Women in Combat? Why?

I was just highlighting that women are commonly under-estimated and have been active participants in war on the ground. Of course this female Viet Cong sniper is a war criminal and does not meet the standards of a professional soldier. That being said, some women are capable of meeting the standards required of a professional soldier in the infantry and should be given a fair shake like everybody else. A fair shake and opportunity goes a long ways in insuring that the military has the best professionals in it's ranks to protect the nation and it's interests.

 

It's not economical. Approximately 1 out of 60 women versus 60 out of 100 men can be trained as infantry soldiers. When you mix in sexual harrasement issues, pregnancy, and various other issues it just doesn't make any sense. The military doesn't cater to small minorities, they cater to combat effectiveness.

 

I for one, did not say that any woman could do any military job, but, not all men can do all military jobs, either.
The military will not even take all men that volunteer--lol. The same standards should apply to both men and women in the service.

 

Actually, what I KNOW is that if, after they finished basic training and advanced infantry training, 100 men and 100 women would perform equally well on a march of such a type. Men would drop out before women and women would remain in after many men did not. Who the last one standing would be, is up for grabs, because in addition to simple strength, such a march requires much more, endurance, mental outlook, will-power and other things that women have just as much of as men.

The nation of Israel uses men and women in ALL parts of its military and ANYONE ignorant enough to claim the do not have an effective and efficient and powerful military is also stupid.

 

Check out Israel--or don't if you wish to keep your foolish ideas.

 

I can tell you from first hand experience that you're wrong. First off, to get the 100 men you would probably need to start with about 140 raw recruits. To get 100 women who could meet the CURRENT standards you would need more than 1000 recruits....actually, if the Army study I cited earlier in the thread is accurate, you'd need about 6000. That's where economics comes into play.

This argument has nothing to do with will; It has to do with physical strength and size. Women have on average 50% of the upper body strength of men and around 70% of the lower body strength. They also have significantly less aerboic capabiltiy and weaker joints, muscles, and bones. Women suffer lower extremeity injuries at a significantly higher rate than men.

 

The Israels used women during extreme times. After said times they banned them from Infantry. There is currently ONE female infantry BN in the IDF that allows women that was created through "political pressure", that's hardly proof of anything. Go research some of the Israeli's studies on the issue. How are my ideas foolish? What infantry experience do you have to claim my own experiences are "foolish."? For christ sakes there's a female Air Force pilot on this thread agreeing that women shouldn't be in the Infantry. She's among the elite of all female service members and still feels it's not a good idea. Women belong in combat, they don't belong in ground combat with Infantry, Armor, and Artillery.

 

To try and add to this a little bit,

Woman in an Infantry slot, doing full blown kinetic operations, may sound good in "theory", but I don't believe it is for second.

Most men have a NATURAL instinct to want to protect women. So, say one soldier begins to fall for said female in his platoon. They are out patrolling the mountains of Afghanistan and come across an ambush. The woman he has fallen for, takes a bullet and is killed instantly. I firmly believe that he will react much differently, and not in a good way, than if it was his best friend.

If your friend takes a bullet and is killed, you continue the fight and grieve later, you never let your emotions take over in a fire fight.

Not saying this WOULD happen, but it's a very good possibility.

Personally, seeing a woman helpless on the ground with a bullet through her neck would effect me much differently than if another man.

 

And upper back problems if they have big boobs

 

Why?

.........

 

If you go to theatre, you are in "combat". Where they do not belong is in actual ground combat doing full kinetic ops.

ie: Going out looking for trouble.

 

So why do women belong there?

 

It may or may not be "they belong there because of XYZ", but if women want to serve their country, they should be able to.

I've come across man women who excelled in their respective fields in the Military, but those same women would not of done well in an Infantry slot.

 

Nobody belongs in war/combat, but war is a reality of the world and thus there will always be a need for professional soldiers. Life in the infantry is rough, tough and can really suck sometimes, but somebody has got to do it. You want the best, especially when you consider that everything an infantryman does is a matter of life and death.

 

Serving one's country is either a privilege or a duty, not a right, so the only relevant criterion WRT any individual is whether or not that person makes the military better at killing people and breaking things by his or her presence. Bearing that in mind, along with the complications that inevitably arise when males and females work together, how do women in combat roles meet that criterion?

 

In my almost ten years as a combat pilot, I have never once had any "complications" working with men in my squadrons. It takes a special kind of woman to be successful in a combat role and that kind of woman has proven to work well with men. Do I think there would be problems with women in infantry and special forces? Yes, but you are talking about a wide range of combat roles. Unless your civilian mind does not understand that combat is more than just infantry. In which case your ignorance is excused.

 

Yes, as in they should be afforded the privilege to do so. Where in my post did I say it was a right?

 

How do you figure "almost" 10 years as a combat pilot.

You were a snacko not all that long ago...your join date for this forum was August, 2010.
Might want to re-think that timeline.

 

Swell, let's start enlisting ten year olds.

If you get the 5 best basketball players, will you necessarily have the best team? No, because they don't necessarily play well together. What reason is there to believe men and women work together in combat situations as well as men work with each other?

 

We discussed Squadron Officer School not too long ago and I believe I admitted my age. And yes, almost ten years =/= ten years, but I have been in long enough to know that yguy's views are archaic and incorrect.

 

The burden of proof is on you because it has worked for almost twenty years now. What reason is there to believe we do not work well together? Based on your myopic personal experience completely separated from the military? Or perhaps your prejudicial and stereotypical view of women?

 

Even taking this at face value, anectodal evidence is obviously not terribly compelling.

So how many "not so special" women are we letting into combat roles in hopes of getting the few who are not a detriment to battle readiness?

Yes, I'm talking about any role in which an individual can reasonably be expected to be the target of a shot fired in anger, or any variant thereof.

Because...?

 

if you say so...

You said you were late 20's.
Commissioned at say, 22...
even at 29 that's only 7 years time in service, a far cry from "almost" 10.

I guess you're including the time training with T-6 II, T-38, and IFF
as "combat pilot"...heck might as well include initial flight screening while you're at it.

Not to make this all personal, but I think 10 years is a slight exaggeration...IMHO.

 

Neither is your diatribe.

I have yet to encounter a woman who has not been able to handle her job. Especially in the pilot community, people are weeded out. The single biggest factor that goes into your ranking is your airmanship- your ability to think while flying. While the stressors of a combat environment are not pressed in pilot training, you are still under great pressure. They can teach monkeys to fly, but they could not be effective in combat as they do not understand where they are at all times and know how to employ their jet. It is easy to separate those who will and those who never can.

Combat is a completely different factor. You may be (*)(*)(*)(*) hot in peacetime and crack when (*)(*)(*)(*) starts flying at you. Some people are wired that way irrespective of their gender. There are women who get weeded out in UPT. The ones that cry when they get downgraded and the others that promote their assets in order to appeal for a higher class standing. It does not work. People see through that facade.

 

I would definitely consider time spent in IFF and an FTU as time spent as a combat pilot. Unless you think it only applies to when you are deployed in a designated combat, in which case we have full-birds with only 18 months of experience as a combat pilot.