Women in combat (but not really) Vol. III

Holy (*)(*)(*)(*), can you ***** put this to rest. Every time someone thinks they find something new, we still have the same conversation about it with the same points made.

Sure, so long as women are held up to their responsibility and actually do their job.

Are you kidding me with this analogy? Do you know the differences between infantry and being a cop? Obviously not otherwise you would not have posted this bucket of (*)(*)(*)(*). Infantry requires far more from someone than being a cop.

So what? Holy holocaust of brain cells. What is your reasoning for women being in infantry if not to appear liberal, open-minded, and a hippy?

You have a decent post, but you mask it with misogynistic diatribe and contempt. I've worked with female maintainers and not one of them couldn't do their job or requested assistance. Do you see where anecdotes get you? Nowhere. Also, your idea of what jobs women cannot perform is probably not accurate with what jobs women have proven capable of doing and do well in them.

Noted. I assume the only jobs you think women should be relegated to are desk positions?

Minimum? Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with me? No one should hold any job aside from finance if they only meet the MINIMUM requirements.

Excellent points.

 

Whats wrong with finance?

 

More horsebleep. If you were in the infantry with enemies firing at you from different directions you wouldn't give a flippin sh1tt as to who or what was covering your back. In the old days they also used to say gays shouldn't be in the military for the same stupid reasons why some idiots say women shouldn't be in infantry. Well, had you been in the Marine Corps, most likely your drill sargeant was a closeted homo. Therefore, the myth that gays or women shouldn't be in infantry has been shown to be nothing but garbage from day one.

It's the 21st century. Time to wake up from your delusions.

 

Thre is a big difference. A gay man is still a man with all the physical attributes and can haul his 80 lbs of gear the distance and be capable of watching your back when you get there.

Like it or not, men and women are not physically equal.

 

When I was in a combatzone I sure as hell cared about who was covering my back. I wanted to be sure they could drag all 200lbs (270 in gear) of me out of a killzone.

DADT didn't keep gays out of the military, it kept them from openly announcing that they were gay.

The Marine Corps doesn't have drill "sargeants". And if they did, why would you assume they were gay?

Your last comment shows your only interested in playing social games and have little to no consideration for military effectiveness. Save your feel good political correct BS for professions that won't get people killed.

 

My reasoning is anyone can do a job they qualify for. Since women qualify, they should get the job.

Yes, they should. The minimum is the lowest point one can be accepted - but they can still be accepted. It wouldnt matter if they were furthest or the least far from the minimum requirements for entry - the fact is they are over it and thus qualify to join. Since I take form your response the answer is yes women qualify, there is no debate here as to whether women can join since the standard leaves them completely open to join. If you want to change the standard, that is another topic entirely. Fact is, women can join as they meet the required standard.

 

So the answer is, yes women can join. If you want the standards to be higher, by all means argue for that, but it will not change the fact women are free to join currently.

 

So basically it isnt stupid, you just use insults to hide the fact you cant debate me.

Thanks for conceding defeat yet again.

 

Minimum "requirements" according to the US army. (I'm assuming the infantry is part of the US army).

 

Then it sucks to be them. Its their responsibility to ensure their long term health - not anybody elses.

You are saying they have no standards for initiates? You are joking, right?

I totally agree. Doesn't change the fact women are currently allowed to join and are thus free to do so.

If that is the only chance their flaws as a worker become apparent, then yes. If it can be shown women can NEVER be efficient in combat, then you have a different case entirely and a reason to deny women joining.

Only where they were caused by the army. If the women joined and suffered medical problems because the job was too strenuous then its her problem becuase it is her responsibility to leave where she found the job too difficult.

With a bit of clarification, indeed it does.

 

But they are still standards set by the army, are they not?

If the army wants to set their standards higher, by all means they can, but obviously they feel the minimum of 225 is enough, and if women can meet that standard they qualify to enter. If you want to say 225 is inadequate for an efficient infantry force, then by all means, go ahead, but then this has nothing to do with being a women, rather with the standards of the infantry generally.

 

Explain the waste of money. As for broken bodies, that is meaningless and irrelevant. If you cant hack it, but continue anyway, that's your problem.

That's because they have only a set number of people they can accept. If the army has a quota, I dont mind them doing exactly the same.

Well no. If Harvard could accept all people it would. And it would make money because students pay them not the other way around. Take most high level universities. Their standards are set, but they usually take people far above it because they can only accept a certain amount of people and, logically, want the best. If the number of people applying drops, then they will allow more people of a lower standard to enter. Its supply and demand. The army is entirely entitled to do exactly the same, bit I'm not sure the the situation is similar.

