Bill aims to bar Women from ground combat


Recommended Posts

Fact is is that the military is easy to get into, the Army has the lowest qualifications when it comes down to the ASVAB, basic training errs on the side of passing you and makes the burden of weeding people out the units responsibility.  Which means people that shouldn't be deployable do infact become deployable and considering that you don't go to war on your time people that shouldn't go, go.

585945473[/snapback]

I don't understand this concept. If you're hurting for people, you're going to take them. If they are completely useless to you, they shouldn't be brought on in the first place, and i mean that for both sexes.

If you have the choice of going to war with ten great soldiers or going to war with ten great soldiers plus five less-than-great ones (female or otherwise), which option are you going to go with? If it's the first option, you can't really blame that on women. Men can be just as useless in the military as women can. If they are, they should be turned away just as quickly as a useless woman would be. If it's the other option... there you go.

It sounds like maybe this is a problem with the army itself rather than a problem with the concept of accepting qualified women for the job.

And I'm suprised you didn't argue any of my other points on the last page, as I think they are just as valid.

585945473[/snapback]

(Assuming you're still talking to me....) I didn't argue with any of the other points because i thought they were more valid, not 'just as' valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this concept. If you're hurting for people, you're going to take them. If they are completely useless to you, they shouldn't be brought on in the first place, and i mean that for both sexes.

If you have the choice of going to war with ten great soldiers or going to war with ten great soldiers plus five less-than-great ones (female or otherwise), which option are you going to go with? If it's the first option, you can't really blame that on women. Men can be just as useless in the military as women can. If they are, they should be turned away just as quickly as a useless woman would be. If it's the other option... there you go.

585945667[/snapback]

Men can be just as great or just as useless as women I agree. The problem is, is that if women were allowed to do combat MOS'es the recruitment numbers still wouldn't actually go up. The women that want to join the military but can't do combat still sign up, they just get a different job. if they were allowed to join as infantry the amount of people who actually arrive at a single given unit would still stay the same you'd just have more woemn in it than men(not as a whole because it will always be male dominated but as a ratio) so the ratio of useless soldiers would go up for each unit.

Now this IS ultimately an Army issue not a female issue, but it stems from the facts that:

A: The Army needs people so they are quick to allow you to join.

B: The Army offers job guarantees as a recruitment incentive, not based on actual abilities but desire. Infantry happens to have probably the lowest requirements there are to actually get it guaranteed.

C: Training units have to graduate a certain amount to look good so they pass a certain amount of people.

D: The recieving unit needs a certain amount of people to be considered combat effective so they have to take you until they get a chance to get you out.

So if women were allowed to join it would mean an increase in deadweight soldiers that have to be booted out by the unit. Once they get to the unit it will be that much harder to boot a useless woman out compared to a man because of the sexual harrassment issue, which believe me gets more erroneousely used than you think, which will result in a bunch of CO's afraid to even touch the female soldiers in regards to performance resulting in them staying in the unit longer than a deadweight male. At the same time, the womans peers, fellow soldiers of the same rank, will have a harder time "pushing" the woman to actually perform because of the same issue. At least with another male you can basically use verbal and physical reinforcement to attempt to get that person in line, you simply can't get away with that with a female.

Further men in the military are freaking strange when it comes to morale, I don't know how many people here have actually been in an infantry unit but we are some sick people when you get us all together. Class, rationalism, civility all go out the window in alot of situations, **** we sexually harrass each other every freaking day. It truly is an environment ripe for sexual harrassment cases, but with the sexual harrassment rules they way they are, you would basically have to destroy a way of life for 130 people in the unit to accomadate 10 or 15 women.

Now is this not fair to those women who do want to live and work by the same rules as the guys? No it's not, but they are in the minority of thier sex, and they're paying for the majority. The Army has a job to do, and unlike corporate america when they mess up people can die, concessions can't be made based on what's right or wrong, but what will work or not work.

It sounds like maybe this is a problem with the army itself rather than a problem with the concept of accepting qualified women for the job.

(Assuming you're still talking to me....) I didn't argue with any of the other points because i thought they were more valid, not 'just as' valid.

585945667[/snapback]

I don't really think they were more valid, I think they all add up to make a total package. Reality has a much more important role in the military than idealism.

the only way to fix this and be "fair" to women is get rid of the guaranteed MOS, and have people jobs chosen for them during initial training. Initial training would have to be completely retooled to allow people of each MOS to see each candidate performing duties related to every job and judging them on performance, so that selections can be made. Boot camp would have to be lengthened from 8 weeks to somewhere around a year to accomodate all the different skills that would be taught and then tested. More money would be spent on each soldier before they even get to thier unit then it costs to pay them thier whole term today and would lead to a huge budget.

