G.I. Jane...

[pete f]

point one carrying a buddy out is more a point of determination than strength, I carried my brother for six miles after he broke an ankle hunting when the horse he was on spooked and mine went with. The damned horses were in the corral before we made it back, but we carried out our two rifles and pack too. I am 225 @5'8'' brother is 6' and about 190. When he worked summers on fire crews, he carried some guy from the UP of michigan up a 2000 foot ridge so they could get him on a evac chopper after he mis-took his leg for a stump with the chain saw.

point two per the statement of not getting between two women in a bar fight, nope I wanna live, let them fight. Women automatically fight dirty,(yeah I know no such thing as dirty in a real fight, but you know what I mean) hair pulling clawing for eyes, crotch kicking, biting, they all do it and they do it really fast.

point three As far as rape, Very few men are raped in POW situations. in political situations yeah it happens more, but militarily not a big factor. Basic factor is ALL women are raped in POW situation.s

College roommate is a Fleet surgeon who in the past was tasked to a Carrier, of the 36 women on board, at the end of a six month deployment 17 were pregnant, three of them and five others had an STD. Those eight were believed to have given something like fifty sailors STDs. now whether that meant one had done the deed fifty times or all had shared equally was not known, what was known as that he was at wits end regarding what would happen to his status resulting from this situation. he was stunned to learn it was below fleet average. Think of this when you think about sending women to sea.

 

[Barbara]

I haven't told the general public yet (no time like the present, I guess) but I plan to join the NG next winter. Not only am I a chick, I'm an old chick.

I can pass the minimum PT requirements for men my age right now, except for running speed, which I figure I can improve. As many men can't pass the test prior to BCT, I think I'll do ok. I'm also not likely to get pregnant and don't live in fear of being raped any more than I live in fear of losing a limb or two or being killed. I hope not to have any of those things happen, but if they do, they do. I'm kind of a hothead at times, but in general, I'd say less so than your average 18 year old boy.

I won't be allowed infantry, or whatever, anyway. I'm going to enlist as an E4, and take a supply job.

 

[Dorian]

Don't know if they'd approve of this photo...



Just two of the many heros of this war.

 

[Old Dog]

College roommate is a Fleet surgeon who in the past was tasked to a Carrier, of the 36 women on board, at the end of a six month deployment 17 were pregnant, three of them and five others had an STD. Those eight were believed to have given something like fifty sailors STDs. now whether that meant one had done the deed fifty times or all had shared equally was not known, what was known as that he was at wits end regarding what would happen to his status resulting from this situation. he was stunned to learn it was below fleet average. Think of this when you think about sending women to sea.

Hmm. Most of our CVNs typically have between 300-500 female sailors. Far more man-hours are lost to the Navy by medical or disciplinary problems of the male sailors, by percentage, than among the females. Women at sea is a done deal; it's time to adjust to this fact.

 

[lysander]

So long as IDENTICAL physical standards are met by troops there is no logical reason to keep women off the front line (so long as they volunteer for such duty). In a better world there wouldn't be a need for this discussion...but we live in an ugly world...and those women who are capable enough, and choose to put themselves in harms way, should be allowed to do so.

 

[roo_ster]

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.

You can't always helo into or drive to the place of battle. Sometimes you have to hump your a** to the party...and it is "come as you are."

This means, in a light infantry unit, you get to hump in all your gear, food, water, and ammo. If you want crew-served weapons like the M240, Javelin, Carl Gustav, mortars (lovely mortarssss, yessss) & such, you get to carry every bit of it in, apportioned among your unit. Oh, & don't forget that those crew served weapons eat heavy stinkin' ordnance that has to be moved by men in the unit. How many 60mm mortar rounds you can afford to carry versus what you'd like to paste the objective with just might be different if you had to factor in that half of your company is female.

Physical strength & endurance are not the be-all & end-all of combat, but they ensure your happy a** actually gets to the objective and gets there with the tools to complete the mission.

Whenever I read/hear folks talk about how warfare is so much more about information and so much less about physicality, I get a chuckle out of it. Warfare is just as physically demanding as it used to be. Nowadays you gotta be both smart and tough. It is not for the weak, be it physical or mental.

My particular unit did not allow females in of any MOS to serve. I would hear horror stories from guys in mixed units. Stories like the supply sergeant who had four subordinates, two female, two male. Both gals got pregnant & were put on light duty, so the two guys did work & the heavy lifting of four. Oh, no, that wouldn't impair effectiveness.

 

[Sean Smith]

So long as IDENTICAL physical standards are met by troops there is no logical reason to keep women off the front line (so long as they volunteer for such duty).

