RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,163773,00.html

A tough subject that isn't without its emotions. Women have always been at the forefront of the debate/battle over those "things worth fighting for". To be officially open to frontline combat by our armed forces, government and community will still be difficult to reconcile for most.

Of course being the father of a Marine son whose two sisters look to him as inspiration can make for pause. Each will make their own decision and those close to them should continue to love, pray, support and await their return home...

Finally, Honors to Capt. Nichola Goddard of the Canadian Armed Forces, KIA, Kandahar Afghanistan. I did not know, I know now...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: GoldenSabers,

That's damn RIGHT! They can and do. Train them right, lead them well, they'll do anything you ask them to.

I say keep women out of the Infantry... There is a certain mentality in Infantry units that females would destroy.

There is nothing wrong in killing the enemy,but is that a role we want the women of our society to play?There is nothing wrong with them being in support units,where they might meet an enemy,but to put them in the infantry et al is something we probably do not need to do.I think the current policy is the right one

As long as they can perform at the level male soldiers can, they should be able to do any job that male soldiers can.

The sticking point is the performance. There should not be two standards for pushups, for run-times, and so on, one for men and one for women. There should be one standard that every soldier has to meet, and that standard should be blind to gender, only taking into account the needs of the service.

Then why two standards (male/female) for the APFT?

quote:

Originally posted by dmharvey:
Then why two standards (male/female) for the APFT?

Exactly. If a female can't pass the APFT at a male's requirements, she is going to probably have a hard time lugging a 240/249 around with 50+ lbs. of gear. But hey, so what, everything needs to be equal, right? Doesn't matter if it puts our troops lives at risk......................

And I for one love the un-PC environment in my unit. We talk about females all the time, hell, people had Hustler magazines at drill. That would go to sh*t if females could enlist Infantry

If women want to be in combat arms, and by that I mean tankers or infantry, they need to have the same APFT requirements and they have to go through basic EXACTLY the same way men go through. That means they get their head shaved. To build unit cohesiveness you have to make everyone the same. After training they can grow their hair out to meet regs, but in basic and AIT, they have to be shave heads just like the guys.

I always hate this topic… Actually despise it. There is a solid place in the military for women. Only about 1 in 10 to 20 military members are actually on the ground forces. The rest support those few that do one of the most amazing jobs on earth that no one should really have to do. I am not sexist, but opening up women to the ground/tank/artillery is Pandora's box. Take an averaged sized man and an average sized woman and have the average woman "fireman's" carry the man 200m in full combat gear for both of them. Sure there are men that could not carry my 200lb butt with 50 to 70lbs of weapons and equipment, but I am looking at the norm… not the exception to the rules like the 5'9" 180lbs woman (how she made weight, I dont know (must of been Army) of Slovik decent.

The ground pounders are a special breed. The likelihood of fitting women into their environment would work about as well as having women on NFL football teams!

Think of the logistics as well? When you go out for days at a time, all the men can sleep in the same site and use the same head. Would you want your 19 yo daughter sleeping in the direct company of 10 to 40 other young men that havent had a chance for sexual release in 4 to 12 months?

What about the fact on how you put the two together and you have "love". If a team player dies in a platoon, the team fights harder and is finds a way to overcome as a team. If your lover dies, you have an individual fighting harder and may act out of complete emotion vice what the team needs.

Think of lover's quarrels within a firefight? Yes this happens now, but imagine the outcome with the female in the mix of it all?

Imagine a boyfriend and girlfriend in the same fighting hole, late at night, with the responsibility of being the eyes and ears to keep their platoon alive. Will they be distracted with their alone time together? Its the SAME exact reason why we dont want homosexuals in the military. It would deter from what the mission requires.

Imagine deciding out of the 100s of men and women in bootcamp and having to choose the 5 best for Infantry. You needed the most physically fit and the ones that you thought were mentally there, only now there is a quota. You need to have 3 men and 2 women!

its not whether a woman can kill. if you read the paper each and every day some mother has killed her children or husband. look at lizzie borden with a axe, lucresha borga with poison,in the last few years mothers drowning their kids.there was even some woman in florida that became a serial killer because some guy beat her up while she was plying her trade.in the back seat of his car.the justice system executed her for that. (but) as far as having a woman in combat (no) I'd be concerned with what my men were doing when they should be defending a position.if they had a foxhole partner that was a woman.are what would happen if she got shot. would he pay more attention to her if a attack was in progress or would he fight to try and save the rest of the company/platoon and let the medics handle the wounded.what if she had her guts laying out on the ground in front of her . its bad enough when a man is in that condition. just a gut shot is bad enough.the pain. nothing can stop the pain. and most usually the injured person doesn't survive.remember the m-16 is a maiming weapon the round tumbles. and the stomach is idea for a tumbleing round. the m-14 was a killing weapon if you got shot in the gut you usually died .I say no to females in ground hand to hand combat. why not let them fly the unmaned drones.That is if you are dead set on leting women kill something .let them do it at a distants but when you take man out of combat and put him in a room with a joy stick and the ability to kill at a distants then they will kill with out compulsion. no matter who it is its all caustic (clean up the area), men women,children.it want matter if you put them in a room!. its like stepping on ants!.

