G.I. Jane...

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Hogwash. If one is on the streets in an Iraqi city, and one is taking fire and returning fire, one is in combat.
 
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.

Bwahaha. That's a good one. You are just joking, right?



I wonder how many of the people who think women can't cut it in combat ever served with women, or served in combat themselves. Me, personally, one of my ex's ended the debate on how well women do in the military. I dated a female IDF soldier. You couldn't count her bodycount without taking off your shoes.

I had the pleasure of seeing a drunk male soldier tell her she wasn't a "real soldier". I've never seen anything more amusing in my life than a 6'4 240lbs of muscle (0 lbs of brains) guy on the floor, with his arm twisted in an unnatural angle by a very cute 5'6 130 ish female. Having plenty of muscles and lacking brains can be a hazard to your health.
 
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.

So let me make sure I understand you: if I'm engaging in a duel with a sword, I'm in combat. But if I'm fighting an adversary with a rifle, I'm just in a gunfight?

I'm sure my grandpa and the other dogfaces on Utah Beach would disagree with you.

From Dictionary.com:

com·bat
1.To oppose in battle; fight against.
2.To oppose vigorously; struggle against.


Yup, sounds like combat to me.
 
I recall a female LEO once who had a pretty good size guy on the ground with HIS arm at a funny angle. She was saying, "Who are you calling Butch?!?"

:eek:

We laughed. :D

I was thinking there should be a "factor" developed to cover one's ability to hump gear and then fight effectively. In order to aspire to each progressively tougher unit your "Factor" must be equal to or above a certain pre-determined level. It should NOT be weighted in terms of gender.

Idle minds... :rolleyes:
 
I've never seen anything more amusing in my life than a 6'4 240lbs of muscle (0 lbs of brains) guy on the floor, with his arm twisted in an unnatural angle by a very cute 5'6 130 ish female.
Ok, take both, put them at the bottom of a steep hill, and see which can hump 1000 mortar rounds to the top first.

The point is, "combat" is a lot more than shooting, kung-fu, or whatever. It's extreme, grueling, physical exertion, and the vast majority of women cannot match men in that capacity. It's biology, folks.
 
I was thinking there should be a "factor" developed to cover one's ability to hump gear and then fight effectively. In order to aspire to each progressively tougher unit your "Factor" must be equal to or above a certain pre-determined level. It should NOT be weighted in terms of gender.
280Plus,

That's the most sensible suggestion on this topic I've ever heard.

pax
 
It looks like a lot of testosterone in the air here. A military unit, any of them, has different equipment for different jobs. A good commander is going to know the capabilities and limitations of his resources. He will not use his humvees to haul tons of the companies equipment, he will use humvees for soldiers, so they can exit and fight when needed. He will use his five tons and deuces for hauling his ammo, food, and water trailers. In the same manner, he will use Rebar and his other heavily muscled troops to carry ammo to the top of the hill, while he uses his women (and his 130 pound light weight males) for scouts, and flank security with their M16s.

Item two,,,,,, The sexual tensions of having male and female in close proximity are not anything new, and not limited to the military arena. That is something that has to be dealt with whether the employer is The US Army, Walmart, or Napa Auto parts Co.. I consider that a matter of personal responsibility, and I agree with the poster that said those women did not get pregnant without help. If you deem it necessary to punish the woman, then the man has to be punished too. And, no, I do not think a woman belongs in combat after a pregnancy has been diagnosed. I think an extended leave of absence is needed,,,,, no light duty due to pregnancy, say, up to one year of maternity leave after which she returns to finish her enlistment plus that year.
 
his other heavily muscled troops to carry ammo to the top of the hill, while he uses his women (and his 130 pound light weight males) for scouts, and flank security with their M16s.
But the men could do both.

The sexual tensions of having male and female in close proximity are not anything new, and not limited to the military arena. That is something that has to be dealt with whether the employer is The US Army, Walmart, or Napa Auto parts Co..
How many Wal-Mart employees live, eat, sh**, and even shower together, while facing death every day?
 
Of course, if you there were enough men to do the job, they wouldn't be letting 37 year old women enlist.
 
How many Wal-Mart employees live, eat, sh**, and even shower together, while facing death every day?
Excellent point.

First of all, in an ideal world, I would be very pleased if women can serve equally in all fields of military life. I am all for equal opportunity for women.

In fact, I don't buy the "Jane not strong as Tarzan" argument. The military of the 21st Century has many areas where someone with calm judgment, high intelligence, endurance for discomfort and little physical strength can make valuable contributions (hell, with drone warfare becoming a reality, I don't even know we'll need the testesterone-poisoned gorillas with size issues who operate flying intruments in the future).