Well, if you've been paying attention, you'd know they don't have identical physical standards, they have easier ones. This is because requiring women to be as physically capable as men in a physically demanding, life-or-death profession, is sexist.

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.

A very silly statement. The most physically demanding schools in the military are the most realistic representations of combat conditions. This is the universal consensus of those who went into combat after attending them (e.g. Ranger school). The emphasis on fitness isn't something that was just made up as a penis-waving exercise. It exists to keep people alive. It doesn't matter how good a shot you are if you physically break down before you even get to the battle area. I've never heard of a combat infantryman argue for less emphasis on physical fitness. They always seem to want more PT, and being shot at tends to make them pretty pragmatic.

Almost all firsthand accounts of combat will bear this out. Infantry combat is physically demanding as hell, bayonet charges or not.

Bottom line, people in general are stunningly ignorant of what ground combat actually involves. It isn't just a leisurely button-pushing exercise. Look at the Battle of Mogadishu... after over 12 hours of combat through the previous afternoon and evening in 100+ degree heat, you have a bunch of Rangers running out of town in full battle-rattle and body armor, fighting all the way. But people are insinuating that it wouldn't matter if physical fitness standards were lowered to let women into such a unit?

There is a reason why Ranger school is as physically taxing as it is, because that is more like the reality of light infantry combat, not sipping iced tea and practicing slow-fire rifle marksmanship on a nice range for fun on the weekends.

 

[Rebar]

I did my basic at Fort Dix, NJ, back in 1988. The training companies alternated between male and female, but there were always male and female companies training at the same time.

At that time (they might have changed in the meanwhile) a male recruit had to do 12 pushups to start training, and 72 at the end of training. Females had to do ONE pushup to start, and 12 at the end. This disparity between male and female requirements followed throughout training. My drill Sergeants stated several times how much happier they were training males rather than females (having females the previous cycle).

 

[RevDisk]

At that time (they might have changed in the meanwhile) a male recruit had to do 12 pushups to start training, and 72 at the end of training. Females had to do ONE pushup to start, and 12 at the end. This disparity between male and female requirements followed throughout training. My drill Sergeants stated several times how much happier they were training males rather than females (having females the previous cycle).

I knew this one guy. Did 20, 25 pushups on his last PT test. Max'd it. How? He was within a couple years of manditory retirement time. He served 3, 4 tours in Vietnam in SF. Went crazy, eventually became a priest and joined the NG as a chaplain. The guy has forgotten more about insurgency warfare than a dozen infantry grunts coming back from Iraq.

Just before he was forced out of the Army at 60, he volunteered to be OpFor for a field exercise. Just him. (If the Chaplain volunteered for something, we weren't about to say no. He probably had God on his side, and we didn't want to take a chance at annoying him or God.) Snuck past a couple platoons of infantry, a platoon of MP's, took out every officer in the TOC, and then SNUCK OUT. "Wired" the TOC with fake explosives too. How, I still haven't figured out.

There is no way he could hump a 100 lb ruck 20 miles. Still, I wouldn't try to tell him he wasn't a worthy soldier because of that factor. I'm not stupid, nor crazy, nor do I have a death wish.

I have served with a couple of old Vietnam guys that the Army still hasn't kicked out. (All of them probably hit 60 by now, tho.) They were old, but they had experience on their side. I wouldn't pick a fight with them in the woods.

 

[Rebar]

You are taking exceptions, and trying to make a rule based on them.

There is no way he could hump a 100 lb ruck 20 miles.

I bet he could at the time he gained all that experience. I also bet he'd be pretty useless today if the mission involved humping the boonies all day. Combat isn't all about pulling the trigger or sneaking in and cutting throats, it's about enduring extreme climates and privations, about heavy lifting and carrying too.

 

[Khaotic]

The emphasis on fitness isn't something that was just made up as a penis-waving exercise. It exists to keep people alive.

You weren't listening, I said it had it's place, and it does.

But when you pare down other training to make room for it, and your recruits have a mere one 'week' (minus PT, detail, marching to/from ranges) of Rifle training - you are going to have dead soldiers, physically capable soldiers, but dead ones all the same.

As a soldier, that rifle is your bread and butter, your life depends on your effectiveness with it, and a mere week of training with it, is not sufficient.

Again, lemme repeat before someone throws another unthinking flame
Fitness has it's place
But our current basic training regimen shorts the troops very badly on rifle training as a direct result of that emphasis.

And snickering and making armchair soldier comments at someone who did in fact serve, who did hump an M60 on route marches with an 80lb ruck, sucking dust and cussing and gnawing that rock hard MRE 'gum' just like the rest of you, is a bad assumption.

