Women in Combat? Yes. Sex integrate units? No.

So now not only do you know wonderwoman your daughter is black widow from the avengers.
Dude you are hilarious. You really need to write this nonsense down and get it published as some sort of military fantasy.

The fact that you say some of your family was in SOF and some in black ops is all the proof anyone who knows anything about the military needs to hear to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just making crap up.

Why you think anyone would believe such silliness is beyond me. Tell me are you always this dishonest.

 

Whether they are locked or not had nothing to do with what you or I posted. That is just your trying to again divert from you goofed up in your constantly trying to find ways to use military jargon.

It is a certainty that neither you nor I will ever be in any military decision making. NOTHING you have posted has ever indicated any knowledge of "warfare" whatsoever. In fact, it is a topic you steadfastly refused to discuss. You made a declaration about rucksacks and mountains, and that is the beginning and ending of anything you had to say. It still is. A one-liner - about yourself - nothing else.

So, then, are rock climbing and mountain climbing time-off hobbies of yours? Two military I know, one in and one out, do so. You?

Conversely, were you wounded in some permanent injury way as to your stubbornness in claiming what you did is the all of everything of combat and the military?

 

Haha whatever you say man. You're the expert. I'm done being trolled.

 

You clearly have no idea what basic training is like or about.
There is virtually no sorting that goes on in basic training as no SOF unit cares about some brand new private with zero experience or knowledge. No tier one unit is recruiting people from basic. You have no idea dead you are talking about.

 

Correction, one of those no longer does so due to military related injury and instructed to discontinue doing so as a fall could have particularly catastrophic consequences.

Only one of us has claimed expertise - and that is you.

Since you wish to close down our interaction, my last comment if you stick to bailing out is that on no occasion, ever, have you posted even one message that was on the actual topic of this thread - not that I recall anyway. The topic is sex integrated combat units or sex segregated units? Since women are in combat roles, that is a topic about reality. You just wanted to post your opposition to current military practice in regards to women in uniform instead of discussing the topic.

That means of the two of us, I'm not the troll. I also am not the one constantly quoting the other, but ignoring what is quoted - to instead calling the other a fake and essentially a liar over and over and over - that's been you too - ie "trolling."

The topic of this thread - THIS thread - is still open to you or anyone. I do not think most combat units should be sex integrated, but rather sex segregated into specializations. There are some aspects of combat that women are equally or particularly suited for.

 

Well some in my family were in Beige Ops. The palette was hard core!

 

Is that conclusion of yours based off that vast experience you have with of the military.

You are a clown.

 

Sports teams are not sex integrated. So why is the military?

 

That I can believe.

It is your right to hate on those who served in the military or those who did anything while they did.

So far, only one person posting on this thread has stated they ever saw combat, and none with any mention of actually being in a firefight nor ever inflicted any casualties on the enemy. It shows in their messages and in their perspectives.

 

delete

 

I've guessed correctly about a possible cause of most of the responses to this thread, learning something I did not know about the US military, the Army and the infantry.

I've raised numerous topics:
1. Historically, for thousands of years, women have been in combat roles in the military.
2. Historically, almost without exception, men and women were segregated into separate units.
3. Technology and intelligent personnel are increasingly needed by the military and millions more women enroll in universities than do men, gives reason to want to recruit women.
4. Both civilian and military command has decided to bring women into combat roles in the US military for which anyone in the military should support such policies as their duty - and those who claim to support the US military should do the same.

It is clear those are all topics just too complicated to attempt to discuss for most those who claim service in the Army to discuss. Instead, they just chant "rucksacks! Mountains! Tank tracks are heavy. Women have smaller bones..." and increasingly just trolling because such topics apparently are just too hard to think about. And to deny anything outside their personal experiences can possibly even exist - that also just too hard to think of. The refusal to even discuss such topics - and then trying to divert from it with repetitious simplistic insults reached an extreme level. Notably so.

That got me wondering: "I bet the Army has extremely low minimal IQ required to enlist." I didn't know the answer other than most responses on this thread seemed to make it clear if there is, it is very low. I was correct in that calculation.

The military used to require an IQ of 85 to join the Army. The Army wanted to reduce it to 80, but the mental health field urged against it. So, in response, the military eliminated having any minimal IQ standard at all. A person can have an IQ of 70 - the level of the average 3rd grader and considered mentally handicapped as an adult - and be fully welcomed to join the Army and into the infantry. If they can learn to follow simple orders, dress correctly, development minimal shooting skills, will do what they are told to do, and prove that have a strong-back, that's good enough. In this, their pride is in that strong-back physical ability and insistent that nothing else matters. I suppose everyone needs something about themselves to be proud of, something that makes them valuable.

