GI Jane a Bad Idea?
 

The reading was so lengthy Ive enclosed a part of it
ptsdcombat.blogspot.com/2006/05/women-in-combat-females-and-ptsd.html


The recent numbers show that women are more susceptible to a higher degree of post traumatic stress disorder than men. This being an age and a country where women have the same rights as men, should they have the right to serve in combat units? Even though there are female Marines; they don’t serve in direct combat infantry units. There is no doubt that females (probably not as many) could make it through Special Forces training as well. Personally, I think it would be a bad idea, and I think there should continue to be law prohibiting females from direct combat. I am old fashioned in that area.

I rememer reading somewhere that women on average are better than men at military strategy. I'll see if I can find the study. If that's the case, having women in the field would be invaluable, espically since most of our current enemies don't use women in combat.

I'm a former Navy Corpsman and I went through Marine Field med training. It was "co-ed" and never experienced any weirdness or witnessed any problems.

I also attended Basic Underwater Demolition and that would have been very strange to have had females in the class. I see allot of difficulty with something like that happening.

With military strategy, do you mean the moment to moment choices that occur in field combat or the choices coming from top level officers within intellegence facilities?

Both, but the former is more pertenant to the discussion.

Well, gender doesn't matter much when they're behind a gun. Hand to hand combat, maybe. Although I know a few women at my last dojo, and new one, that can beat many of the male students with ease.

Even if it is a bad idea, I don't see the government revoking a woman's right to join; women's rights activists would have a field day.

If woman met all the regulations that men have to go through, then they should be allowed to serve. On that note I have my reservations. As a product of nature women are naturally slower, smaller, and weaker then their male counterparts. Granted guns do level the playing field, there are still instances were natural boundaries would play a role. If my ass got shot and I needed to get dragged or what not out of a spot, I know the average woman would have a hardtime dealing with my Average male frame. Again make combat training conditions uniform, do not ease them in any way shape or form, let women have at it, if they want to have the right to die in combat, let them.

Women dont have the same physical readiness testing as males in the military. Don't get me wrong presently women in Iraq are taking alot of the same fire as males are.

I just have a hard time seeing a situation like Starship Troopers minus the aliens every happening successfully. They way things unfold one never knows.

Inserting humor here......

Women have to be strategic while taking men for everything they have :)

Give a woman on PMS and no midol or chocolate a gun and tell them the enemy has it all..... watch her go.

Hell hath no fury like a pissed off woman on a mission. :lol:

If women were held to the exact same physical standards as men I would not mind them serving together. This split standards, however, do not help either side.

Isn't the IDF integrated? Lebanon aside, they seem to do pretty well for themselves.

You do have a point there.
Do you know if there are any female Massad? Ofcourse that maybe like comparing it to the CIA in which there are female operatives.

That's how I feel about women as military, cops, firemen, etc. They should be given the chance to try, but they better be hitting the requirements for the males.

I would also wonder if the strategic advantage is really for women. I would think lots of that has to do with spatial thinking, which males on average are better at than females.

Based on talking to military personnel, I was under the impression that physical readiness wasn't the primary concern with putting women in more direct combat roles. I thought that there were two major problems: one being the effect on morale and support for a war when large numbers of women are coming home in bodybags; the second being the impact on a unit's internal dynamics when you deploy women alongside them.

As for physical standards, I trust the military not to put anyone in harm's way who isn't very fit and well trained. Whether those high standards should be exactly the same for both sexes is a decision I leave in their capable hands.

One of the biggest things they've found that impact women is during SERE training. If you don't know this is where they train you for when you're a PoW. They quite litterally beat the crap out of you. What they've found is that the vast majority of men who go through it never break by being beaten themselves, but many do when they see a woman being beaten. Our society is so strong in the belief of protecting women that these men can not handle being helpless while a woman is beaten.

When was the last time soliders were captured as a POW?

Jessica Lynch.

Seaver, then shouldn't that be part of SERE training -- being able to deal with a woman being beaten?

Doesn't matter, its part of male instinct for female. SERE training teaches you how to overcome that

That would be of no help if the male soldier's ego would keep him listening to a female co-soldier. :)

Basically, I think having women in the field and it working says more about the males than the females. The females can do it, the question is how do the males handle it.


There are definately female Mossad agents.
And yes you are correct about the comparison to the CIA.

There are women out there who can do it. I've known two female Marines that could most certainly do it.

But most can't. Most women can't, and most female servicemembers can't. The simple fact is that the average American male in this age range outweighs the average female by more than 40 pounds, is five inches taller, and has nealy 50% more skeletal muscle-mass. That's not opinion or psychology, that's simple anatomy and physiology. What -that- translates into is much, much lower physical strength and carrying capacity.