Further, this would kill our numbers, a large part of the military's appeal is that you can get whatever job you want. If you want to learn a skill that will earn you cash when you get out you can, if you want to jump out of planes you can, if you want a cushy job just to serve just to pay for college you can. Once you take away that guarantee, once everyone has the chance to be chosen as a cook, mechanic, or infantry, when they really want x-ray technician, satelite communications instead, or UAV pilot, the numbers will hit rock bottom. We would have to institute mandatory service just to remain combat effective, and it would completely undermine the Americans right to choose thier future.

My 2 cents. I think if ANYTHING were possible the only feasable concession we could possibly make concerning combat and women is specialized units like Delta Force or the Navy Seals, but they sure as hell would never do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. If women shouldn't be soldiers then shouldn't they not also be police officers and firefighters for the same reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it.  If women shouldn't be soldiers then shouldn't they not also be police officers and firefighters for the same reason?

585946250[/snapback]

I didn't know cops walked to all thier destinations carrying a 75 pound(on an easy day) ruck sack and a 15 pound gun, had to **** and **** outside infront of everyone, go several days without food, and who knows how many days without proper hygene. Being a cop sounds pretty tuff nowadays.

As for firemen, how many women do you think it'd take to get a unconciouse full grown man out of a burning building? 2. One to nag him to death and the other to listen! Ok that was bad but really?

Those are two totally different jobs, that just happen to have the element of danger in them. I never said that women shouldn't do dangerouse jobs, I just don't think they should be in the infantry on the front lines. They already are to an extent allowed in combat, you can have female pilots, female drivers, they pull thier own weight in security for thier unit. Don't forget that all support units in the military are called support because they provide support for the infantry, by thier very nature any of them could wind up in combat, it should just be kept to a minimum, and not in the actual infantry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why make this a gender issue? Just don't allow incapable recruits on the front line, male or female. If a female can show that she is physically fit enough for the front lines, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how you cut off the part where I said 'many (or most)'. Hey - I can't blame ya - I can see how it's convenient to manipulate what I say to make me the 'bad guy' here.  :rofl:

I'd like to hear one solid argument which suggests men and women are physically equal.  :rolleyes:

As Martin Binkin says "Size, muscle and bone mass, fat distribution, joints, heart and lung size, oxygen content and uptake, hemoglobin content, body temperature, and sweat-gland functions all favor men". Sorry, it's really not very controversial.

585945013[/snapback]

You really don't get it, do you?

Let's say most women aren't physically capable of performing the functions necessary for combat. Well guess what? Neither are most men. The men that can perform these tasks are highly trained to do so.

If a woman is capable, why prevent her from participating? Because most other women wouldn't be able to do the same thing? That's ridiculous.

You're all taking generalizations about men and women as a species and trying to apply them to the specific individuals who want to fight in the armed forces. Obviously these people are not your average joes, so why are we applying the same generalizations to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really don't get it, do you?

Let's say most women aren't physically capable of performing the functions necessary for combat.  Well guess what?  Neither are most men.  The men that can perform these tasks are highly trained to do so.

If a woman is capable, why prevent her from participating?  Because most other women wouldn't be able to do the same thing?  That's ridiculous.

You're all taking generalizations about men and women as a species and trying to apply them to the specific individuals who want to fight in the armed forces.  Obviously these people are not your average joes, so why are we applying the same generalizations to them?

585947357[/snapback]

why dont u scroll up and read macodin's post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this send the wrong message? Men and women are equal except when the security of the nation is involved (then they take a lessor role).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this send the wrong message?  Men and women are equal except when the security of the nation is involved (then they take a lessor role).

585947790[/snapback]

The military is no place for idealogical experiments. We can't put military effectiveness and morale on a back-burner to a feminist and politically-correct agenda. Look at the Army's own description of this policy - you'll find it requires that in battle conditions, female troops in these brigade units must be "evacuated". This certainly only serves to weaken the capacity of our troops.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The military is no place for idealogical experiments. We can't put military effectiveness and morale on a back-burner to a feminist and politically-correct agenda. Look at the Army's own description of this policy - you'll find it requires that in battle conditions, female troops in these brigade units must be "evacuated". This certainly only serves to weaken the capacity of our troops.

585947899[/snapback]

women may (i'm not accepting that it's true, but i'm not denying it unless i see evidence either way) be less capable (in terms of combat) on average, but i'm sure there are some women who are at least as capable as the next guy. it makes no sense to relegate them to back-office chores by virtue of their gender alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this send the wrong message?  Men and women are equal except when the security of the nation is involved (then they take a lessor role).

