G.I. Jane...
- Thread starter 280PLUS
- Start date
- Status
12-34hom
Member
God bless them all.
Just another example of why our Armed forces are the greatest.
Thanks for being there for your service to our country past & present vets!
12-34hom
Just another example of why our Armed forces are the greatest.
Thanks for being there for your service to our country past & present vets!
12-34hom
Devonai
Member
The answer is simple, and others have touched on it already. Make women do the exact same job as men, and if they pass, they serve. I don't see why it needs to be more complicated than that.
As for women creating undue distractions and the resulting pregnancy; it's a issue of discipline. Discipline problems of any kind must be addressed early and often, and certain punishment must result for any breach thereof. If SSG Soandso gets some PFC in the S4 shop pregnant, they should both face disciplinary action.
By the way: http://www.hooah4health.com/4You/apft.htm
Just eliminate the different standards for females in the above link, and you're done.
As for women creating undue distractions and the resulting pregnancy; it's a issue of discipline. Discipline problems of any kind must be addressed early and often, and certain punishment must result for any breach thereof. If SSG Soandso gets some PFC in the S4 shop pregnant, they should both face disciplinary action.
By the way: http://www.hooah4health.com/4You/apft.htm
Just eliminate the different standards for females in the above link, and you're done.
Lone_Gunman
Member
No, its an issue of human nature.
You put men and women in an enclosed situation for very long, someone's going to get pregnant.
dustind
Member
I would imagine that if lots of women would be raped, men would be too. Most likely by strait guys using improvised devices like toilet plunger handles and such.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Yea, I agree you are imagining.
Historically, there have been quite a few armies involved in raping the opposing side's women after the battle was over. The accounts I have read don't usually mention men being raped, they are usually just interrogated, tortured, and shot.
I am not necessarily opposed to women serving, as long as they can meet the same physical standards as men, but I am under no illusion that they will be treated the same as men if captured.
Zach S
Member
That reminds me of a line in (I think) Starship Troopers 2, which went something like "No wonder we're losing this war, everyone is too busy ****ing."
Glock-A-Roo
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2003
- Messages
- 57
Just a small note: I submit that a physically fit 135# man is going to be much stronger than a fit 135# woman. Pound for pound, men have a much higher ratio of muscle mass to body fat, even compared to trained women. I know skinny, wiry guys who weigh 150# who can bench press 250#; it's just a matter of PT. Men have a whole lot more potential than women to develop body strength.
Don't compare a 135# male trooper to a female one.
BTW Zach: love your sig line. That is so true for Asheville...
Don't compare a 135# male trooper to a female one.
BTW Zach: love your sig line. That is so true for Asheville...
MICHAEL T
Member
How would you like to be the terrorist that had to report his mission failed Because you got your butt kicked by not only National Guard troops but by the females in the unit. Remember Yanks don't mess with southern gals.
Most men aren't the uber-warriors we'd like to be, remember that in WW2 many men couldn't meet the basic physical qualifications to serve in combat units. So don't think I'm on a he-man rant.
The reality is that upper body strength is an enormous asset in ground combat and combat support, and women are at a severe disadvantage in this regard.
The current inclusion of women into roles that will see combat is a political consideration and not a military one. It reduces the effectiveness of these units which equals lives lost. Our policticians are more than happy to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers to make the military more job friendly for women. Remember it's not life or death it's a career!
The reality is that upper body strength is an enormous asset in ground combat and combat support, and women are at a severe disadvantage in this regard.
The current inclusion of women into roles that will see combat is a political consideration and not a military one. It reduces the effectiveness of these units which equals lives lost. Our policticians are more than happy to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers to make the military more job friendly for women. Remember it's not life or death it's a career!
richyoung
Member
Mark13 nails it!
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Wow, alot of objectively false information here.
"And women can be just as strong as men"
No, they can't. Anybody who has studied exercise physiology in passing knows that. Or just looked at women's powerlifting records, which tend to be fractions of the male ones. In fact, it ain't even close. At equal weight, women are lucky if they have 2/3 the upper body strength of a male. And the more both exercise, the bigger the gap gets.
Stress fractures and joint injuries are also much more prevalent among women when you try to get them to carry heavy loads over long distances.