That fact then could explain why the non-stop insistence that intelligence is totally irrelevant and just repeating "rucksacks! Mountains!" and insistence that brain power is absolutely irrelevant and only physical power matters. To be unable to do anything but repeat the claim that ideal Infantry is "weak mind - strong back" - and then in frustration just troll simplistic insults - and even at that to have to copy each other.

Yet I suppose there is usage of 'weak mind - strong back" men in the military. I suspect they are often who are least supported and most often put into sacrificial or high casualty roles. I am confident many can be ingrained with simple skills and extreme loyalty in basic training for which the military takes a stern authoritarian parental role as to how best deal with low-brain/strong-back men. For such service members since their pride can only be in their strength that has to be constantly stroked. Like with Down Syndrome people, if pushed beyond their mental ability they can become extremely belligerent and frustrated.

A person's IQ really isn't the true measure of a person and there are reasons to respect low IQ people - that being entirely out of their control - for still trying to make something of their life particularly if this is in military service. Maybe even a bit more because accomplishing things can be much harder for them.

With that, thank you for your service to our country. You deserve our sincerely gratitude and appreciation.

 

I did not realize this is an apples - oranges mix in attempting to debate topics.

"Gi Jane, the Wonderwoman" (not a GI) really is by many measures. There are high intelligence people who do join the military. Nor all all thick glasses, pencil thin muscles geeks.

She had been published and lectured on scientific topics Internationally, won multiple science fairs in different categories, had done protocol studies on corporate grants, and of a top flight private science and technology university, though also quite physically fit.

The Marine I've written of did one stint, then went on to a masters degree in engineering, now in the the defense industry. He had been a state wrestling champ.

Another fellow was Valedictorian of his class, a champion in athletics as well.

Three examples. They each had their reasons to join up, each for different reasons mostly, but also one common reason. A person - if really smart and will put out the effort - can gain college credits much faster in the military. It is possible to, within 6 years, to have two or three 4 year degrees and a masters degree. Thus, they joined to meet their personal goals in the military, add military service to their resume - which can come in handy for some private or public sector careers, while gaining undergrad degrees easier and faster at the same time.

A guy goes to enlist. He was a B- student in high school. Didn't accomplish much. Was in athletics maybe. Doesn't really like school or study. But he's in good physical shape. One of those 3 I mention also goes to enlist. Which of those two does the military latch onto? Which one of those is going to excel - and rapidly? Which one will the military pay special attention to? Which will end up in high importance roles?

Sorry, but I've been posting from a very different perspectives than that of typical 11Bs and such. I do also know some people of more typical military service histories, but candidly there's not much to tell of those that are particularly interesting. An older fella we know claims he was shot down 4 times in Vietnam - and said he still re-enlisted for the extra pay. I guess that's interesting. Generally, Vietnam Vets have very different stories from those now in or were in the more recent ME wars and missions.

 

Is that why black men are so prevalent in SOF.

 

Follow up... My messages above are not claiming others on this thread are low IQ. Rather, that the mindset and training, the ingraining, within various elements of the Army and military by necessity may be designed upon the lowest intelligence denominator - with such standards ingrained as the truism of those units. Just like someone with a PhD could find themselves working a very physical job in a warehouse, even an intelligent person could be taught that physical abilities - not their intelligence - that matters and as I noted a person can be both highly intelligent and physically capable. Thus, that PhD working in a warehouse might insist that it is only strength - not intelligence - that matters for his warehouse job. Equally, even a highly intelligent person of weak-mind/strong-back areas of service such as Infantry may accept that physical strength is the only measure standard that matters.

Maybe there is merit in that view. Maybe it best Infantry in general not be too intelligent and rather be personalities whose personal measure is their physical strength instead. Highly intelligent people might more question high risk or otherwise question the wisdom of orders that low intelligence people might accept without questioning it. I have never really thought of it in that context. If so, my perspective could be wrong. Maybe so roles such as infantry really should only be measured on physical strength and high intelligence even undesirable in some regards.

The military then may along the way spot more intelligent people within such low-intelligence standard roles to offer them other positions, promotions or to pursue an officer's role. Candidly, I don't really haven't had extensive discussions with Infantrymen. I know a deputy sheriff who was a Ranger and he certainly is a smart guy. But never really discussed his military service experiences with him and instead just told him (rightly) his having been in the Rangers is very impressive.

 

Things I know after reading this and a few other similar topic threads.

1 Jake has a very active imagination.

2. He has no idea about anything military related.

3. He also had no problems straight up lying about things and making up BS stories if he thinks it will help him push his cause.

4. He is so clueless about anything military that he simply can't understand just how ridiculous his made up stories of wonderwoman and black widow make him look and how No one who had spent day in the military would believe his BS.

