Women in Combat? Why? (Part II)

somebody shoot this horse and put it out of it's misery....and start part III.

 

Yeah, I think we've pretty much exhausted every approach to this topic. I just like to circle around here and attack the civies who come in with no coherent arguments.

 

My wife and I both served in the U.S. Navy as well as the NC Army National Guard. In the Navy, my wife was one of the first females to become a Gunner's Mate when they opened the rate up to women in the 90's. When we joined the Guard together, my wife was the first female to go into a previously all-male MLRS repair unit. I have seen many females in my 15 years of service who can perform their duties just like their male shipmates. I believe all of the jobs, including Spec Ops, should open to female. Sure, 85% of the females who go to BUD/s will fail, but that same percentage of men fail too. Standards have to remain the same though.

 

MLRS repair isn't even remotely comparable to Infantry. A LOT less than 15% of women would pass SF training.

 

So you're saying the pass fail rate of men and women in BUDs will be the same?

Did you not read the findings of a study a few pages back? Dis you read all 50 of pages of this thread and the first thread that was started?

This has been beat, trampled, and an incendiary has been tossed on top for good measure.

 

if any particular woman beats any particular man (at the same standard), who would you rather have?

would you disqualify white operators from missions in Uganda?

 

A) you would have considerably less females volunteering to go into SF, but if they passed the same entrance pft then yes, they would have the same pass/fail rate.

2) my wife wanted to go Small arms repair because it is the closet thing to a Gunner's Mate the Army has, but she was not allowed to because she was a female.

3) My wife can outshoot most of the males I have served with. She is deadly with a weapon.

4) we had two males in our unit who thought like you did...until she kicked their butts in a little unarmed combat. I just laughed at them as they limped away with their tails tucked.

 

1) Not true at all. Females have less dense bones and weaker tendons. They suffer injuries, particularly stress fractures, at a much higher rate than males. The intital PFT is just for administration purposes, it definitely doesn't mean you'll pass. 300 PFTers drop from selection processes constantly, hell, even Division I atheletes and Olympians drop from selection.

2) Gunner's mate and small arms repair men aren't Infantry/SF, not even close in fact.

3) Shooting ability isn't the issue. If you think shooting ability somehow means you can be an Infantryman/SF guy, you're wrong. In a few weeks you can turn someone into a very competent shooter.

4) Ancedotal evidence like that doesn't mean much. What kind of unit were these males in? What kind of unarmed training did they have? Were they significantly larger than your wife? The fact is that your average male is bigger, stronger, faster, and has better spatial awareness. Also, unarmed combat again is only a tiny little fraction of Infantry/SF.

You seem pretty gung ho about women in SF/Infantry. Have you spent much time with these types of units?

 

I would disqualify them.

If you could find a woman of exactly identical size, strength, ability, and injury resistance the COST of finding said woman would not be anywhere near economically viable. Go read the post I put up a page or two back; It has the actual numbers.

Race has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

No, My specialty in the Navy and Army focused on Electronics. I have however, spent time helping SEALs, Marines, and Arny units keep their elecronics up and running. I have also performed research while I am currently in college looking at papers on the subject. The fact of the matter is this: Men and women have more in common than they have differences. For every man you can show me, I can show you a female that is equally as fast, strong, etc. There are more differences inside each sex than between the sexes.

If you take a look at the spectrum of males, you will see a wide range of sizes, strengths, and abilities. You will have men that are weaker and ones that are stronger. Taking a look a women you will have the same thing. You will have women stronger than most men. Old and antiquated ideals that women do not belong in combat should die like the dinosaurs. There is NO real evidence that women would not be able to function effectively in combat units. There used to be a time when science "proved" that women could not be educated. There was a time when it was "proved" that education would cause a woman's uterus to shrink, causing sterility. We all know today, that it is all false. We have women today, who have seen combat and functioned as a member of a unit, they did not drag it down or hinder combat effectiveness.

 

Your bolded statement is completely wrong. The stats above prove that. For every woman that you can "show me" I can show you 130 men.

The PRIMARY issue with women not serving in combat is their physical limitations and the economic cost of weeding out the tiny tiny minority that can meet standards. This is science, pure and simple. Are you trying to dispute Doctors/Biologists findings that I posted above?

The past is just the past. Just because people were "backwards" in 1900 doesn't somehow mean that anyone who believes as we do today in regards to physical standards is "backwards". That's a silly argument.


