Do women belong on the front line?

[Always Wary]

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Trying to outwit mother nature can have some serious medical consequences in the future. If a female soldier takes such medication and develops serious gynecological problems as a result, who is going to pay for treating it? The taxpayers?
http://womensenews.org/story/medicine/060823/...

I didn't say it was free of complications I simply said we can stop it.

[flbadcatowner]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
With an emphasis on standards. Remember, there are currently no standards for this situation. Secondly, most - if not all - of us are used to dealing with the opposite sex on a daily basis in civilian life only. Professional relationships aside, combat situations would be entirely different. I think Bex mentioned it earlier - with the case of woman cops versus male cops - the Tazer knows no size or sex limits - down you go whether it is deployed by a man or a woman. The same can be said for firearms. There are very few if any hand-to-hand situations in combat anymore. It's not the Middle Ages where we mount our soldiers on chargers and trod them into battle. Physically I am well aware of the differences - mentally I'm not so sure men have the edge anymore - which is where modern warefare is headed.

Not everything about combat can be put in a test tube so one must used sime common sense once in a while. There are still situations where a foot soldier must make a run for it and the average man can cover the same distance in sigificantly less time than the average woman, not to mention that a typical man can run further without needing to stop to catch his breath. Waiting for a woman to catch up could have fatal consequences. All I can say is that if women want to serve on the front lines, they should be required to meet the exact same standards as men including the ability to cover a certain distance in full field gear in a certain length of time.

[milwaukee69]

Deer Whisperer wrote:

Not thinking outside the traditional combat box is not getting it:
How likely is hand-to-hand, toe-to-toe combat in our modern armed forces?
Reiterating from previous post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat
****In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered.******

From The Art of War:

It is not the strongest but the smartest.

[milwaukee69]

Fish_sticks wrote:

<quoted text>You my friend, are the perfect example of a man's man. I could never imitate you. Go get 'em tiger!
<lol>

Lol...it's just that I've never seen a huge dropoff in anything when differentiating men versus women. Like I said - there are exceptions - NFL, MLB, NBA - but those are spectator sports and situations. Combat situations are entirely different nowadays than they were in Vietnam. Heck, we've even changing the way we fly planes, making the gamers war heros (flying remote control drones).

[Always Wary]

okimar wrote:

<quoted text>Its nothing personal or macho about it. Its a matter of natural fact. SOME women may be able for short duration keep up the pace,but you cannot deny your own physiology. But hey,if you girls want to put on the big boy pants-go for it. Just remember,nothing is worse than getting what you wish for......

I am not saying I wish for it, I am saying it is coming.

[milwaukee69]

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Not everything about combat can be put in a test tube so one must used sime common sense once in a while. There are still situations where a foot soldier must make a run for it and the average man can cover the same distance in sigificantly less time than the average woman, not to mention that a typical man can run further without needing to stop to catch his breath. Waiting for a woman to catch up could have fatal consequences. All I can say is that if women want to serve on the front lines, they should be required to meet the exact same standards as men including the ability to cover a certain distance in full field gear in a certain length of time.

You're assuming again, you're assuming again...

Waiting for a woman to catch up? My guess is that those same women would be waiting for you to catch up - most women in the service I know can run 4-miles in a better time than 23 minutes. You assume so much but yet the femnazi shows through everytime - so at least you're consistent in that regard.

[QuiteCrazy]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
From The Art of War:
It is not the strongest but the smartest.

<whsiper>There is also a entire section dedicated to women and their use but not as force or strength but almost as scouts, spies, to subterfuge enemies lines,... info, recon...

[QuiteCrazy]

<skids out>laundry!

[flbadcatowner]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
You're like chasing a herd of cats.
Here's a link that supports my arguement that women are closing the intelligence gap with men (even exceeding men):
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/16...
"The physical and psychological weakness argument receives opposition from an article published in the Army Times July 29, 1996, that stated that in practice, some women do possess the necessary physical attributes to becoming elite combat soldiers. It is further argued that the extent to which the fighting attributes required for effective combat performance is underestimated. Even in men, these attributes are not inherent but rather enhanced through TRAINING. Thus, some of the purported physical weakness in women can be overcome through TRAINING, challenging the long-term impact of gender stereotypes both in the military and other civilian professions inherited from the past. On the other hand, the cases of guerilla combat and the recruitment of women in the Soviet armies show that in extreme scenarios, women are and have success. Furthermore, by dismissing the Culture and Tradition argument where women were only deployed in supportive functions, one needs to have the big picture in mind. In the general ‘business’ world, employment opportunities for women are increasing as well as considerations for equality rights (Moskos, Williams., & Segal, 1999).

Superior intellect does not always translate to being a more effective foot soldier as many if not most critical combat decisions must be made instinctively rather than pondered over. Taking too much time to ponder a decision could get one killed on a battlefield anyway. According to your link, The difference is rather infinitesimal in IQs between the sexes and that in some countries, the men still score higher. There could also be some variables not being accounted for as well. All this said, the point is moot anyway as IQ has only a very limited role in determining whether one can be a good soldier or not.

