. Even males meeting only the minimum male PT standards would struggle to keep up in the infantry.

War/Actual combat is an extremely Physical activity- for this to not negatively affect our overall combat proficiency equal standards are needed or they need to change to equal standards for specific jobs and make the Infantry/combat arms have higher minimum PT standards that Soldiers must meet irrespective of sex.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/14/2015 1:25:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


Matti you just fell shy of the point. It would be sex discrimination if the lesser standards are adopted as OK standards.
If Mary and Sue can meet the men's standards (or, infantrymen standards) let them fight and (maybe) die along side the rest of the combat infantry soldiers. If Sally is given a pass on lesser standards she needs to do something else.
The heck with political correctness in this case. At that point Sally would be a liability that any unit could not afford to hump?

RR



Well that's the thing, giving women the chance to fight in infantry is not only "right" but it is essential. If they can they will. If they can't then they serve somewhere else, just like men.


First off, it is a privilege to fight in the military. Not a right.
You cannot make it a right.
You can lower the expectations/standards to give women a chance to fight. They do not have the right to fight.
If they were made to meet the standards of infantry fighters a lot less women would be able to fight?
Been my point all along.

Lead,follow, or get out of the way assumes that women would be able to keep up after meeting the infantry fighter standard? Not in meeting a women's standard that does not enable them to keep up with the infantry fighter.

Your "right" is just wrong.

RR



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/14/2015 1:32:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Many of you seem to miss the point--I currently still serve in the US military.....

Male and Females have different standards period. Female physical fitness standards are lower than men to get a pass on the physical fitness test period---its a fact there is an Army PT regulation you can look it up.

There is no different standard for PT for different jobs in the military again a fact. If you pass the minimum PT standard for your age and sex you are an acceptable Soldier for any job.


First, thank you for your service.
Second, my post in this thread #327 gives the "PT standards" for men and women. It highlights the differences.
Third, if you do the math it is not hard to see that if women meet their standards, they will be unable to keep up with the men. And, minutes (sometimes seconds) on the battlefield are the difference between life and death.

RR



Zap -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/14/2015 3:38:15 PM)

Here is my solution. Create an all women fighting unit with their lower standards but have a back-up men's unit ready to take up the slack when they fail or don't perform well in battle.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/14/2015 4:16:56 PM)

Awesome idea! We could have a PMS brigade. It would be the most elite force on the planet. Forget about standards...ANY woman qualifies when in this condition...we could rotate them in and out...



zakblood -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/14/2015 4:21:42 PM)

please stay on topic and don't make sexist remarks thank you, as they get replied to and all it does is add to a flame war everyone, admin has already replied once and mentioned it will be closed if it happens again[:-]

post not to anyone in particular just as a comment with how it's again going, direction wise atm tbh



Zap -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/14/2015 5:12:40 PM)

Here what brought to mind the women's unit. No disrespect to women but it would be best if they were back-ups in time of dire need. Just my opinion.


"Kurdish women unit formed to fight Isis its a last resorts unit if ISIS makes it to Kurdistan.

Hundreds of mothers, sisters and daughters have taken up arms and devoted their lives to protecting Iraq’s Kurdish population against the threat of the Islamic State.

Known as the women peshmerga of the 2nd Battalion, the group is made up of 550 female fighters led by Col. Nahida Ahmad Rashid, Barcroft reports.

The soldiers have not yet faced the Islamic State since the terrorists seized control of towns in Kurdistan, but the group has carried out in-depth exercises in the scorching heat of Sulaymaniyah to prepare themselves for battle.

"



Perturabo -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/17/2015 11:23:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm not sure if its been mentioned before (I'm not going to read every post), but I don't think it is hard to imagine what would happen if a US female combat soldier is captured by the enemy (assuming not rescued within about one day). Best case scenario is death by rape...worst: probably sex slavery. Every woman should be informed of this possibility prior to joining up, and perhaps given a suicide pill.

You're saying it like it would require capture.



Aurelian -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/18/2015 12:08:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm not sure if its been mentioned before (I'm not going to read every post), but I don't think it is hard to imagine what would happen if a US female combat soldier is captured by the enemy (assuming not rescued within about one day). Best case scenario is death by rape...worst: probably sex slavery. Every woman should be informed of this possibility prior to joining up, and perhaps given a suicide pill.

You're saying it like it would require capture.


Jessica Lynch, Shoshana Johnson. So called best case scenario didn't happen. Neither one rescued within about one day. But were eventually.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/18/2015 3:38:45 AM)

Consider this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/17/army-women-hurt-more-often-in-combat-training-expe/



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/18/2015 1:22:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Consider this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/17/army-women-hurt-more-often-in-combat-training-expe/


What I find most ironic is the woman who said that the Army has opened a scandal by releasing data that shows that women cannot do the things that men do without getting hurt twice as much. This would "frighten women from joining the military"?

The "world is turned upside down"?
Would not the scandal be that women who do not meet the infantry fighter's standard, but meet the woman's standard, would still be allowed to join fighting units. And, a further scandal in not telling them that they need to get into fighting shape and may still suffer injury and/or depression more than men in fighting units?

Vitamin supplements or not? Getting into shape or not?

Sheesh. Damned if you do or damned if you don't?
Political correctness gone wild.

The real scandal is allowing the civilian government to impose it on the military. Which then weakens the structure of the combat unit. [8|]
How can you but feel sad that someone, somewhere, has not stood up and said, "enough!"?

RR



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/19/2015 2:23:27 AM)

RR: I totally agree. There is a huge segment of the population that either refuses or disregards lessons learned from history...and the majority of the population is apathetic.