My fundamental objection to women serving with men in certain parts of the military is entirely social in nature. What do I mean?
The sexual tensions of having male and female in close proximity are not anything new, and not limited to the military arena. That is something that has to be dealt with whether the employer is The US Army, Walmart, or Napa Auto parts Co.. I consider that a matter of personal responsibility, and I agree with the poster that said those women did not get pregnant without help. If you deem it necessary to punish the woman, then the man has to be punished too.
Excellent in theory. Sure the men should be punished too in principle. I'll give you scenario, however. Let's say there is a remote desert base. No legal booze. No prostitution outside the base. Not much entertainment. High tension due to combat and other war-related factors or from plain boredom and waiting for action. 2,000 men on the base and 150 women.

Now, JAG finds out that 30 women have decided to finance their future education by catering to the inevitable supply and demand situation that arises in such a case. JAG also determines that approximately 500 men have partaken, not to mention the fact that there are morale issues relating to uneven distribution of said service between the enlisted men and officers.

What do you do? Kick out the 30 women AND the 500 men? How are you going to run a damn war with a fourth of your men gone?

My observation is that war is not like peacetime. The military, for all its jargons, is not Wal Mart or Napa auto service. Men and women being placed in extreme conditions and high physical and mental tension (with accompanying physiological results) AND in close physical proximity inevitably results in fraternization deterimental to discipline and morale. Even the best of leaders and commanders have trouble controlling such impulses of their people under harsh conditions.

Do you think that scenario I presented is unrealistic? It is. But not the way you may think -- I believe the numbers were substantially worse in several cases in the previous desert excursion.
 
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.

Women have fleshy protrubances, which is the reason most of them get easier rides through life ;)
 
protuberances...

I remember high school friend Becky was telling us about a fight she had with Dad one day. She said, " I kicked him right in his protuberance, but it's pretty small so I missed." :eek:

LMAO...
 
My fundamental objection to women serving with men in certain parts of the military is entirely social in nature.
You've stated my position exactly. There certainly are jobs that women can do in the military, some probably better than men. But none of those should be in a forward-deployed capacity. (Except, I guess, when they rise high enough in the ranks that they'd be isolated from everybody anyway - perhaps O-6 and above?)
 
I can't think of any jobs a woman would be more qualified than a man for, unless there's suddenly a need for breastfeeding in the army. :neener:
 
Interesting thread, I do think some are right on.

It is not strength, training, or killer instinct. It is not carrying 200lb buddies around or rucking up a hill.

It is the social issue. Females in units (no matter how Hoah they are) distract men. Period. Not all men but enough men. In garrison, deployed, or combat having females in the equation changes the dynamic of how men work together. If you do not know why or how the dynamic is changed go ask your parents for the special talk. ;)

No, it is not the females fault. It is not the males fault. It is how both are wired.
Will this fact change anything in the military. No it will not. With recruitment and retention down look to see more females in the service.
Now, how to fix it. Know what the real issue is and do your best to lead what you got.
 
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Out of control at
Camp Crazy!
By BRIAN KATES
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, February 5th, 2005

In front of a cheering male audience, two young women wearing only bras and panties throw themselves into a mud-filled plastic kiddie pool and roll around in a wild wrestling match.

At one point a man in the audience raises a water bottle and douses the entwined pair.

At another, a "referee" moves in to break up the scantily clad grapplers.

A young blond lifts her T-shirt to expose her breasts. A brunette turns her back to the camera and exposes her thong undies.

These scenes, taken from 30 photos leaked to the Daily News, could have been snapped at an out-of-control frat party.

But this happened a world away from any American college.

The photos were taken in Camp Bucca, the military prison at Umm Qasr in the hot sands of southern Iraq near the Kuwaiti border.

The women are not coeds but military policewomen who had left their uniforms in a pile not far off.

The men are soldiers, too. Most of them wore T-shirts emblazoned with Army logos, but at least one was still wearing his uniform.

Some were sergeants, including the referee, and some allegedly were drunk.

The photos were taken last Oct. 30, in the same period when enemy detainees were being transferred to Camp Bucca from Abu Ghraib, the prison made notorious by photos of Americans torturing naked Iraqis.

The Camp Bucca pictures document no such abuses.

But they do show what experts called a disconcerting lapse in discipline at a time when Army brass was touting the camp as a model of reform.