 

The issue occurs when political influence forces the military to alter their standards. When 95% of females fail to meet the standards, Senators looking to make a political statement will start whispering in General's ears. The standards will be "modified" to allow a higher number of women into the Infantry so our political leadership can look good. We've seen that type of thing happen over and over again across all spectrums of government. This is one of the downsides of democracies and mass media. The people at home, 99% of whom have no understanding of the military, suddenly decide that girls should be able to fight just like boys, and politicians take notice. They do this because our society has slowly been trying to mask gender differences. There are some decisions that we need to rely on experts to make, not a large ignorant constituency herded by a mass media looking to stir controversy.

 

I agree.

Please give evidence of this, namely that 90% of women fail to meet standards and that Senators force General's to in turn change them.

Ok but are you saiyng no women can get in by appropriate standards?

Please give specific evidence of your claims.

Ok but this is actually irrelevant to my earlier point that women should be allowed to apply and where they do meet standards, participate. You have not shown evidence to me that women cannot meet appropriate standards. Your argument that standards are lowered and that this is bad is something I entirely agree with, but is beside the point unless you are saying NO WOMEN could EVER be able to join the infantry if it had good standards of entrance. If you believe they would NEVER qualify under such conditions please provide evidence.

 

As a former coach, I worked with women athletes for more years than I care to remember. Some of my females athletes could accomplish a lot more than could men who only weighted 125 lbs but who were drafted into the armed forces back in the 1960s.

 

DADT was started by Clinton. Prior to that gays weren't allowed at all. But you sure as hell know that the Marine Corps was full of closeted gays from the day it was first created.

When East European partisans took up guns to kill Nazis, many were women because the men had all been killed off by Hitler's henchmen. Nobody came up with the hosrsh1t that those women should have stayed home. A gun weights only a handful of pounds, a cannon only takes a few pounds of pressure with which to shoot it. To say women can't handle this is nothing but more garbage.

And if you still insist on saying women don't belong in combat, go tell it to the Marines. I'm sure they'd like to see it said to their faces.

 

That's complete BS. You think because the Marine Corps generally has a reputation for being the most "macho" they're all gay? That's incredibly naive and borderline homopohibc.

 

He didnt mention anything macho - just that there are a lot of gays in the marines. He's probably right.

 

You have idea what you're talking about. I wish you'd read the earlier threads so I wouldn't have to explain it again.

Being able to pull a trigger doesn't make you an Infantryman. Anyone can pull a trigger, an 8 year old child can do it. Many kids can also be taught how to shoot extremely well. Pulling a trigger takes up about
.0001% of an Infantryman's time. What makes an Infantryman is being able to strap on 70-100lbs of gear and then hike 20+miles a day and sleep a few hours a night all while trying to locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat. This means getting to where the enemy's at, be it top of a mountain or in a remote rain forest.

Female Eastern European partisans had very little in common with modern day infantry men. The fact that you would even make this comparison shows how naive you were. These women carried out gurriella attacks, they weren't part of large armies with specific goals and standards. They didn't carry heavy gear and fight in sustained combat for months as part of a large machine. 12 year old boys also fought as Partisans in Eastern Europe. Are you suggesting they're qualified to be Infantrymen? Naive pro-women in combat party members always try and through out the Russians as some kind of proof but they never actually understand what they did.

I never said women don't belong in combat.

I have no hestiations in telling a Marine what I think.....because I spent 4 years in the Marine Corps.

 

Could you provide evidence of this? Also, why would you think the Marine Corps has more gays than any other service branch?

 

Evidence of what? I cant prove a negative - his comment his right above. He never mentioned being macho.

Did I say that?

 

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992:

I'm saying that the tiny percentage of women capable of meeting the male average (less than 1% according to the report), when adjusted for their MUCH MUCH higher injury rate, would leave probably no more than a handlful of qualified females in a 1,000 woman test group. The cost of finding that tiny tiny tiny minority, dealing with their much higher non-deployability rate (3 times as non deployable according to the report), dealing with sexual harrassement issues, and implementing the new program don't come anywhere close to passing a cost-benefit analysis.

The U.S. military reports to the Senate and the Commander in Chief. Generals are constantly being pulled to Capitol Hill to testify before Congress. Do you really believe Generals, who must be approved of in Congress before being promoted, aren't influenced by their bosses?

I believe that with prudent non-altered standards, such a tiny minority of women would pass that it wouldn't make economic sense to allow them in. Why spend millions of extra dollars to get women Infantrymen, who will always fall to the lower end of male standards, into Infantry when we already have more volunteers that we can take?

 

You said "alot of gays" implying that the Marine Corps had more gays than normal. Since you didn't provide a range, I assumed you were comparing it to the other services. So, you'll have to be more specific. The Marine Corps has "alot of gays" compared to what?

 

because it's part of the Navy? the best dressed part.

 

The Marine Corps isn't part of the Navy. Both the Navy and Marine Corps fall under the civilian leadership known as the Department of the Navy. The Marine Corps, Navy, and Coast Guard (during wartime) are often referred to as the naval services.