SPLIT--> Women in the Military

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Women successfully serve with men in combat roles on the front lines in the Canadian military. While serving in Afghanistan 2006 Captain Nichola Goddard(Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry) became the first combat-deployed Canadian female to die in combat. Canadian men and women make up the highest per capita casualties out of all Allied nations in the 8 years they've been serving in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the US should look at Canada's example of equality for women in the military and how it can be a success. Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, others have full combat roles for women. :applaud:
 
I think you may have even lost sight of your point. So are you saying women can't be in the army or just can't be SEALs? Seriously, you are all over the place.

I've never said they couldn't be in the Army - just Combat Arms. The examples I gave were on the extreme end to prove a point - however, basic Infantry training/combat would still be nearly impossible for women if the same standards were applied. And any combat mission could end up being as harsh as the examples I gave. In battle, you don't always get to pick and choose the situations.
 
And any combat mission could end up being as harsh as the examples I gave. In battle, you don't always get to pick and choose the situations.

But this is where you slip, you said most men couldn't even do it, so why is this even a factor?

I really don't think you've proved any point as to why women cannot be in "normal" combat scenarios.
 
Women successfully serve with men in combat roles on the front lines in the Canadian military. While serving in Afghanistan 2006 Captain Nichola Goddard(Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry) became the first combat-deployed Canadian female to die in combat. Canadian men and women make up the highest per capita casualties out of all Allied nations in the 8 years they've been serving in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the US should look at Canada's example of equality for women in the military and how it can be a success. Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, others have full combat roles for women. :applaud:

From what I've been reading - Israel no longer puts women in direct combat situations. The last time was 1948. The few women that are in what we would consider "Infantry" units - are stationed on the relatively peaceful border with Egypt.

Again, please do not confuse women in the military (which I support) with women in the Infantry (which I oppose).
 
Women successfully serve with men in combat roles on the front lines in the Canadian military. While serving in Afghanistan 2006 Captain Nichola Goddard(Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry) became the first combat-deployed Canadian female to die in combat. Canadian men and women make up the highest per capita casualties out of all Allied nations in the 8 years they've been serving in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the US should look at Canada's example of equality for women in the military and how it can be a success. Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, others have full combat roles for women. :applaud:

You're forgetting two very important things. First, why bring up Canada at all? It's as irrelevant a nation as exists on Earth, so if it works here, that doesn't really matter. Canada is inferior to everyone else.

Secondly, maybe she wouldn't have died if she were a man? Just sayin'.
 
K, I've read all five pages and I still don't get it....either *a person* (man, woman, both, neither...) cuts it, or he/she/it doesn't. I don't see why there have to be rules, unwritten or otherwise, pertaining to sex (or sexual orientation, or religion....). I personally cannot perform the physical tasks necessary to be in the line of work AEON is describing, so I'm not planning on enlisting. I've thought about going to EMT school but I doubt I have the physical abilities right now to do that work either. I currently work with all men in a field dominated by men but have never ever felt out of place or been made to feel out of place by my male co-workers and superiors. Likewise I spent much of my recreational time pursuing a hobby also dominated by men and have never felt out of place there either. :shrug: Maybe I'm just lucky and all my male co-workers and friends have more class than some of the posts in this thread but somehow I don't think so, I hang out with some pretty crude guys! It always amuses me how the men seem to get so much more defensive and jump on topics like this like flies on a shit....
 
AEON,

This last round in Iraq, I saw time and time again women completely capable of pulling any duty. Yeah, it's more rare to see them capable of say a high physical endurance mission, but there are plenty out there that would kick your ass all the way back to the wire.

All that bullshit about sex and cohesion leads me to think you haven't spent much time in a coed unit. You've got some growing up to do.

And next time you're wondering if a female can do "combat arms", remember all the women ass kickers in the CIA who are living on the edge of the edge.

Just a matter of time before they are fully integrated. I look forward to the day.
 
...it's more rare to see them capable of say a high physical endurance mission...
Not a small point in this discussion.

All that bullshit about sex and cohesion leads me to think you haven't spent much time in a coed unit.
Only in Officer Candidate School. And yes, it was a problem.

You've got some growing up to do.