Infantry/SF is very different than simply returning fire as part of a convoy or MP unit. There are plenty of women who have served honorably in combat and gone above and beyond the call of duty. That still doesn't make them qualified to act as an Infantry/SF guy closing with the enemy day in and day out doing movement to contacts, ruckmarches, and long range patrols.

 

The same science that recently tried to show proof that men were smarter than women in math and sciences? That tried to say that women were better suited for the Humanities because of the "nurturing" nature of females? This was also debunked as untrue. Gender bias has always tried to use science to maintain the status quo and maintain gender inequality. The fact is this: The only reason that women are not as "strong" as men is because society still tells females that they are supposed to be the "weaker" sex. Take a Gender studies class.

 

While that is certainly a fact, it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of women in combat.

Who in Hell do you think you're kidding?

 

So you honestly feel that there isn't a biological difference between men and women? Why are men and women seperated in sports from puberty onwards? Why are there no women in the NFL/NBA/MLB etc? It's just because women were pressured by society into not being physical?

You've really bought into this huh? I'm going to school right now too and I have found a lot of people actually believe the same as you....regardless of personal experience or science.

You're discrediting the entire study done by the U.S. government?

 

Yes, there ARE physical differences in males and females. All differences are primary and secondary sex characteristics (Sex organs, hair, etc), but physically? Muscles, organs, etc. are the same.

Men and women are separated before puberty strictly based on gender bias. Females, especially in high school and college could wrestle (greco-roman), play football, baseball, basketball at the same level as their male counterparts if they were not told from the earlies age that women should not do those things. You have daring young women breaking these boundries daily. Female runners can pace male runners. Ever try hititng a female softball pitcher? They can throw faster than male pitchers.

Remember the kid who dropped out of a wrestling tourny because he was scheduled to wrestle a female? She got there the same way he did, by beating other wrestlers.

You gain strength by excercise and conditioning. You take a female and have her perform the same training as a man and she will react the same way. Muscles work the same way for both sexes, no one way for men and another way for women.

 

You ignored the professional sports question. There are a very tiny minority of women that compete in men's high school sports. Almost none of them excel. Female runners don't outpace male runners. Every single running world record has been set by men. High School boys routinely post track and weight lifting records that exceed female all time Olympians. Your softball pitching statement is also wrong. Male softball pitchers have clocked times greater than female times.

What about the study? You're ignoring the data. Men and women have the same type of muscle tissue....but men have significantly more.

I never said men and women are conditioned differently. I said that men have greater muscle mass, more dense bones, and stronger tendons. This means that if you train a 150 pound male and a 150 pound female through the same exact techniques, the male will lift more. Stop using your emotions and start using logic and evidence.

Also, Organs are NOT the same:

-Glucksman, A. (1981) Sexual Dimorphism in Human and Mammalian Biology and Pathology (Academic Press, 1981

Men also have thicker skin and stronger ligaments.

I use science to back up my arguments, I suggest you do that same.

 

No....no....we should just trust him.

 

the Military is similar to prison whereaas the guys are gonna want to have sex since so much testosterone is in the air. you can't have a cherry blossom giving off sweet smells of her essence right next to infantry in the field of combat..that's just dangerous for all parties involved and not to mention HUGE distraction.


vote = Women can be in the military but NOT in combat situations. only in office, motorpool and training capacities.

 

I guess my "cherry blossom" scent seeps through the OBOGS and my WSO must want to (*)(*)(*)(*) me. Read both the threads and come back to this discussion after you have understood everything you have read.

You should have to take a quiz about the content of part 1 and 2 of this thread before you are allowed to post in it. These ***** keep jumping in here as if they have something fresh and riveting to contribute.

 

I think the squid's wife logged in to his account.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of stinkweed.

 

Hence why I put cherry blossom in quotes. I smell like an Afghan mud hut in 110 degree heat.

 

Try the crew cabin of a C-130, in 110 degree desert heat...flying with the back door open
a lot of the time so no AC turned on.

Ripe.

 

You win. Although when a crew member in a two-seater says "howdy," you better be prepared.

 

So I guess this means that Cherry Blossom scent isn't a legitimate reason to keep women from combat?

I'm not gonna lie though, coming back to the big FOB with girlies running around after smelling nothing but sweaty ballsack and raw lamb for weeks was nice. You could smell them from 100 feet away.