"This is why the Marines have placed the same phyiscal standards on men and women."
As noted, objectively false. They don't have to do pull-ups at all, while men do, and a passing score on the 3-mile run is much slower for women than it is for men.
The Army is similar, a failing number of push-ups for a male in the physical fitness test would not only be passing for a female, but put a female on the way to getting a physical fitness badge.
Nobody who knows jack squat about infantry, armor or artillery operations would say something like that with a straight face. A 155mm artillery shell is 97 pounds. Light infantry and SF guys routinely march for miles with that kind of weight on their backs. Support pukes (like I was
) can get away with being weaklings, the people at the tip of the spear have no such luxury.
Women in the military are a great thing. They let the military hit its recruiting goals while maintaining a higher overall quality of personnel. In most respects they are smarter and less of a pain in the ass. They learn quicker, on average, and are less prone to random stupidity. But the military still has jobs that involve carrying heavy things over long distances. And since military is in the buisness of killing the goddamn enemy, not making ideological twits feel good, it has to take that into account.
"And women can be just as strong as men"
No, they can't. Anybody who has studied exercise physiology in passing knows that. Or just looked at women's powerlifting records, which tend to be fractions of the male ones. In fact, it ain't even close. At equal weight, women are lucky if they have 2/3 the upper body strength of a male. And the more both exercise, the bigger the gap gets.
Stress fractures and joint injuries are also much more prevalent among women when you try to get them to carry heavy loads over long distances.
"This is why the Marines have placed the same phyiscal standards on men and women."
As noted, objectively false. They don't have to do pull-ups at all, while men do, and a passing score on the 3-mile run is much slower for women than it is for men.
The Army is similar, a failing number of push-ups for a male in the physical fitness test would not only be passing for a female, but put a female on the way to getting a physical fitness badge.
Nobody who knows jack squat about infantry, armor or artillery operations would say something like that with a straight face. A 155mm artillery shell is 97 pounds. Light infantry and SF guys routinely march for miles with that kind of weight on their backs. Support pukes (like I was
) can get away with being weaklings, the people at the tip of the spear have no such luxury.Women in the military are a great thing. They let the military hit its recruiting goals while maintaining a higher overall quality of personnel. In most respects they are smarter and less of a pain in the ass. They learn quicker, on average, and are less prone to random stupidity. But the military still has jobs that involve carrying heavy things over long distances. And since military is in the buisness of killing the goddamn enemy, not making ideological twits feel good, it has to take that into account.
280PLUS
Member
I am of the opinion that keeping a cool head and performing well under fire is just as great an asset as physical prowess. Granted both assets are best when together in the same individual but if I had to choose one over the other to fight with I believe I'd pick cool under fire and hope I could measure up to the task myself. Those ladies deserve a lot of credit regardless of their strength to weight ratio or any other perceived physical limitations.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Sure, they deserve whatever credit they are entitled to for their actions.
But they aren't "perceived" physical limitations. You can measure them objectively. See how much weight they can pick up. See how far they can march with the weight on their back. Have men do the same thing, and quantify the difference between the two using 4th grade math.
The fact that women don't have the upper body strength of men doesn't mean they aren't wonderful people. It means they generally shouldn't be given dangerous jobs that require carrying heavy things over distances as a matter of course.
Lone_Gunman
Member
But you don't have to choose, you can have both. The point is, compromises are being made for political purposes.
280PLUS
Member
Ok,
I should have left out the word perceived. I thought about it but...
But the point I am trying to make with the article is more like our women are doing a great job over there and they deserve some recognition.
Whether anyone thinks they should be there or are physically incapable of performing the job is secondary the fact is they are there and doing the job well.
Incidentally, one of my kids was doing Tae Kwon Do tournaments for a while and I got to watch both boys and girls doing all out, full contact matches. The boys kind of seemed to hesitate and hang back sizing up each other and taking pokes.
THE GIRLS?
Head to head, toe to toe, tooth and nail. No fear, none. Almost without fail this held true. Major aggresiveness. Maybe because they think they've got something to prove? I don't know but it left an impression on me.