BTW, the last women who was in charge of the every day operations of a company I worked for almost ran the company into the ground, bu the company was sold before that could happen and the new owners gave her a pink slip and not the type she could wear.

There may be a few women as the Army Times article stated. And let me stress that it would be just a few. As I stated in another post, men could be put at risk on the field of combat waiting for the women to catch up.

[flbadcatowner]

I have stated my feelings on this issue and now it seems we are are rehashing the same basic themes which means that I feel my work is done here. Rather than having Milwaukee 69 and I dominate the thread, I will let others have a chance to have their say. This is not the first thread where we have had stark differences of opinion.

[Fish_sticks]

Well .... there one thing this woman can do and that's go to work.
So enjoy the day people.

[Fish_sticks]

flbadcatowner wrote:

I have stated my feelings on this issue and now it seems we are are rehashing the same basic themes which means that I feel my work is done here. Rather than having Milwaukee 69 and I dominate the thread, I will let others have a chance to have their say. This is not the first thread where we have had stark differences of opinion.

That's how it rolls around here, lol.
Have a good one.

[Sublime1]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
With an emphasis on standards. Remember, there are currently no standards for this situation.

Currently, recruits don’t have to be able to do so many sit ups, push-ups, and run at a certain minimal pace for a certain duration?

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>Secondly, most - if not all - of us are used to dealing with the opposite sex on a daily basis in civilian life only.

We also get to go home to our SO’s every night. I think comparing civilian life to being on the battle field and away from home for long stretches of time is apples to oranges.

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>Professional relationships aside, combat situations would be entirely different. I think Bex mentioned it earlier - with the case of woman cops versus male cops - the Tazer knows no size or sex limits - down you go whether it is deployed by a man or a woman. The same can be said for firearms. There are very few if any hand-to-hand situations in combat anymore. It's not the Middle Ages where we mount our soldiers on chargers and trod them into battle. Physically I am well aware of the differences - mentally I'm not so sure men have the edge anymore - which is where modern warefare is headed.

I would never say women are inferior to men mentally and I agree they have certainly have advantages, but generally men are faster and stronger than women. No amount of PCness is going to change that.

Cops don’t have to lug huge bag packs around and keep up with their platoon. I’m pretty darn sure very few women could match my pace, when loaded down with 70 pounds of gear or whatever they carry. So, what, I’d have to slow down my pace to allow them to keep up? If speed were unimportant in combat, the German’s would not have been so successful in WWII initially.

Another alternative is to lighten their load, however, there are adverse consequences to this, carrying less ammo, less supplies, or whatever.

Let’s say you get injured on the battle field, who do you think would be better off dragging or carrying you out of harms way … a man or a woman?. When you are in combat, it’s not like you can just call an ambulance, like a cop can if someone goes down. You also often times can’t just call for backup and have reinforcements there in 5 to 10 minutes. I’d also say a cop’s primary duty isn’t to engage enemies in combat, like a front line soldier. It’s just not the same comparison.

Lastly, we also don't know where the next war will be fought. Sure some place like Iraq, where you can use vehicles to get around a lot, it might be easier for women to serve, but let's say you are in the jungle and have to go on this long patrols marching in the jungle for days and days and carry all that you need in with you. That's a lot more difficult from an endurance perspective.

I don't think it's fair to require men to face more danger, just so women feel they are being treated equally. To me a life is worth more than someone's feelings.

[milwaukee69]

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Superior intellect does not always translate to being a more effective foot soldier as many if not most critical combat decisions must be made instinctively rather than pondered over. Taking too much time to ponder a decision could get one killed on a battlefield anyway. According to your link, The difference is rather infinitesimal in IQs between the sexes and that in some countries, the men still score higher. There could also be some variables not being accounted for as well. All this said, the point is moot anyway as IQ has only a very limited role in determining whether one can be a good soldier or not.
BTW, the last women who was in charge of the every day operations of a company I worked for almost ran the company into the ground, bu the company was sold before that could happen and the new owners gave her a pink slip and not the type she could wear.
There may be a few women as the Army Times article stated. And let me stress that it would be just a few. As I stated in another post, men could be put at risk on the field of combat waiting for the women to catch up.

First of all - the modern "foot" soldier is a misnomer. They ride.

Secondly, by "attempting" to prove your point by examining your own career shortcomings is lame - really lame. Men drive companies into the ground all the time - sh*tty corporate executives are not gender specific. Lastly, don't do a Rmoney flip-flop and start agreeing with my sites - find your own.

[Sublime1]

Deer Whisperer wrote:

Not thinking outside the traditional combat box is not getting it:
How likely is hand-to-hand, toe-to-toe combat in our modern armed forces?
Reiterating from previous post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat
****In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered.******

Like I said, when you are fighting in a desert and can see your enemy from 5 miles away, maybe hand to hand is less likely. However, not all combat takes place in that environment. You don't know where the next war will be.