If a woman can keep up with me, and shoot, damn well i'm ok with it, but if *I* cannot make that distance, lift that weight, etc - by simple virtue of the fact that I am 5'6" and 128lbs soaking wet... should I expect her to ?

But that's ok that I am tiny, have less muscle/body mass and less leverage, cause I am male ?

Don't be ridiculous - if you favor booting some of these girls, go back and boot the tiny guys too, it's only fair.

-K

 

[striker3]

So long as IDENTICAL physical standards are met by troops there is no logical reason to keep women off the front line (so long as they volunteer for such duty). In a better world there wouldn't be a need for this discussion...but we live in an ugly world...and those women who are capable enough, and choose to put themselves in harms way, should be allowed to do so.

There is one very real and overriding factor why women do not belong in Combat Arms. To much sexual tension. It is a simple fact of life. Throw a female in with a bunch of males and all anyone can think of is getting inside her pants. That leads to petty fights and arguments, and in the end a breakdown in unit cohesion. It may seem, and is, unprofessional, but you have to realize that 60% of the military are not professional. They are young kids who by the time they mature in their professionalism, will be ready to leave to pursue civilian life.

I have had an opportunity in the last few years to be a part of both all male combat arms units, as well as co-ed, non-combat arms units. The fighting units all have a better and more profound sense of brotherhood and cohesion. The co-ed units are just the same as the soap opera dramas I saw played when I was in high school 6 years ago. That is fine for rear echelon units, but a combat unit cannot have the distraction.

I need to go look up the reference in my military history books, but I remember a study the Isreali Army put out showing that having females in the unit caused higher casualty rates. It was because men have an ingrained reaction to put themselves in danger for a female. Where they would leave a wounded man down to be picked up by the medics, they would stop their assault to try to help a female.

Also, physical standards are not the same for men and women, at least in the Marines. While in the orders they look almost identical, that is not the way it is in real life. The leadership treats them different. I have actually been counseled on how I treated a female Marine who quit on a run. Having just come from an all male unit, I had always thought that a Marine was a Marine. I was proven wrong. I cannot motivate a female Marine in the same way as I can a male.

You can call me sexist if you want, but I do not think I am. Yes I have known females who would make a better rifleman than some of my own squadmates. Yes I have met some females who can run my ass into the dirt. But that does not change the fact that I truly believe that having them in a combat unit will only degrade our fighting capabilites.

 

[Sean Smith]

But that's ok that I am tiny, have less muscle/body mass and less leverage, cause I am male ?

Somebody has reading comprehension issues. There are physical standards for men. Women get easier ones. Ergo, women are allowed to be less physically capable than men.

Men don't get a "free ride" when they flunk a PT test because they are men, they get a boot in the ass. That is the reality for men. Meanwhile, women can get what would be a failing score for a man and get a PT badge. That is the reality for women.

That situation isn't a big deal if you exclude women from ground combat. It is if you are arguing that they should be allowed in such roles.

Seems pretty simple to me. I don't quite get what your hysterics are all about.

But when you pare down other training to make room for it, and your recruits have a mere one 'week' (minus PT, detail, marching to/from ranges) of Rifle training - you are going to have dead soldiers, physically capable soldiers, but dead ones all the same.

Do you have any evidence of this crisis in Army marksmanship? Because the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have been way below the norm for operations of their scale.

 

[Barbara]

If women pass the men's portion (and some do..some max the men's portion, don't they?) are you good with them in combat?

Because that's my line. If it's purely physical ability, I agree with you. I think those serving in combat roles, should have to meet one standard, regardless of gender. I also don't have a problem with requiring a long-term form of birth control for women who volunteer. But if you set standards beyond those two for women in combat, you lose me.

 

[Rebar]

If women pass the men's portion (and some do..some max the men's portion, don't they?) are you good with them in combat?

Then the issue becomes, will enough women pass to make it worthwhile? Because there's more to it then that, male and females have seperate barracks, latrines, etc, there are a lot of accommodations made for females.

I think not, women who can pass the mens test are few and far between. Heck, I saw a lot of female recruits being recycled because they couldn't meet the female standard, and a few males who couldn't measure up to the mens.

 

[DRZinn]

[comic relief]Well, if you make the standards the same, the women who pass them will be able to live among men with no sexual tension at all.[/comic relief]

I'm only half joking.

 

[Old Dog]

There is one very real and overriding factor why women do not belong in Combat Arms. To much sexual tension. It is a simple fact of life. Throw a female in with a bunch of males and all anyone can think of is getting inside her pants. That leads to petty fights and arguments, and in the end a breakdown in unit cohesion.