No offense - but is that what you say to everyone that disagrees with you? Can someone have a contrary opinion without being called a nitwit or child? I'm 39, I have a BS degree in MIS and a BS in English Literature as well as an MBA in International Finance - and quite a bit of graduate level seminary (working on Mdiv and hopefully a PhD). I've been an enlisted grunt and an officer. I worked for dotcoms, two Fortune 500 companies and a well established biotech company. I've been to every continent except Antarctica. I've also served as an associate pastor at my church. My point is - I'm not some fresh kid who hasn't seen "the world"


Just a matter of time before they are fully integrated.

You are probably right.
 
Only in Officer Candidate School. And yes, it was a problem.

For you?

Girls are just too tempting, so ban them all!! :wink: Sorry but your education and work experience fail to qualify the validity of this sort of argument. IMO it is downright childish...
 
I know this may be a bit different, but back in the day our our Troubles - tail end come early 90s, and RIR used to stand at Courts, and sometimes one female accompanied four males for an hour of manning. only once did I see a female with rifle.

only once on guard. sometimes other times they carried none. debate back then?

When I was young I was told it was to do with females being less strong for frontline/how it was not their role to be possibly 'killed'/they had responsiblity in life of kids, etc.
 
Only in Officer Candidate School. And yes, it was a problem.

Your resume is pretty impressive, but to be honest you do come off as someone who needs to grow up a little or you're just too stuck in some old school mysogynist way. Why was it a problem? Was it just you?

Part of the reason you come off this way is that your argument is all over the place, it's physical(though you admit most men couldn't do the example you used), showering together:huh:, boys can't keep it in their pants, cohesion, etc... And because you don't have a solid consistent reasoning you come off as someone just trying to cover a sexist one.
 
Your resume is pretty impressive, but to be honest you do come off as someone who needs to grow up a little or you're just too stuck in some old school mysogynist way. Why was it a problem? Was it just you?

The problems were candidates getting kicked out for having sex in the washroom, carrying women's rucksacks on long marches, and the obvious double standards in the evaluations between men and women (for example - our "top" candidate was a woman that weighed about 80 lbs, was literally carried on road marches, was frazzled by anything unexpected...etc). I am not saying she needs to be as strong as an Infantry soldier - but minimum standards should be enforced. This soured morale and unit cohesion suffered (one of my points).

Part of the reason you come off this way is that your argument is all over the place, it's physical(though you admit most men couldn't do the example you used), showering together:huh:, boys can't keep it in their pants, cohesion, etc... And because you don't have a solid consistent reasoning you come off as someone just trying to cover a sexist one.

I try to answer the several points as best I can as they come up by various posters. In here, I am more in "reactive" mode so I try to answer or address comments one by one - and this can get me off tangent.

There are two main points I've been trying to make about women in the Infantry or Combat Arms - these are full time positions (not positions that ordinarily don't fight - but find themselves in combat situations). Point 1 - the physical component, and Point 2 - unit cohesion.
 
For you?

Sorry but your education and work experience fail to qualify the validity of this sort of argument. IMO it is downright childish...

True, my background does not mean my points are valid. I was simply demonstrating that the points were not being made by a red state hick from a trailer park with a fourth grade education - as some have implied - though indirectly.
 
The problems were candidates getting kicked out for having sex in the washroom, carrying women's rucksacks on long marches, and the obvious double standards in the evaluations between men and women (for example - our "top" candidate was a woman that weighed about 80 lbs, was literally carried on road marches, was frazzled by anything unexpected...etc). I am not saying she needs to be as strong as an Infantry soldier - but minimum standards should be enforced. This soured morale and unit cohesion suffered (one of my points).

So the women are to blame for the sex? Can you understand why that logic doesn't make sense to most people? People still have choices to make, if those canidates couldn't control themselves they probably didn't belong there, how are they going to control themselves in other situations?

You are talking about OCS, the whole purpose is to weed out those that get frazzled, and I'm pretty sure if you thought hard enough you would find a lot of other reasons and situations that weakened cohesion that had nothing to do with women.

I try to answer the several points as best I can as they come up by various posters. In here, I am more in "reactive" mode so I try to answer or address comments one by one - and this can get me off tangent.
Can you really be in "reactive" mode when it was you who sent us on this tangent. Other posters have just been showing you how your logic doesn't work, and that's when you start bringing up other points.
 
while i understand the response to some of AEON's posts, i want to point out that they have been very calm and very respectful of other posters.
 
