One giant step Backwards?

[47MartialMan]

If I was in a fox hole or bunker, it wouldnt matter to me if my partner was male or female, provided that either did their job.

Hmmn,,, not to sound wrong, but I'll prefer the female if I was at the lost.

 

[bignick]

I do agree that due to the demand of the job that the more men will be suited, physically at least, for the job of front line combat. But if a woman qualifies, there should be no reason to deny her the position.

As for women being killed, captured, or otherwise being placed in harm's way I believe that they are such huge stories, precisely because they are rare. As sad as it is, but once it becomes a regular occurrence, the sensationalism of it will go away. We become very jaded very quickly with the media saturated world we live in.

 

[arnisador]

I do agree that due to the demand of the job that the more men will be suited, physically at least, for the job of front line combat. But if a woman qualifies, there should be no reason to deny her the position.

Yes, I think this is a sensible position.

Sexual abuse in war isn't just for women, incidentally...e.g., Lawrence of Arabia.

 

[Tgace]

Of course not. However as a group, I think women will become subject to it more often.

 

[arnisador]

No argument.

 

[47MartialMan]

As for women being killed, captured, or otherwise being placed in harm's way I believe that they are such huge stories, precisely because they are rare. As sad as it is, but once it becomes a regular occurrence, the sensationalism of it will go away. We become very jaded very quickly with the media saturated world we live in.

I guess, in time, it will become easier to accept like woman voters, drivers, politicians, and etc.,

 

[sgtmac_46]

What does the top 5% have to do with anything? Pick any male from any outfit and see if he's in the top 5% of the armed forces....if he's not, do we kick him out? After all, he can't cut it with the elite of the elite...so he shouldn't be eligible for his job.

Yes, actually, that's the point of elite units. They represent the CREAM. If they are not the elite 5% they shouldn't be there. I thought that would have been self-explanatory. lol. I never said if he can't cut it with the elite, he SHOULD have the job. That's the point, thank you for acknowledging it.

If a woman can cut it in the training why shouldn't she be allowed to go? I've still not seen one good argument on to this thread about why a woman that has completed the training and qualifies shouldn't be allowed to fight on the front lines. I've heard, in flippant statements like "women are generally weaker"..."they can't handle the stress"...etc

Think you're combining physical and emotional strength in order to make a point, a factitious argument. Women are not as physically strong as men. The strongest ten percent of women are only as strong as the weakest half of men. Again, you're mixing units like MP, Transport, Support, with other, more demanding units, such as SF, Rangers, Airborne troops and Marines. There is no comparision. Those Elite troops attract the hard charges, the extreme. Driven women perform suitably well when compared to men from more mundane units, precisely because most of those men are mundane. That's fine, I have no problem with those women doing those jobs. When you compare them to men from elite units, it's like claiming that a woman who does well in amateur boxing, is all of a sudden a contender to fight Roy Jones Jr. It's a wash. If there is that 1 woman in 1000 who can do the job, fine. There's not even any point in getting in to "emotional stress" arguments, as they are irrelavent.

Perhaps, but we aren't talking about "generally" or "on the whole" or "overall". How many guys, for the matter, would "generally" be able to handle the stress of combat? If someone doesn't cut it in training, flunks all his PT tests, can't shoot the broadside of a barn, would they be allowed to fight on the frontline? Would you want them fighting on the frontline, watching your back? What if it's a guy? Then do we let him anyways? Well? I didn't think so? So what about a woman that has completed all the training, past her marksmanship tests, and fulfilled every requirement that every other soldier needs to fill. What do we do with her? Let her fight? No...she needs to go sit off to the side and knit the soldiers socks and maybe a nice rifle warmer...

This isn't about the average guy, this is about the elite guy. Elite forces don't WANT the average guy, so a woman who competes well with AVERAGE guys, still isn't going to cut it. Elite units want EXTRAORDINARY guys. They want the guy that makes the average guy look pathetic. Your argument is, again, silly. You are saying "Well, if a guy can't do it, do we let him do it?" Of course not, it's not even a consideration with guys. That's why women's PT tests are different than mens, so they can pass them with a commensurate score. This is NOT an "every other soldiers" requirement, it's an Elite unit requirement.

Do I agree with the war in Iraq? No...I'm not going to lie to you. Do I think any of our soldiers should be there dying? No. Do I think it's a disgrace that even though we're in the 21st century we still try to put women in their place and keep them safe so they don't get scared by the "big, bright world" outside of their kitchens? Absolutely.

lol. I love this paradox that leftists are stuck in. "No US soldier should be fighting and dying in Iraq (except women). lol.