5. He watched 1 to many 80s cheesy action movies and thinks those represent actual combat.

So can you Jake quote any one in this thread claiming or even hinting at intelligence is irrelevant.
We both know you can't. We also both know you don't have the integrity to admit you just made that crap up. But let's see you try.

 

Simply because you continue to repeat your little made up BS stories does not make them any more believable.
The fact that you have to resort to lies prices just how weak you argument is.

 

I'm not sure you are the person to make that determination. In post after post, you're like a guy who plays Call of Duty occasionally criticizing professional soldiers.

 

Per you logic, unless you have held political office you have no knowledge to post anything about politicians or what they do on this forum and accordingly should stop posting any messages about any public official, elected official or what they do.

I do understand the intense opposition of some on this thread such as you have towards a civilian controlled military. But, dislike it as much as you may do, our military is civilian controlled. Accordingly, my voice is exactly as relevant as yours or any other American - regardless of whether you like it or not. If it upsets men who want the military board reserved from them to stroke themselves and each other, while trashing women that is their bad luck. I have more at stake than any ex-military because I have a kid in the military. It is that simple. I have the same voice and more reason to express it.

Obviously I have knowledge of what people have and have not posted. Therefore, I can make a determination of what people have and have not posted, meaning your repeating others with the same generic non-response response was not responsive in any way to the message that you quoted.

These threads are causing me to rethink a few things. While I know some people who were or are what I call "grunts," I haven't had extensive conversations with them and instead just more summary short conversations. The ones of extensive conversation tend to be the brainy types. They do not stay at the bottom long - though the military makes them go thru it like everyone else. They then are picked out quickly for more significant roles/position or moved into highly specialized areas. Thus, most of what I post is out of norms to the experience of others.

Given the size and diversity of the military, it is likely a necessity to have standards set upon minimal standards to the lowest acceptable level per the tasks involved. In this must be a great deal of compromising and set to the lowest acceptable denomination. Where there are very large numbers in new, entry level roles - such as infantry with short training periods and high turn over rates - this would seem particularly necessary. It also would be necessary to foster and develop the skills of such people put into those roles. Thus, for infantry enlistees there will be people with IQs ranging from 83 to 150+. The standard would have to be set to cover the 83 IQers. A person can be worked and trained to be stronger. There is a much lower level by which a person can be worked and trained to be more intelligent, though can be forced to do more memorization to some degree. A 3rd grade intellect still can memorize quite a bit, though will have no logic and analytical ability to apply to what has been memorized. This is likely why basic training is like teaching adult 3rd graders - barking out simple commands - very simplistic and mostly memorization by repetition.

Having a diversity of intelligence level among men could be problematical. Even more so if women are added to that mix. How well could an 83 IQ male and 150 IQ female work cohesively, particularly if the 83 IQ male is an stagnated in promotions E4 and the 150 IQ female a newbie E2? The male could get very frustrated at the female always trying to find ways to correct him. The female could tire of the male's simpleton perspectives.

The low IQ E4 male also seeing the female as inferior by rucksack measurement, and the high IQ female E2 seeing the male as stupid. Imagine the sense of injustice when the weaker E2 has rapidly become an E5 or made an officer - and the male is still an E4? This could be a problem in many ways, particularly in combat.

In short, I could be wrong in that "strong back, running up mountains with 80 lb rucksacks" might be a necessary measurement for an 80 lb rucksack running up mountains unit. Trying to intermix 50 lb rucksackers - male or female - into that and where IQs could be very low to very high, might not work well. Adding inherent sex differences might put the complexity too far - and I suspect it does.

Of course, there is nothing magical about 40, 50, 60, 80, 100, 120 pound rucksacks. Rather, it is a calculation of what can be done. This, again, supports sex segregation of units.

Women in the military is no minor matter. There are over 200,000 - from generals and admirals, to specialists and E1s. Despite women being formally barred from combat generally, thousands in fact are in fire fights and the number of female casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan is nearly 1000. By casualties I use the historic definition of being KIA or wounded to the extent of no longer combat capable, not just KIA. The percentage of the military that is female will likely continue to grow due to more women enrolling in college, more women who want to be professionals, a continued decline in job opportunities for high school graduates and feminism.

What is curious is the fury at me in this thread about women in combat roles, when my view is that sex integration into combat units often seems a bad idea - including as noted the differences in physical abilities and other inherent differences. I do not dispute the physical differences. Where I differ is with Infantry men who claim women are 100% absolutely worthless in ground combat because they are not men, where I know both historically and in fact women have been highly effective in combat and warfare. Since both civilian and military command agree with me, I'm not the odd-one-out in my opinion.