If you are in the jungle the chances for hand to hand combat increases.

People always are fighting the last war, and the fact is that men will be in danger, just so women feel equal. If they want to serve, men should be able to opt out serving with them, IMO. Go form all women's divisions and I guarantee in certain settings you will see a huge disparity in the death rates.

[Sublime1]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all - the modern "foot" soldier is a misnomer. They ride.

Again, you are fighting the last war. In the last war they did ride, but you don't know where the next war would be.

Vehicle technology has not changed so much since Vietnam such that we would now fight a war such as that primarily from vehicles. You tell me, can our tanks or APCs now suddenly do something that the tanks and APCs couldn't do back then, when it comes to traveling through a jungle environment? I don't think so.

[milwaukee69]

Sublime1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you are fighting the last war. In the last war they did ride, but you don't know where the next war would be.
Vehicle technology has not changed so much since Vietnam such that we would now fight a war such as that primarily from vehicles. You tell me, can our tanks or APCs now suddenly do something that the tanks and APCs couldn't do back then, when it comes to traveling through a jungle environment? I don't think so.

Again - technology rules the battlefront.

Drones will keep us from hand-to-hand. I liken this to modern air war. It used to be that you could see your opponent - now, if you see your opponent, your dead. Same goes for the modern battlefield.

Maybe we're all missing the point here - there is no "real" combat anymore - just police patrols and drones. Jungle warefare - regardless of man or woman - is generally set aside for the elite.

[Sublime1]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again - technology rules the battlefront.
Drones will keep us from hand-to-hand. I liken this to modern air war. It used to be that you could see your opponent - now, if you see your opponent, your dead. Same goes for the modern battlefield.

You can’t use drones in the jungle. They can’t see through the canopy, even with thermal imaging. Regardless of the environment, drones also don't work well when it is overcast.

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>Maybe we're all missing the point here - there is no "real" combat anymore - just police patrols and drones. Jungle warefare - regardless of man or woman - is generally set aside for the elite.

You could never fight a war on the scale of say Vietnam with only elite soldiers.

There aren’t even enough elite males who enjoy pushing themselves that hard to fight a war like that with only the elites. There are very few men who will willingly train that hard and push their bodies to the limit and there are many men who won’t. Not only do you have to be very physically fit and have great endurance, but you need a brain and now how to use it to be elite. You need to be a 1%er. By definition, there is only 1% who are 1%ers.

So what I have said stands true. I think it's foolish to invest resources training all these women for combat, when they can only be used effectively in certain situations. More people will die as a result. If women want to die so they feel equal, that's their choice, but men shouldn't have to go along for the ride. Men should be able to opt out from serving with women in combat rolls. I wouldn't want to.

[EraserX]

Sublime1 wrote:

<quoted text>

So what I have said stands true. I think it's foolish to invest resources training all these women for combat, when they can only be used effectively in certain situations.

You're missing the point. There should be no resources spent to train women. You have the same training. Open it to both genders. If a woman passes then she's in. If not, she's out. No special accommodations. No special training.

[milwaukee69]

Sublime1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You can’t use drones in the jungle. They can’t see through the canopy, even with thermal imaging. Regardless of the environment, drones also don't work well when it is overcast.
<quoted text>
You could never fight a war on the scale of say Vietnam with only elite soldiers.
There aren’t even enough elite males who enjoy pushing themselves that hard to fight a war like that with only the elites. There are very few men who will willingly train that hard and push their bodies to the limit and there are many men who won’t. Not only do you have to be very physically fit and have great endurance, but you need a brain and now how to use it to be elite. You need to be a 1%er. By definition, there is only 1% who are 1%ers.
So what I have said stands true. I think it's foolish to invest resources training all these women for combat, when they can only be used effectively in certain situations. More people will die as a result. If women want to die so they feel equal, that's their choice, but men shouldn't have to go along for the ride. Men should be able to opt out from serving with women in combat rolls. I wouldn't want to.

Who has a jungle-only theater that we really care about anymore? South Korea? Mostly mountainous. India? We wouldn't dare. Off the top of my head, there's not a jungle-scenario that I see us getting wrapped up in anytime soon - most are urban and desert fighting scenarios.

The 1%er thingee no longer exists. It's all about education and training nowadays. Getting by with less fighting men and casualties. Hence the drones, stealth fighter and bomber and medium to short-range missiles and defense systems. Even in Desert Storm we didn't march into battle - we ran over the enemy in M-1 Abrams.

As for women? It's coming, if not already here - there is already three women fighting the Pentagon on their roles in combat. Yesterday's USA Today I think.

http://www.newser.com/story/158346/women-in-m...

I think the only danger would be to the typical gender insecurities that most soldiers carry around like the flag on their arm. Your head needs to be in that battle, not your feelings. Not all women would be the right choice, just as most men wouldn't be either.

As I've said - I could care less what sex my wing"person" is - as long as we both make it back for chow at the end of the day.