The problems were candidates getting kicked out for having sex in the washroom, carrying women's rucksacks on long marches, and the obvious double standards in the evaluations between men and women

You know it takes two to tango, right? So, if we ban all women then we spare men of all that temptation to get it on in the bathrooms or try to prove their machismo by covering for the girl that can't carry her own shit...heck why don't we just put all the women in robes and headscarves while we are at it....

If it were up to me, I'd toss out anyone that can't comply with simple rules or meet the universal standards for the job. So everyone having a quickie in the bathroom is gone, anyone who cannot carry their own weight or feels the need to cover for someone else, bye bye....

I am more in "reactive" mode so I try to answer or address comments one by one - and this can get me off tangent.

Hey you started it

It has to do with the sexual/morale problems that it would cause in the field or battlezone (among other things). Commanders have much more important things to manage during missions than jealousies, sexual misconduct, lover's quarrels, temptation, favoritism...etc.
 
Other posters have just been showing you how your logic doesn't work.

Summary of my position (two main points)


1) The Infantry requires physical attributes that exclude most men, and nearly all women. The number of women that could pass the training to actual standard would be so small - it would be entirely cost prohibitive to make special accommodations for these very, very few.

If we did allow these "super women" in...
2) Unit cohesion and trust are HUGE components to a successful mission in the Infantry. Unlike other jobs in the military - the Infantry unit can spend weeks (or perhaps even months) out in the field. The Infantry is made up young men in their late teens and early twenties (and are generally what some would describe as uber-masculine football player type). Adding the occasional female into the mix would certainly cause problems. Is it the fault of the boys (like throwing a match into a powder keg and we all know it - so please stop pretending that 18 year old boys aren't 18 year old boys)? The girl? The leaders? My answer is "yes"- all the above are possible in any given circumstance. Can extra training and fear of disciplinary actions resolve this (i.e. can it make an 18 year old not so horny)? Perhaps. Is it worth having combat leaders worrying and managing all this for that occasional exception-especially when lives depend on their ability to execute a battle plan? My conclusion is no. Is it entirely fair? Of course not. Is it best possible scenario despite this unfairness? I think it is.
 
Unlike other jobs in the military - the Infantry unit can spend weeks (or perhaps even months) out in the field. The Infantry is made up young men in their late teens and early twenties (and are generally what some would describe as uber-masculine football player type). Adding the occasional female into the mix would certainly cause problems.

This situation is not unique to the military. When my dad did NOLS out of high school (and he was the uber-masculine football player) his tent partner was a girl. His one complaint is that she used three times as much toilet paper but other than that was every bit as capable as him. And no, he was not overrun by carnal urges for those several weeks.

AEON, what's sad to me is not that I think what you are saying is untrue, but that the freedom and security of our nation and even at times our world is being put in the hands of young boys who apparently cannot even keep their willies in their pants long enough to take their job seriously and focus on the task at hand. I guess if anything, this is sure a revealing thread :huh: If not borderline disrespectful of the brave men and women who have served honorably without letting highschool hormones get in their way.
 
it does seem to me that the fear of male and female soldiers having sex in the trenches is akin to the fear of showering with gay men, only it seems that one is less of an issue than the other.
 
I had no idea every single military operation involved carrying 8 tons of equipment up the world's largest mountain.
 
1) The Infantry requires physical attributes that exclude most men, and nearly all women. The number of women that could pass the training to actual standard would be so small - it would be entirely cost prohibitive to make special accommodations for these very, very few.

I'm confused. What kind of special accommodations would have to be made for women that have the physical attributes necessary for the position?