I agree with much of what has been said with regards to women serving within infantry units, the sheer physicality of the role excludes the majority of women; similarly gunners have to man guns and manhandle ammunition, both stressful and exhausting. But what about tanks? In the early nineties I came across a Danish tank unit on exercise in northern Germany, with a female squadron commander. I believe she had a female crew. The unit appeared switched on and effective, evidenced in part by the fact that one crew member was changing over a road wheel (probably the wrong term) during a lull in the (sim)battle, just because it appeared to have less than 50k left on it. Changing something before it went wrong impressed me. Anyway the Danes impressed me, and I thought it was a role women could play; although given the nature of the beast the Centurion would probable turn into a very angry panzer once a month. Anybody got any views?

Most of what I am hearing as objections boil down to "Cause they're women." I suspect some serious re-wireing of the male id will be necessary before men will be comfortable with women in their combat units. But I also think the military can train them to accept the infantrywoman as a peer. Male egos will end up badly bruised, and women's "identies" will become more confused then they are now, but all in all, it could work. On the other hand, communism didn't turn out so well....

quote:

Originally posted by gojeero:
...If a female can't pass the APFT at a male's requirements, she is going to probably have a hard time lugging a 240/249 around with 50+ lbs. of gear...
And I for one love the un-PC environment in my unit. We talk about females all the time, hell, people had Hustler magazines at drill. That would go to sh*t if females could enlist Infantry

The point is, the problem lies with our society's need for perceived equality. The women who want to serve in combat arms probably would be ok with being held to the same standard. It's the politicos who would want to make some artificial quota system. The CG got it right with their rescue swimmers - one standard. As for the un-PC nature, I woud rather know where people stand (so I can prove them wrong) than hear all the PC B.S. And Hustlers, take a look at any hunting camp. You think we haven't seen stacks upon stacks? So what. And yeah, a shaved head during basic would make life so much easier. Unfortunately, there's that 1" minimum probalem (AF). Point being, if a woman wants to give it a shot, she should have every right to. So start with armor & artillery and still exclude infantry - we'll get there some day.

IMO, women should be able to apply for training and attempt to meet the male standards for APFT with the intent of shooting for a job like infantry, armor, etc. This, again, IMO shouldn't mean they GET a job, but that they must meet the top (lumped in with the men) of the class and selected from there as though gender were entirely blank. So, say 10 women and 40 men were training for an armor spot, which there were 3 of available... if 3 men take the top 3 highest qualifications, then too bad, so sad for the women... but they were allowed to TRY for it, just like the other 37 men that got rejected were.

Honestly, gender should not even be allowed to make a difference in allowing entire groups into units. It's discriminating. Just as bad as not allowing African Americans into certainn units. It's bias based on nothing but genitalia. Place certain people i certain units because they are qualified. Forget sex, race, religious preferance. If a woman can do the work, an dmeets the standards, keeping her out due to he gender is not right.

Come on, lets get to reality here. Very few women will be able to meet the physical standards for ground combat. The only way this will happen in any numbers is to either have dual standards of lower overall standards. Neither one of these senarios is acceptable.

Sure we could let women attempt to qualify under current standards but the problem will be with the politicians and officers who are obsequious to them: Because not enough women will qualify we will lower standards to ensure that they will.

Think I'm wrong? They have done it in other areas like Police and firefighting.

Ask yourself this question - would we expect Sports teams to change or lower standards to accomodate women being able to play (e.g. football)?

Of course not - women don't play against men becasue they can't.

I beleve if a women want's to be un the miltary, I'm all for it. Being on the front lines is a different situation. I just feel they should be in any behind the lines as support.

I'm not saying a woman is not up to the recruirements, it just dosent seem the front lines in the Marines or Army is the place for them. I know there women military pilots, there are women in the Navy and Coast Guard who can be in a position where they are involved in offence and defence. That is different than being on the ground!

quote:

I say keep women out of the Infantry... There is a certain mentality in Infantry units that females would destroy.

Possibly a point here, if you want to keep the sort of mentality that, say, posts videos of blowing other soldiers apart as trophies. It does sound as if males should not be allowed into such units. They obviously have the wrong sort of mentality to handle the situation.

We could also refer to other cultures, in which soldiery was practcied by both genders or by females...of course, in such cases there tends to be a distinct lack of soiological conditioning either that women are weak overly emotional types with a lack of intelligence or that men are superior beings and to prove this must both outdo others and be emotionally dead automatons whom nothing phases.

I'm going to be a diver in the Navy. If I had the option of infantry i would take it. Women should be able to do combat on land if they wanted to. Yes, there are a lot of risks, but to any women who wants to do infantry or drive a tank should be aware of those risks. Men may think women do not have the mentality do deal with combat, but they'd be suprised. Through the proper training a woman build up that tough mentality and physical strength. I think if anything, women could, if given the chance, do a better job than most men. If I want to fight then let me fight. I would be willing to go through exactly what a man goes through if that's what it takes.

People are not going to like this, but they will see truth..

There should be a female corp or something where women can do certain jobs..and be kept away from the men. During both my deployments women created the vast majority of the problems. Women sleeping with 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 guys.. then the guys find out... women ( a CAPTAIN) taking pictures of her new boobies..then EVERYONE getting the pictures.. another woman sleeping with dudes from other units and taping it...yup we all got the videos..

Even worse.. for every female soldier I know that COULD do the job..I know 15 that could not. They cant carry thier own gear..they bring 4000 extra pounds of crap...they complain about food and showers and dirt and sand and heat and blah blah blah blah...

Carry your own gear. Be ready to do the mission. BE IN SHAPE ( yes I expect YOU to carry me If I get wounded..). Hold yourself to a higher standard then the men...and then I'll respect you.