As for others I know in the military seemingly of unbelievable service activities, it is fairly common for people to not believe anything they don't know and never will could exist at all. Imagining other realities and anything but absolute black-and-white is difficult for some people, particularly lower IQ people. That creates frustration and throwing up defensive diversions and personal attacks on just about any topic.

So I could just keep throwing the attacks against me back at you. What do YOU know about professionals in the military who are or were other than enlisted and low ranking officers - since you were never in such a role nor has anyone else on this thread? Any knowledge you have is exactly as hearsay knowledge as what I post. You or others tossing military jardon into this does not equate to knowledge. Rather, it demonstrates they were ingrained in ways of thought and speech the way elementary school children are - which goes back to the most recent of my messages.

 

BTW, combat forces in the Marines, Navy and Air Force are not "soldiers." I would think you'd know that if you actually had any military background - or think about what you post.

 

No one is furious at you for your views. People just don't like your lying and making up unbelievable fairytales and trying to pass them off as facts.

 

You continue to have nothing to say in your responses to quoting me or this thread. Whether you believe a word I post or not does not matter. The topic and issues of it still remain:

Fact: The American civilian and military authorities have already decided that women WILL be put into combat roles - whatever it takes to do so including lowering standards.

THEREFORE: In your opinion, what is the BEST way to carry out such ORDERS and POLICY DICTATES? In my opinion, for the most part male and female units should be segregated into all male and all female units.

HISTORICALLY combat men and women in separate units, classifications and squads is correct across thousands of years (mostly Asian), has worked historically (Russia/WW2), and would lessen the range of capabilities within each unit. It also would end most accusations of discrimination, sexism and assaults. This could be done at the squad size within the same classifications or have entirely separate classifications for male and female units.

Rather than sprinkling them across the Infantry and Marines - thus potentially the weak link in each - put them into their own squads etc. IF a task comes up the female squad is not suited for, don't use them. Otherwise do.

Given REALITY, which way do you think it best done - since it IS happening. Men and women in the same squad, unit and classification? Or not?

A yes or no is sufficient, but your reasoning might be worthwhile and persuasive. I am open to having my mind changed and - as I have now often stated - I have been convinced by messages and evidence presented on these threads that there are inherent differences in abilities between men and women and see other problems having them in the same infantry, Marines or other ground combat squads or units. Great discrepancy can reduce effectiveness to the lowest performer.

 

And here again shows why you having zero military knowledge means your opinion is worth noting.
So we recruit, train and equip these female infantry squads. Do you have any evidence that there are even women who are both interested and physically capable of being infantry to make this a worthwhile option.

Where are there squad leaders coming from. Where did they get there experience from. Is the platoon SGT in charge of that squad going to be a male infantry guy. What about that squads company leadership. Where do they come from.

What is to keep the female members of that squad from claiming discrimination from their higher command.

Do we deploy this female squad with the rest of their company when they go to Afghanistan. Or do they just sit out the war soaking up resources that could be better spent going to the people actually fighting.
If their company is doing patrols through the mountains does that squad just sit on the FOB doing nothing. Will the female members of that squad claim discrimination when some of the male members of the other squads in the platoon get promoted faster due to their combat experiences fighting on the mountains of Afghanistan.

The fact that you think this is a good idea shows how little you know of the actual militar. Your better off just writing your military fantasies of wonderwoman and black widow.

 

Obviously you have no interest in any discussion having anything to do with actual current reality within the military and just want to worthlessly rant.

Besides, since you don't know women are already in Afghanistan and in combat units - nor know that women hold rank from the bottom to general and admiral - you are the one who has no clue what you are talking about and in a non-existent fantasyland. If there was a real discussion within military command you were in, within two sentences you would be told to leave the room. Your messages are those of a are a no-can-do person.

Given a mission, your response would "can't be done" and then rant (privately) about the officers. Malcontent whiner forever-a-grunt messages - or angry old arm chair warrior.

 

The Air Force's policy in basic training is that all Airmen are trained in basic defensive combat, no longer willing to rely upon the Army.

Historically, men are better at offense, but women better at defense. There is an evolved basis for those traits and distinction of the two sexes.

Would the men cry "discrimination!" if they were sent running up mountains with 80 lb rucksacks as female units held defensively positions for the base - as if being in the military has anything to do with fairness?

BTW, military personnel in the Air Force are called "Airmen," not "soldiers." They might not teach that in the Infantry. There is just SOOOO much to learn in such a short time and it can be really hard to learn it all for some.

 

Yawn...this has nothing to do with "hearsay." The issue has been studied extensively, and the studies have been linked in this and other threads. You may not like the data, but it's still there.