585947790[/snapback]

Who says it's a lesser role? Do you think we would be half as effective without food, transportation, medical services, or logistics? Do you really think the infantry could do it all alone? The women are just as important as the men, support is just as important as the infantry. You could have an entire division of the baddest ass modern Spartan warrior super soldiers and if you can't get them food, water, ammo, and to the fight they are useless hungry, thirsty, worn down, hacks.

The only reason you think they're delegated to a lesser position is because you're buying into the cultural stereotype that fighting is some kind of glory event, and it's not. Everyone has jobs to do, hell a good Chaplin could make or break a unit, everyone does thier part and everyone is just as important, society, and seemingly you as well, just don't accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of other jobs women can do during war. Why risk putting them on the front line?

585948265[/snapback]

why should we stop them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why should we stop them?

585948290[/snapback]

... because it's a risk not worth taking when there are plenty of other things they can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... because it's a risk not worth taking when there are plenty of other things they can do.

585948316[/snapback]

but, for any arbitrary and qualified member, regardless of gender, it makes sense for them to fight. we could replace a man (with higher risk) with a woman (with lower risk) and improve everything. clearly there a plenty of other things a man could do as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same argument against women in combat, were used against blacks. Blacks, blacks aren't physically capable, they are distracting, where will they live and eat, etc. The US isn't the most progressive nation in the world, it needs time to mature mentally. Until then, these issues need to be discussed, to chip away at ignorance. Eventually, all of the barriers that prevent people other than white males from succeding the the US will be torn down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as long as the other side continues to consider us ignorant we'll probably never come around. :)

I don't see one person actually arguing any of the true reasons against this, I only see the philisophical and idealistic arguments against it. Not one person for women in ground combat has actually been able to actually argue against the actual real reasons they're not allowed to participate and I think that about sums up your entire argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as long as the other side continues to consider us ignorant we'll probably never come around.  :)

I don't see one person actually arguing any of the true reasons against this, I only see the philisophical and idealistic arguments against it.  Not one person for women in ground combat has actually been able to actually argue against the actual real reasons they're not allowed to participate and I think that about sums up your entire argument.

585948377[/snapback]

:huh: what are the actual reasons? i'll refute them right now. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read these two previous posts by opaul and macodin. if you can actaully refute their truth... then please tell.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...ost&p=585945032

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry585945749

585948533[/snapback]

So what if only 3.4% of women qualify to the same standards as the men. Why write a rule that says that even the small minority of women, who would otherwise qualify, cannot serve?

Here you have a sex-based law that legally enshrines discrimination. It is a really bad precident to set (or return to). It is similar to laws that limited the choices of blacks or other minorities in years gone by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if only 3.4% of women qualify to the same standards as the men.? Why write a rule that says that even the small minority of women, who would otherwise qualify, cannot serve?

Here you have a sex-based law that legally enshrines discrimination.? It is a really bad precident to set (or return to).? It is similar to laws that limited the choices of blacks or other minorities in years gone by.

585948624[/snapback]

"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male mediaThe average 20-to-30 year-old woman /b>has tsame /b>aerobic capacias a 50 year-old man/b>."

From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. ?Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:

"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

"?21 women out of the initial 623 3 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to themean score e of 260.

"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would70 percent of the womenen he studied would be separatfailures s at the end of junior r year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badgenot one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badgege?."

Men can be just as great or just as useless as women I agree.  The problem is, is that if women were allowed to do combat MOS'es the recruitment numbers still wouldn't actually go up.  The women that want to join the military but can't do combat still sign up, they just get a different job.  if they were allowed to join as infantry the amount of people who actually arrive at a single given unit would still stay the same you'd just have more woemn in it than men(not as a whole because it will always be male dominated but as a ratio) so the ratio of useless soldiers would go up for each unit.

Now this IS ultimately an Army issue not a female issue, but it stems from the facts that:

A: The Army needs people so they are quick to allow you to join.

B: The Army offers job guarantees as a recruitment incentive, not based on actual abilities but desire.  Infantry happens to have probably the lowest requirements there are to actually get it guaranteed.

C: Training units have to graduate a certain amount to look good so they pass a certain amount of people.

D: The recieving unit needs a certain amount of people to be considered combat effective so they have to take you until they get a chance to get you out.