Kuokkanen -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/19/2015 3:01:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

RR: I totally agree. There is a huge segment of the population that either refuses or disregards lessons learned from history...and the majority of the population is apathetic.

When I think about it, that makes whole lot of sense. Just look at recent wars: how many times such frak ups have been made before?



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/19/2015 3:10:53 PM)

I'm mostly talking about civilian politics getting in the way of military decisions. Vietnam is the primary example...or even better was Nazi Germany. Today's world: Creation of ISIS would not have happened, the conduct of the war vs ISIS, wanting to shut down Gitmo, stating of red lines and then no punishment when red line crossed (Chamberlin-like), Libya, Egypt, Iran, list goes on...South China Sea...



Perturabo -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/19/2015 6:37:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm not sure if its been mentioned before (I'm not going to read every post), but I don't think it is hard to imagine what would happen if a US female combat soldier is captured by the enemy (assuming not rescued within about one day). Best case scenario is death by rape...worst: probably sex slavery. Every woman should be informed of this possibility prior to joining up, and perhaps given a suicide pill.

You're saying it like it would require capture.


Jessica Lynch, Shoshana Johnson. So called best case scenario didn't happen. Neither one rescued within about one day. But were eventually.

On the other hand, women in military are much more likely to get sexually assaulted by their own side.
25% women get sexually assaulted in contrast to only 1-2% of men.



jwarrenw13 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/19/2015 6:47:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm not sure if its been mentioned before (I'm not going to read every post), but I don't think it is hard to imagine what would happen if a US female combat soldier is captured by the enemy (assuming not rescued within about one day). Best case scenario is death by rape...worst: probably sex slavery. Every woman should be informed of this possibility prior to joining up, and perhaps given a suicide pill.

You're saying it like it would require capture.


Jessica Lynch, Shoshana Johnson. So called best case scenario didn't happen. Neither one rescued within about one day. But were eventually.

On the other hand, women in military are much more likely to get sexually assaulted by their own side.
25% women get sexually assaulted in contrast to only 1-2% of men.


That is another problem with putting women in combat units. And the social engineers can't make that go away. Young men and young women are very sexual, and sexual assault in all forms happens, along with sexual liaisons of all types. It doesn't matter that sexual assault is wrong. It is going to happen anyway. The social engineers want to pretend that it can just be ordered away, but it can't be.

I commanded a mixed gender company back in the 1980s. I had to recommend the court-martial of a male NCO who fondled a young female soldier while she was under his charge on a guard duty detail. And one of my last duties in the Army several years later was as the Article 32 investigating officer making a recommendation of whether to proceed with charges in a he-said, she-said rape case in a barracks setting. Basically I held a preliminary hearing complete with lawyers for the accused and the alleged victim. I recommended a court-martial. This was all 25-30 years ago. It is ugly, but it happens. And it can't be wished away.



Perturabo -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/20/2015 2:15:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JW


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm not sure if its been mentioned before (I'm not going to read every post), but I don't think it is hard to imagine what would happen if a US female combat soldier is captured by the enemy (assuming not rescued within about one day). Best case scenario is death by rape...worst: probably sex slavery. Every woman should be informed of this possibility prior to joining up, and perhaps given a suicide pill.

You're saying it like it would require capture.


Jessica Lynch, Shoshana Johnson. So called best case scenario didn't happen. Neither one rescued within about one day. But were eventually.

On the other hand, women in military are much more likely to get sexually assaulted by their own side.
25% women get sexually assaulted in contrast to only 1-2% of men.


That is another problem with putting women in combat units. And the social engineers can't make that go away. Young men and young women are very sexual, and sexual assault in all forms happens, along with sexual liaisons of all types. It doesn't matter that sexual assault is wrong. It is going to happen anyway. The social engineers want to pretend that it can just be ordered away, but it can't be.

I commanded a mixed gender company back in the 1980s. I had to recommend the court-martial of a male NCO who fondled a young female soldier while she was under his charge on a guard duty detail. And one of my last duties in the Army several years later was as the Article 32 investigating officer making a recommendation of whether to proceed with charges in a he-said, she-said rape case in a barracks setting. Basically I held a preliminary hearing complete with lawyers for the accused and the alleged victim. I recommended a court-martial. This was all 25-30 years ago. It is ugly, but it happens. And it can't be wished away.

Amusingly, the percentage is the same as on campuses. But then campuses are horrible places that are best to be avoided.



Orm -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/20/2015 8:34:46 AM)

I suggest that these problems should be dealt with rather than avoided. Young men, and women, should be thought early that certain behaviour is not acceptable in our civilization. Separating men and women can not be our solution.

Then the culprits will behave badly somewhere else.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Women In the Infantry (12/20/2015 12:41:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I suggest that these problems should be dealt with rather than avoided. Young men, and women, should be thought early that certain behaviour is not acceptable in our civilization. Separating men and women can not be our solution.

Then the culprits will behave badly somewhere else.


Hmmmmm? Didn't we have the 10 Commandments? Didn't we have Hammurabi's Code? Both for centuries?

Don't we still have numerous laws and "instruction"? I am sure that most mothers and fathers are not teaching their children to go out and "misbehave". Words will never be able to overcome human instinct. Neither will social engineering.

Base human behavior is going to trump any rules that are passed. Especially when society does not enforce it's rules anyway.

Maybe I can say it without being lambasted? There will always be crime and criminals. There will always be laws and prisons.
And, back to the original point. There will be a lot less women in fighting units if they are held to the standard of the infantry fighter. And, then a lot less "opportunity" for "men to be men and women to be women".

RR



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.609375