I find it quite asinine that at a time when we the military is supposedly falling far short of it's recruiting goals that we are trying to cut back a section of our armed forces from doing the job that they've been doing quite capably for sometime.

Think your knee is jerking a bit there, partner. I never said women should be cut out of areas they are performing right now. What I did say, was that 99% of women cannot perform certain PEAK functions such as elite units, and no woman can perform them at the level of the elite 5% of men.

Again, show me the woman who's going to take Roy Jones Jr., and you'll have an argument.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah, its simple math. If only 5% of all applicants (and theres a screening to even make the pool) make the cut for elite units and the % of women in that pool is a fraction of that. The odds are stacked (not saying an exception is impossible) against seeing one make it in.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yeah, its simple math. If only 5% of all applicants (and theres a screening to even make the pool) make the cut for elite units and the % of women in that pool is a fraction of that. The odds are stacked (not saying an exception is impossible) against seeing one make it in.

It gets even better than that. Only 5% of men are even physically and emotionally sound to TRYOUT for elite units. Many of those units have a 70% to 80% dropout rate. That means that our acceptance rate is only 1% to 3%. Unless you stack the deck, the odds aren't that good. Of course, there's more than enough congressman who willing to stack the deck to make reality "GI Jane". I don't think the outcome will be the same, though.

Elite units don't operate like some supply logistics division based in Baghdad, it's a whole different world. One that I don't even pretend to think I can operate in.

 

[sgtmac_46]

umm... no... but good try...

But you can't jump from:

"The war is unjust"

and

"Females should have equal opportunities"

to a paradox, the two statements are independant of each other.

That's not what's being said. What's being said is "The war is wrong, the US shouldn't be there" AND "It's unfair that women may be removed from the unjust war, keep them there". Again, it just shows how impossible it is for the left to let go of contradictory views. Radical feminism and the Peace movement simply don't mind the paradox.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I guess it depends what job we are talking about here. I think a woman can do a great job in the frontlines driving a tank or airforce unit. I also think they would make great spies and snipers.

However as far as being an army man or woman in the front lines, I think that job should be only to men. As much as we may hate it, men do have better endurance, strength, and speed for infantry shootouts and what not. I am not saying that a woman cannot be as good as a man, but in general no matter how much a woman trains men will always be stronger and I think in situations that involve more strength, endurance, and speed that it should be left to men. That's my opinion.

Now should there be a law? I am not sure, I am really never been for too many laws. I think there are not going to be as much women trying for a frontline infantry job so it it might not make much of a difference whether there is a law or not. So a law might be unnecessary.

I have to take exception with the sniper comment. That job is extremely physically demanding, in addition to be emotionally demanding. The Marine Scout Sniper's are an elite unit with high physical demands that are very similar to other elite units. I agree with the rest of your comment, however. Especially as it pertains to operating equipment. It is in our technology that we bridge the gender gap. The saying "God made all men, Colt made them equals" is even more true when you start talking about the equality creation of technology.

If someone says that a female can fly a fighter plane as good as a man, I won't argue that point. It is the technology that even allows this to be a question. If this were still the era of sharpened steal and blunt impact, there wouldn't even be an issue. Women do not perform physical combat on the level of men. That isn't a statement open for debate, that's why women have been the VICTIMS of violence throughout history, far more often that it's perpetrators. The gun, and the tank, and the jetfighter are definitely equalizers, but equalizers not present in elite units.

 

[47MartialMan]

Male against female unarmed combat-What comes to mind is the Joey Buttafuoco and Joanie Laurer boxing match.

 

[FearlessFreep]

"Trained Man" against "Trained Woman" is a different world than untrained against untrained, I think.

I once read an article by someone that said that one reason for keeping woman out of combat is simply that it's a good thing to keep as many people out of combat as possible.

We as men still have an instinctive reaction, for the most part, to protect women from harm, and I honestly think that is a good thing.

The only real problem is that, within the military, keeping women out of combat presents a sort of 'glass ceiling' from advancement as rank and postion are awarded on merit and performance and combat is a big way to gain merit and show performance. Given the nature of the role of the military, I think that's pretty much neccessary. You don't really want command given to those who have never fought.

So, personally I don't like seeing women in combat simply because I don't like seeing women in danger, but unfortunately I can't really see a good alternative.