So if women were allowed to join it would mean an increase in deadweight soldiers that have to be booted out by the unit.  Once they get to the unit it will be that much harder to boot a useless woman out compared to a man because of the sexual harrassment issue, which believe me gets more erroneousely used than you think, which will result in a bunch of CO's afraid to even touch the female soldiers in regards to performance resulting in them staying in the unit longer than a deadweight male.  At the same time, the womans peers, fellow soldiers of the same rank, will have a harder time "pushing" the woman to actually perform because of the same issue.  At least with another male you can basically use verbal and physical reinforcement to attempt to get that person in line, you simply can't get away with that with a female.

Further men in the military are freaking strange when it comes to morale, I don't know how many people here have actually been in an infantry unit but we are some sick people when you get us all together.  Class, rationalism, civility all go out the window in alot of situations, **** we sexually harrass each other every freaking day.  It truly is an environment ripe for sexual harrassment cases, but with the sexual harrassment rules they way they are, you would basically have to destroy a way of life for 130 people in the unit to accomadate 10 or 15 women.

Now is this not fair to those women who do want to live and work by the same rules as the guys?  No it's not, but they are in the minority of thier sex, and they're paying for the majority.  The Army has a job to do, and unlike corporate america when they mess up people can die, concessions can't be made based on what's right or wrong, but what will work or not work.

I don't really think they were more valid, I think they all add up to make a total package.  Reality has a much more important role in the military than idealism.

the only way to fix this and be "fair" to women is get rid of the guaranteed MOS, and have people jobs chosen for them during initial training.  Initial training would have to be completely retooled to allow people of each MOS to see each candidate performing duties related to every job and judging them on performance, so that selections can be made.  Boot camp would have to be lengthened from 8 weeks to somewhere around a year to accomodate all the different skills that would be taught and then tested.  More money would be spent on each soldier before they even get to thier unit then it costs to pay them thier whole term today and would lead to a huge budget. 

Further, this would kill our numbers, a large part of the military's appeal is that you can get whatever job you want.  If you want to learn a skill that will earn you cash when you get out you can, if you want to jump out of planes you can, if you want a cushy job just to serve just to pay for college you can.  Once you take away that guarantee, once everyone has the chance to be chosen as a cook, mechanic, or infantry, when they really want x-ray technician, satelite communications instead, or UAV pilot, the numbers will hit rock bottom.  We would have to institute mandatory service just to remain combat effective, and it would completely undermine the Americans right to choose thier future. 

My 2 cents.  I think if ANYTHING were possible the only feasable concession we could possibly make concerning combat and women is specialized units like Delta Force or the Navy Seals, but they sure as hell would never do it.

585945749[/snapback]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of people quoting Army studies, let me quote one:

Ten Times Wrong Shortly after the end of World War I, the War Department asked the Army War College to study the possible military role of blacks, with an eye to expanding their participation in the combat arms. Between 1924 and 1939, the Army War College investigated the underemployment of blacks on ten separate occasions. Each time, racism kept the students and faculty from reaching rational, fair-minded conclusions. It seems inane now, but these studies asserted that blacks possessed brains significantly smaller than those of white troops and were predisposed to lack physical courage. The reports maintained that the Army should increase opportunities for blacks to help meet manpower requirements but claimed that they should always be commanded by whites and should always serve in segregated units. The Air Corps at that time did not employ blacks in any role. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 directed the Air Corps to build an all-black flying unit. The presidential order propelled the air organization to create the 99th Pursuit Squadron. To develop the required pilot force, the Air Corps opened a new training base in central Alabama, near Tuskegee.

http://www.americanairpowermuseum.com/htm/...ee_airforce.htm

The military can make a study say anything they want it to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."

"? Only21 women out of the initial 623> (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean70 percent of the women> he studied would be separated asfailures >at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, andnot one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge>?."

585949184[/snapback]

I read all that and dismissed it. If you would like me to dot the i's and cross the t's for you, I will.

First paragraph. Keyword: average. Clearly 30% of women have better aerobic capacity than a 50 year old man. Some, therefore would like have the same aerobic capacity as a 40 year man. A small percentage would have the same aerobic capacity as a 35 year old man. Stop me whenever we reach an age that a man would still be eligible for combat.

Second paragraph. I already quoted the 3.4% statistic. Therefore I clearly read the highlighted sentance, assumed it to be fact and incorporated it into my previous argument.

Third paragraph. 30% of women would survive their junior year. 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge. I don't know if a man who received the Recondo badge would be eligible for combat. Perhaps you can correct me.

Last point. Not one (of that sample of 623 women) would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge. This is all the more reason not to create a discriminatory law. Apparently there is no need for it. This is on the assumption that receiving the Army Physical Fitness badge is a prerequisite for combat duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.