As a matter of fact, I foolishly worked as a "Doorman" at a bar in my younger days. We all agreed at the time that we'd rather step into the middle of two guys than two women.
So just don't sell them short is all I'm saying.
I should have left out the word perceived. I thought about it but...
But the point I am trying to make with the article is more like our women are doing a great job over there and they deserve some recognition.
Whether anyone thinks they should be there or are physically incapable of performing the job is secondary the fact is they are there and doing the job well.
Incidentally, one of my kids was doing Tae Kwon Do tournaments for a while and I got to watch both boys and girls doing all out, full contact matches. The boys kind of seemed to hesitate and hang back sizing up each other and taking pokes.
THE GIRLS?
Head to head, toe to toe, tooth and nail. No fear, none. Almost without fail this held true. Major aggresiveness. Maybe because they think they've got something to prove? I don't know but it left an impression on me.
As a matter of fact, I foolishly worked as a "Doorman" at a bar in my younger days. We all agreed at the time that we'd rather step into the middle of two guys than two women.
So just don't sell them short is all I'm saying.
thorn726
Member
that is pretty rude i think. as if women would not be trained as well as men, or a man who just entered service will be better than a woman who has been in service for years?
that statement really doesnt make any sense.
aside from that, i agree with the article, that perhaps segregated basic training, certain aspects , just to keep the sexual energy at a minimum.
outside of that i see no reason women cna't do everything men can do, and as far as the population thing, etc, sure, i would be for keeping women off the draft list, but its not like all that many women are signig up for combat anyway=
girl thinks she's bad enough to handle infantry=
i would believe her.
Devonai
Member
Granted, but so is falling asleep. Do so while you're on fire watch or guard duty, and you'll get written up under Article 15 of the UCMJ. There's a proper time for everything: sleep when it's your turn and copulate when you're on libo.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Devonai,
If the whole situation could be avoided though wouldnt that be best?
If you pull 2 people out of a unit for having sex, and punish them and relieve them of duty, doesn't that necessarily make the unit weaker overall?
If the whole situation could be avoided though wouldnt that be best?
If you pull 2 people out of a unit for having sex, and punish them and relieve them of duty, doesn't that necessarily make the unit weaker overall?
Quote:
The problem with women in combat comes on a larger scale when you are facing a trained army of your equals in protracted battle, not a firefight with an unsupported, disorganized squad of fighters. I think in the long run more women in combat = more dead men in combat.
that is pretty rude i think. as if women would not be trained as well as men, or a man who just entered service will be better than a woman who has been in service for years?
that statement really doesnt make any sense.
aside from that, i agree with the article, that perhaps segregated basic training, certain aspects , just to keep the sexual energy at a minimum.
outside of that i see no reason women cna't do everything men can do, and as far as the population thing, etc, sure, i would be for keeping women off the draft list, but its not like all that many women are signig up for combat anyway=
girl thinks she's bad enough to handle infantry=
i would believe her.
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not talking about training. From reading their posts, most of the posters here seem to know exactly what I'm talking about. Iraq is a terrible example of women in combat. Militarily, we are massively superior to our opponents there in every way.
The problem with women in combat comes on a larger scale when you are facing a trained army of your equals in protracted battle, not a firefight with an unsupported, disorganized squad of fighters. I think in the long run more women in combat = more dead men in combat.
that is pretty rude i think. as if women would not be trained as well as men, or a man who just entered service will be better than a woman who has been in service for years?
that statement really doesnt make any sense.
aside from that, i agree with the article, that perhaps segregated basic training, certain aspects , just to keep the sexual energy at a minimum.
outside of that i see no reason women cna't do everything men can do, and as far as the population thing, etc, sure, i would be for keeping women off the draft list, but its not like all that many women are signig up for combat anyway=
girl thinks she's bad enough to handle infantry=
i would believe her.
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not talking about training. From reading their posts, most of the posters here seem to know exactly what I'm talking about. Iraq is a terrible example of women in combat. Militarily, we are massively superior to our opponents there in every way.
CAPTAIN MIKE
Member
Yes I Would
During my 30 years of military service, both active and select reserve, I have served with a number of women who would do as well as if not better than a number of men. I applaud their dedication, committment and perserverance, and I thank them -- like all veterans -- for their service to our country.