 

[bignick]

@sgtmac I think we got some wires crossed, here...you were discussing elite units, I was discussing your average soldier.

lol. I love this paradox that leftists are stuck in. "No US soldier should be fighting and dying in Iraq (except women). lol.

I think this is where your knee is jerking a bit. This is no paradox, and certianly not a leftist one for me, considering I'm an indepedant raised in the midwest with a strong conservative leanings on many subjects. The war is something I personally disagree with and is not a matter of politics, it's a matter of our people dying when I feel they shouldn't have to. And there is no paradox here. You're twisting our statements a bit. At no point have we ever said that only women should be dying in Iraq, that is a ridiculous paraphrasing of what my statement was. What I stated, for the record, was that I feel that, in our armed services, if a woman can pass the requirements for a job, she should be able to perform that job. The fact that I disagree with the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the issue of denying women positions in our military that they can perform

 

[bignick]

I have to take exception with the sniper comment. That job is extremely physically demanding, in addition to be emotionally demanding. The Marine Scout Sniper's are an elite unit with high physical demands that are very similar to other elite units. I agree with the rest of your comment, however. Especially as it pertains to operating equipment. It is in our technology that we bridge the gender gap. The saying "God made all men, Colt made them equals" is even more true when you start talking about the equality creation of technology.

If someone says that a female can fly a fighter plane as good as a man, I won't argue that point. It is the technology that even allows this to be a question. If this were still the era of sharpened steal and blunt impact, there wouldn't even be an issue. Women do not perform physical combat on the level of men. That isn't a statement open for debate, that's why women have been the VICTIMS of violence throughout history, far more often that it's perpetrators. The gun, and the tank, and the jetfighter are definitely equalizers, but equalizers not present in elite units.

Actually, I believed the Russians used female snipers quite successfully....

 

[47MartialMan]

"Trained Man" against "Trained Woman" is a different world than untrained against untrained, I think.

So, personally I don't like seeing women in combat simply because I don't like seeing women in danger, but unfortunately I can't really see a good alternative.

Come on, trained vs trained...untrained vs untrain, doesnt the female have the dis-advantage?

But women want to demonstate that they are willing to accept the danger

 

[sgtmac_46]

Actually, I believed the Russians used female snipers quite successfully....

You are of course referring to the battle of Stalingrad, where the Russians had no choice. The best sniper in the conflict was still Vasilev.

And yes, you have our wires crossed. I said that women were perfectly suited to the more mundane tasks of the military, which many of them perform admirably. That is because the above average woman is serving with the average man, the average man being the type that works in those typical units. Above average women can compete will there. However, my point is that women can't compete in an elite unit where 90% of men can't compete either. Nor should they be allowed in those units simply to help them avoid "The glass ceiling". The fact is, you aren't arguing that women can do the job better, simply that it is unfair for them not be allowed. Combat isn't about fairness. That's what I take issue with. If a woman can peform a task she is performing well, there is no reason to remove her, nor have I suggested as much.

There is considerable paradox in the statement "No US soldier should be in combat in Iraq, we should get everyone out we can, but we need to keep the women there so it doesn't hurt their advancement". It's the attempt to serve to contradictory political agenda, but, whatever, who cares. Fact is, I don't support removing women from units they are performing well in. I just caution that the units they are in are not the same as the elite units many want them to gain access to.

 

[Andrew Green]

That's not what's being said. What's being said is "The war is wrong, the US shouldn't be there" AND "It's unfair that women may be removed from the unjust war, keep them there". Again, it just shows how impossible it is for the left to let go of contradictory views. Radical feminism and the Peace movement simply don't mind the paradox.

This rule isn't just for this one war, it is for this and any future wars. Of course under that logic no one should be there, men or women... But you want to single women out

How about looking at it like this:

This war shouldn't be getting fought, but if this/any war is to be fought it should allow equal opportunites for combat roles (providing of course the standards are met)

But thank you for trying to turn this into such a black/white - right/left thing.

 

[sgtmac_46]

This rule isn't just for this one war, it is for this and any future wars. Of course under that logic no one should be there, men or women... But you want to single women out

How about looking at it like this:

This war shouldn't be getting fought, but if this/any war is to be fought it should allow equal opportunites for combat roles (providing of course the standards are met)

But thank you for trying to turn this into such a black/white - right/left thing.

Keep trying, and you might actually hit on a rationalization that makes sense.

 

[shesulsa]

There are exceptionally strong women and exceptionally weak men. Anyone who can do the job right should have it.