If we did allow these "super women" in...
2) Unit cohesion and trust are HUGE components to a successful mission in the Infantry. Unlike other jobs in the military - the Infantry unit can spend weeks (or perhaps even months) out in the field. The Infantry is made up young men in their late teens and early twenties (and are generally what some would describe as uber-masculine football player type). Adding the occasional female into the mix would certainly cause problems. Is it the fault of the boys (like throwing a match into a powder keg and we all know it - so please stop pretending that 18 year old boys aren't 18 year old boys)? The girl? The leaders? My answer is "yes"- all the above are possible in any given circumstance. Can extra training and fear of disciplinary actions resolve this (i.e. can it make an 18 year old not so horny)? Perhaps. Is it worth having combat leaders worrying and managing all this for that occasional exception-especially when lives depend on their ability to execute a battle plan? My conclusion is no. Is it entirely fair? Of course not. Is it best possible scenario despite this unfairness? I think it is.

I think it's pretty unfortunate that rather than expecting (and enforcing) maturity in our armed forces, we simply exclude women because "boys will be boys."
 
I'm confused. What kind of special accommodations would have to be made for women that have the physical attributes necessary for the position?

At Infantry training camps - additional bathrooms, additional showers, additional sleeping quaters, additional training on what can/can't happen in the field (I'm speaking of the gray areas - yes, the black and white should be obvious).

In the field - separate foxholes (yet still somehow maintain the "buddy" sytem if there is only one female in the platoon), additional training to somehow keep men from overeacting to a wounded woman (as was the case in the Israeli army).

Just some examples off the top of my head. But hey, if women were held to SAME EXACT STANDARD as men, across the board - then I would perhaps concede this point.

Does anyone find it strange that if this truly was some grievous assault on woman's rights, in this day and age - that Obama hasn't signed an executive order to instantly reverse the practice?
 
Move the minimum age requirement to 30? How well behaved were you at 18?

30? Wow, you really don't have faith in men...

I was raised to respect women, so at age 10, 18, 55 it doesn't matter I always have and will be well behaved. And I sure as hell knew how to keep it in my pants at 18...
 
I think I'm going to close up shop on this topic now, thanks for the great questions and responses. There are many other points that could be made - a little research on the Internet is filled with information that support both sides of the argument (several interesting ones concerning evolutionary biology).

I don't blame women for wanting to be the Infantry any more than I blame a woman for wanting to play for the Dallas Cowboys. However, I do so the reasoning behind not allowing them to do either. To me it is obvious, to others - it is not so obvious. I don't feel anyone that objects to my opinion is an idiot or a child. As long as people remain generally courteous - then productive discussion can occur and I will do my best to respond.
 
I think the problem with this thread is that we are making generalizations about a small slice of the pie. The military is a huge multi-billion dollar organization. Fighting on the front lines and sharing foxholes is a small part of what they do. I know plenty of women who have served as dcotors, nurses, surgeons, pilots, in the air force, doing skilled technical work, recruiting, navy, .... heck my original job idea was to study atmospheric science and join the air force. These "problems" of having to share a foxhole with a horny 18 year old have never had any bearing on how capable they are of doing the job the same as any man, alongside a man.
 
No offense - but is that what you say to everyone that disagrees with you? Can someone have a contrary opinion without being called a nitwit or child? I'm 39, I have a BS degree in MIS and a BS in English Literature as well as an MBA in International Finance - and quite a bit of graduate level seminary (working on Mdiv and hopefully a PhD). I've been an enlisted grunt and an officer. I worked for dotcoms, two Fortune 500 companies and a well established biotech company. I've been to every continent except Antarctica. I've also served as an associate pastor at my church. My point is - I'm not some fresh kid who hasn't seen "the world"

AEON,

I admire you for going to OCS at this age. You have to get your commission a day before you turn 40 right? Also, what OCS are we talking?

But by growing up, I simply mean I think you have some more discovery to do. I'm continuing to grow up myself (I'm 2 years older than you).

Combat Arms is where we draw the line today, but you and I know that a female fighter pilot, tank driver, or nuclear engineer on an aircraft carrier would be more than capable of conducting combat, and in every way in as much danger as their comrades beside them in the fight.

One of the most pleasant experiences I had was coming back from Iraq in a C-17 commanded by a female pilot, and no, not because she was cute and I wanted to have sex with her (not saying she was or was not). But because I knew that she was every bit capable, and I could empathize with her, and her family, and be just as proud of/for her and respect her as if she were male.

for wanting to play for the Dallas Cowboys. However, I do so the reasoning behind not allowing them to do either

But what about a female place kicker? Got a problem with that?
 
Back
Top Bottom