During my 30 years of military service, both active and select reserve, I have served with a number of women who would do as well as if not better than a number of men. I applaud their dedication, committment and perserverance, and I thank them -- like all veterans -- for their service to our country.
bradvanhorn
Member
Not that I really have any choice, but I accept women will be involved in combat, and either they will perform or they won't, just like any man. The gender is not the important part of success, it's the mindset and preparation. However, I think you create an unnecessary risk by having women there, but political correctness will never allow us to change course.
Human sexuality is the basic problem I have seen, and continue to see. Put enough men and women together in close situations, and now we have battle babies. Yes this is a leadership/discipline issue, and if you think you know the answer, please speak up, 'cause I haven't seen a truly viable way to stop it any time in the last 16+ years. Also, the POW/rape issue is no less ominous for men, but I think the implications are greater for women (for example, someone tell me what we're going to do with the rape babies).
Re: physical standards for women in the Corps
Re: human nature
). They have gotten pregnant by exercising human nature and having sex, whether on duty or on libo. That person becomes a non-effective member that has to go away, and someone will have to pick up the slack created by their departure.
Human sexuality is the basic problem I have seen, and continue to see. Put enough men and women together in close situations, and now we have battle babies. Yes this is a leadership/discipline issue, and if you think you know the answer, please speak up, 'cause I haven't seen a truly viable way to stop it any time in the last 16+ years. Also, the POW/rape issue is no less ominous for men, but I think the implications are greater for women (for example, someone tell me what we're going to do with the rape babies).
Re: physical standards for women in the Corps
No, and to my knowledge it was never even proposed that way. Perhaps in some fantasy world up near the beltway, someone imagined we could make male and female Marines both take the same test, and score on the same scale, but nowhere in reality did that take place (nor will it ever in my opinion).
Re: human nature
To my knowledge, no one has ever gotten pregnant while sleeping on post (note: I don't condone sleeping on post either
). They have gotten pregnant by exercising human nature and having sex, whether on duty or on libo. That person becomes a non-effective member that has to go away, and someone will have to pick up the slack created by their departure.Allow me to point out one thing..
When was the last time our forces did a shoulder-to-shoulder musket line bayonet charge ?
Being a tiny guy myself, I ain't draggin a 220lb buddy off for first aid, and you wouldn't want me to even try, but that's what the TEAM is for - foreman (a big hefty kinda dude) would drag you off while I laid down a hellish barrage of covering fire.
Each to their own, and frankly, I don't care if you have 315lbs of solid mountain man muscle, I peg you with half a dozen 7.62mm rounds, you're gonna drop just as fast.
Our military emphasis on physical strength and endurance does have it's place (humping those arty shells is a good example) but in this day and age it comes at the expense of rifle training, and in the modern combat environment, it's far, far more important to be an expert rifleman, than it is to be some hulking he-man, cause a bullet kills you just as dead either way.
Do some research and consider just how little rifle training our troops get, versus how much physical training they get, and consider how useful being physically strong is when you catch a trio of 7.62mm's from some bad guys AK.
If they can shoot, they can soldier, far as I am concerned.
-K
When was the last time our forces did a shoulder-to-shoulder musket line bayonet charge ?
Being a tiny guy myself, I ain't draggin a 220lb buddy off for first aid, and you wouldn't want me to even try, but that's what the TEAM is for - foreman (a big hefty kinda dude) would drag you off while I laid down a hellish barrage of covering fire.
Each to their own, and frankly, I don't care if you have 315lbs of solid mountain man muscle, I peg you with half a dozen 7.62mm rounds, you're gonna drop just as fast.
Our military emphasis on physical strength and endurance does have it's place (humping those arty shells is a good example) but in this day and age it comes at the expense of rifle training, and in the modern combat environment, it's far, far more important to be an expert rifleman, than it is to be some hulking he-man, cause a bullet kills you just as dead either way.
Do some research and consider just how little rifle training our troops get, versus how much physical training they get, and consider how useful being physically strong is when you catch a trio of 7.62mm's from some bad guys AK.
If they can shoot, they can soldier, far as I am concerned.
-K
- Status