Let me get this straight; you're saying that there are NO males serving in combat arms branches who can work alongside females without thinking only of "getting inside their pants?" Sorry, this has not been my experience.

While this is a fairly commonplace occurance on the part of many immature males serving today, typically in the junior ranks, kindly don't lump all of us in with the Neanderthals in your branch who think only with their little heads.

 

[DRZinn]

kindly don't lump all of us in with the Neanderthals in your branch who think only with their little heads.

The "Neanderthals" I've served with do a far better job of acting professional than any of the soldiers or sailors that I've observed.

That young men of any stripe tend to think with their little heads more than they should is a fact of life. Instead of denying that in order to make "your branch" look better, face the fact and move on.

 

[Khaotic]

Somebody has reading comprehension issues. There are physical standards for men. Women get easier ones. Ergo, women are allowed to be less physically capable than men.

Again, someone missed what I said - if she can keep up with me, that means if she can physcially do what I can physically do.
I never made mention of seperate standards, not one word of it, same job, same standards.. I'm ok with that.
But be advised that some people by mere virtue of their size, are not going to make the same cut as larger people.

Men don't get a "free ride" when they flunk a PT test because they are men, they get a boot in the ass. That is the reality for men. Meanwhile, women can get what would be a failing score for a man and get a PT badge. That is the reality for women.

Ummm... huh-WHAT?
I could count the guys in my unit who COULD pass a PT test, on the fingers of one hand, with room to spare, and we're talking a full company... I sure didn't see a one of them booted for it, at least not in the late 80's.

That situation isn't a big deal if you exclude women from ground combat. It is if you are arguing that they should be allowed in such roles.

Never my argument, I was addressing the emphasis on such fitness at the expense of rifle skill.
I am undecided on the role of women in front line combat, because at this time insufficient real evidence (i.e. backed up by something besides "cause I said so!") exists to convince one way or the other, the sample sizes are too small to make any realistic analysis.

Whether women should be allowed as an 11B MOS? well, if they want that distinction, they should be held to the same standards, for the same reasons female firefighters or law enforcement personnel should be.
But that's just opinion, and not my point.

Seems pretty simple to me. I don't quite get what your hysterics are all about.

Gee, how nice, miss the point someone's making, then make assumptions, and insult them instead of presenting a rational argument that addresses the point they are trying to make.

Do you have any evidence of this crisis in Army marksmanship? Because the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have been way below the norm for operations of their scale.

Given how 'accurate' everything else we've been told about those operations is, and the proven history of the military doing a little number-fudging for political reasons, I would be dubious of official figures - I do sincerely hope that they're lower than expected because I feel a tremendous sympathy for the units engaged, because they've been engaged longer than is wise, without sufficient troop rotation, and this leads to 'bad things'.

Regular army troops, post-basic, do get chances to further their range time and rifle experience and knowhow, some of them do, some of them do not - but the initial training is by any common-sense standard insufficient for the weapon.

After basic, trainees are then shipped off to AIT, for however long their MOS requires, and in many cases the pitiful amount of rifle training is not reinforced, as they're not issued a rifle, nor required to qualify - allowing that one week of cram-training to further deteriorate, and when finally placed in a permanent post, only see and handle a rifle once or twice a year.

On the other hand, PT is an every day thing, and physical fitness standards and testing are routine enough to hone a soldiers physical abilities (at least in regular army units.. the reserve units, in places are... less fastidious..) and keep them appropriately honed.

Worse are the reserve unit's we are now engaging, considering they get even fewer chances to hone their rifle skills, and many times aren't even issued ammo to bother qualifying... our unit had mostly M16A1's, with shot out barrels, obvious mechanical problems, badly treated and maintained - half the unit didn't even remember what SPORT meant, much less "pop and no kick".
Heaven help you if THAT supply convoy got ambushed, it'd be what happened to the 507th all over again.

We'll leave the reliability issue of the M16/M4 aside for the moment, but consider how many of those poor sodders had weapon jams and were unable to quickly clear them ?
SPORT anyone ?
Miller's doggedness and effectiveness with even a badly fouled weapon should be the RULE, not the exception.
(This was the troop from the 507th who was hand-loading his weapon with single rounds and slamming them into the chamber with the forward assist, because the weapon was badly fouled or damaged.)

My point is, and has been from the beginning, that there should be every bit as much emphasis on training with the rifle as there is on phsyical fitness, this is a common-sense thing, marines (whom I envied for this) get somewhat more, and better, rifle training and consequently have lower casualty rates and do an overall better job of kicking the bad guys butts pound for pound when compared with regular army guys.