"It was basically a goodbye party for those of us who were leaving and a welcome party for those coming in," the alleged referee, Sgt. Emil Ganim of the 160th Military Police Battalion, told The News. "It was a chance for people to blow off some steam before coming home after spending a year in a combat zone."

But one participant described less-benign behavior.

Two sergeants, she said, told her "they had been lending out their room for soldiers to have sex" - a serious infraction of military regulations.

One female soldier, a prison guard with the 160th Military Police Battalion, was photographed baring her breast and showing off her thong panties.

The picture apparently was taken in the room of one of those sergeants, an investigator reported.

The witness told investigators that two high-ranking noncommissioned officers, a first sergeant and a master sergeant, were present. She "noted that these NCOs had been drinking and were noticeably drunk," the report said.

Ganim said American civilians at the camp also participated in the party, and "if anybody had liquor, it was them."

Ganim has since returned to his civilian job as a deputy sheriff in Leon County, Fla.

"It appears that this event was allegedly coordinated by NCOs [sergeants] of the 160th," according to the initial investigation.

One of the soldiers told investigators the mud-wrestling match was underway when she arrived.

"She took off her uniform and joined the other female soldiers that were wrestling," the report says. But "once soldiers started asking for the females to expose themselves [she and two of the other wrestlers] put their uniforms back on and left the area."

But at least one woman was not deterred.

Deanna Allen, a 19-year-old prison guard with the 105th MP Battalion, smiled and lifted her T-shirt. Photos show a man standing close to her and leering at her breasts while another G.I. snaps pictures.

"From what I understand they dared her to do it," said Allen's grandmother, Luci Tomlin, in Black Mountain, N.C. "It was a loose moment. She is a strong-headed young lady. Sometimes she can be a little irrational."

Allen, who is still stationed in Iraq, did not respond to E-mailed questions from The News. She was demoted in rank to private first class.

"A sex party with alcohol that is prohibited would suggest a serious breakdown of military discipline," said Washington-based lawyer Eugene Fidell, a military-justice expert. "Just how it would be handled would be determined by the commander, who has very broad discretion in situations like this.

Fidell said punishments could range from "a good chewing out to loss of rank" for enlisted personnel and "a letter or career-killing transfer" for officers who allowed it to happen.
 
Now, JAG finds out that 30 women have decided to finance their future education by catering to the inevitable supply and demand situation that arises in such a case. JAG also determines that approximately 500 men have partaken, not to mention the fact that there are morale issues relating to uneven distribution of said service between the enlisted men and officers.

This reminds me vividly of the situation a close veteran friend described to me regarding just such a supply and demand situation he witnessed firsthand. He added that some of the women did very very well monetarily, and that when it was discovered that one had an STD, 30+men went to get tested.

He was not in favor of women in combat, or in the military at all, in fact he gets quite emotional on the subject. He tends to get that way about things that he feels contributes to the death of his comrades.
 
"How are countries like Israel dealing with these issues?"

By avoiding women in direct combat units when possible. Women are just unsuited from an ergonomic basis for combat. For example, they can't "do number one" into an MRE bag in a moving, buttoned up tank. Such "humping" as they are suited for doesn't involve things like ammo, track pads, tripods. Their prescence is corrosive to the morale and discipline of the particular type of man who makes a good combat soldier - aggressive, assertive, and protective. I con only hope htat we end this particular exercise in special interest pandering without a bunch of body bags being the object lesson.
 
Okie Dokie!

We've covered all of the teritory from physical strength to the free enterprise system. "Boys & Girls" will be boys & girls, regardless of what clothes they wear to work or who signs their paychecks.

I retired from the Marines as an E-9, and can see every point of view expressed above...in fact I have seen every scenario described above.

Almost zero women are the physical equal of the vast majority of men. Women do have a place in the military and they perform valuable service to their country. Women, in general, are not capable of meeting the physical requirements to be assigned an infantry MOS. Even though all of the physical requirements aren't needed all of the time, when they are needed there's no substitute and that's sum zero.

The female Army MP's we're discussing were involved in combat, and it doesn't matter if they humped, rode, or were beamed down...they took decisive action in a perilous situation. They engaged a numerically superior enemy at great risk to their own safety. Not only were they responsible for inflicting casualties on the enemy, but they undoubtedly prevented considerable loss of life among their comrades. They rallyed/organized a cohesive defense and counter attack out of what had been a desparate situation. Their actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Armed Forces. I predict some heavy metal (possibly a Blue Max) in their futures, and the fact that they are female shouldn't enter into the equation.

OORAH!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top