Maybe I'm just not getting the point across well, but to me it's more important that my buddy knows how to use his/her weapon effectively than how much he/she can carry.

Please tell me someone comprehends what I am trying to say here ?
-K

 

[280PLUS]

I do,,,

I've been reading right along and keeping my keyboard quiet. What I am seeing is two diiferent schools of thought.

A. SOME women CAN and WILL fight with the best of them.

B. Most women can't carry enough stuff to the fight to justify them being there.

Both legitimate points IMHO

The two women that were SUPPOSED to be the focal point of this thread had no gear to hump, they were riding in HUMVEEs. They are not considered Infantry the are considered Security.

I can't nor will I try to argue that they should automatically be assigned to infantry. They should have to prove that they are physically capable of carrying the gear to the fight and still have enough left to actually participate. If they can't they shouldn't be there as it does place the unit at a disadvantage. I'd assume a male who couldn't keep up physically would also be excluded from certain units. That's why some guys are RANGERs and SEALs and most aren't. Right?

I was NOT focusing on their ability to hump gear when I posted this thread. I was recognizing their ability to FIGHT and fight well. Thats all.

The article came to me from a former Marine Lt. who served in such places as RVN. (I'm not up on Marine ranking so I don't know what kind of Lt. he was,,,er is)

He was impressed by their actions under fire. So am I.

As far as humping. I was a sailor, all I ever humped was stores, ammo, and my various girlfriends in every port...

And don't forget, Marines may hate us but they LOVE our gunfire support.

As for the sex and pregnancy thing. It DOES take two to Tango so I wouldn't place ALL the blame on the ladies. Maybe half?

 

[lysander]

Sean,

Well, if you've been paying attention, you'd know they don't have identical physical standards, they have easier ones. This is because requiring women to be as physically capable as men in a physically demanding, life-or-death profession, is sexist.

While I don't mean to offend the superior wisdom of a 4.5K+ posting member of THR, allow me to offer a point of clarification. I have been paying attention. I witnessed the physical double standard first hand while serving...that double standard was hard to miss even for those who WEREN'T paying attention and it is particularly hard to miss during demanding physical tasks.

That being said...I saw my share of MALE soldiers with the same problem. IIRC my NCO leadership referred to them as weakbodies or soups. My comment was intended to support the idea that MERIT should be the sole deciding factor, not gender. So again...if a female soldier volunteers, can measure up to the same standards required of a male soldier, and can complete the same training...there remains no logical reason to restrict her from combat duty.

Lysander

 

[striker3]

While this is a fairly commonplace occurance on the part of many immature males serving today, typically in the junior ranks, kindly don't lump all of us in with the Neanderthals in your branch who think only with their little heads.

If you read the rest of that paragraph, I go on to say that 60% of the military is of the junior ranks and are immature in how they interract with the opposite sex. Not the whole sum of the military, but a majority.

I also am not getting into interservice rivalries, I am stating this as the military in whole. THe Army has had a few well documneted cases be made public in the last few years, as has every other service...

 

[Old Dog]

Had no intention of getting into "interservice rivalries" or, as DocZinn put it, denying anything "to make my branch look better." (Oh, and Doc -- please re-read my post which you responded to -- I had acknowledged the last point you tried to make). Having worked with the wonderful USMC for a big portion of my career, having brothers in the Army and having been exiled to a USAF base for three years, I truly appreciate every branch's mission and people.

The point I not-so-clearly attempted to make is also actually in agreement with posts made by Khaotic, Lysander and others. While I have virtually no experience in infantry operations, the point I wanted to make was that it is possible to successfully integrate females into certain types of units and that not ALL (as one individual stated) male personnel will spend all their time trying to get into the females' pants ...

 

[GHF]

Let's Get Our "Combat" Definition Straight

The GI Janes in the story were not in combat. Combat is when you are using your upper body strength and endurance to impose your will on the enemy.

Getting shot at is not combat, weither it is indirect or direct fire from the enemy. Shooting at the enemy is not combat - it is just being in a gun fight.

These women did their job, and proved that lacking the need to carry equipment, their ability to maneuvore and fire their weapons cost 26 Islamic Fundimentalist Wackos their lives - most of whom had more upper body strength and endurance (and less brains, training, discipline, and judgement) than the women.

They carried their share of the load equally. Non-combat personal of both genders need to have their heads screwed on straight, have training and confidence in their weapons, and be able to hold ground when attacked.

 

[Barbara]

I don't think you're so far off on that Doc Zinn. Not that they'd necessarily be less interested (but maybe) but they'd definately be focussed on the task at hand.