Infantrymen carry a LOT of equipment around. 30-70lbs of it, depending on the mission. More if they're a radioman, a machine-gunner, a grenadier, a medic...and what all of -this- translates to is that one average man can usually carry 1.5-2x the weight that an average woman can.

If the machine-gun malfunctions, SOMEone has to be able to get it working again. If the only "someone" able to work on the gun is unable to open the top-cover or rack the charging handle ( as my friend H. witnessed at Boot Camp ), that MG isn't going to get working. Decreased physical strength translates, in combat, to people getting injured or killed. Out of action, it just translates into a -LOT- of resentment and morale problems, when everyone else has to pick up the physically weaker person's slack.

Women can be great soldiers. As irregulars and guerillas, they're unbeatable for a number of reasons. But the physical demands of fighting in the heavily-loaded, mechanized armed forces of a modern superpower are simply beyond the abilities of the majority of women.

That having been said, if they can hack it, they should be allowed to do so. I don't care about sex, as long as they can get the job done. But I also don't care about sex if they -can't- get the job done.

Exactly right.

Unfortunately, politics can play a huge role in this arena. Pilots in particular have been inappropriately advanced in the name of political correctness, and their mistakes have been covered up.

You aren't going to drop that without further details, are you? And, by chance, have you read "Combat Corpsman?"

In the same stance that you are looking at Seaver, Not all MEN are held to the same physical standards either. As current standards show, there are different age requirements. i.e. as you get older, the standards drop. You are allowed longer times to complete runs, not required to complete as may pullups/situps as younger males.... So the standard changes as we get older, to allow for "weakening" of the body. So why shouldn't we allow a lower standard for women, and yet allow them to serve in the SAME situations as their male counterparts? We allow older, weaker men to do it? I know of a former Gunny of mine who couldn't pull a charging handle on a .50 cal, yet he was still allowed to serve in combat, just not as a machine gunner.
I know of a marine in bootcamp with me who was all of 100 lbs, and 5'4" tall, but he was still allowed in. He couldn't operate some of the heavy machinery, and was unable to properly fit in a tank, so he was denied going to Tanker school, but still allowed to serve in a combat zone. I personally served with a Woman Marine who was a small gal, and didn't look like she could do much, but she sure as hell seemed to do a good job running the machine gun on top of the Hummer durring the wargames in 1990. She operated, loaded, and accurately fired that thing better than any of the men in our unit!

I almost feel sorry for those who don't want women to serve. Why not? Do we want to horde all the glory for saving our country to the men? Personally I think it is a pride thing. I think too many men out there can't handle it if a woman can outperform them in a job. But hey, that's my opinion.

Not everything is sexism in the classic feminist sense like your opinion here is.

I think as a rule women are unfit to serve in combat. Its not about physical fitness or stamina, its their very nature which makes them unfit. Men are the killers, we have evolved for violence, we are mostly the children of winners of wars, not losers, those guys are dead. Its quite frankly what we like to do as a whole. Look at the combat games online, its almost all men, and while I'll hear there 'such and such is a girl and she'll kick your ass' or whatever, its the exception to the rule. Perhaps I'm old fashioned but I don't think that two weeks in the blazing sun without a bath, cooped up half the time in an un-airconditioned APC, is the best place for a woman. Are there some that can do so? Sure, just like their are men that can not, but those are few and far between.

As for the strength thing, its not even close. I'll use my wife as an example because its the one I know best. Many women think they can be as strong or just as strong as a man. Unless you are doing steroids its just not going to happen, it can't happen, women don't have the right chemistry. My wife is a good sized woman, 5'7", I'd say pretty average height, of Scandinavian descent. She has worked out 5-6 days a week for over a year now. I'm constantly impressed with her muscle tone and how great a shape she is in. I on the other hand have not worked out in almost a year, I don't have a job that requires any strength, I spend a lot of time doing what I'm doing now which is sitting on my ass in front of a computer. I can still crush her like a bug strength wise, and I don't know any woman who could take me so to speak. I'm sure they are out there, and I'm sure I could be out lifted by some women not on roids but they are the extreme end of the spectrum here. Stamina wise my wife can out do me by quite a bit, but I can gain stamina, she won't ever be able to equal my non-workingout lazy ass strength.

Now this doesn't mean women shouldn't be in the military. Nor does it preclude women from all combat. There may be types of combat where women excel as a rule. Russia had its women snipers for example that did quite well. There may be modes of combat in the future where they may be superior to men and should be used there, but as a ground pounder grunt, women do not belong, and this doesn't even get to the reasons beyond ability.

This also goes to the point of why exclude ALL women from combat? Like you said yourself Ustwo, not ALL women are good for combat, but some are. Why exclude those that CAN just because there are many more that can't? I know plenty of guys that were TOTALLY unfit for combat, but still sent to serve. All I am saying is that if a woman WANTS to do it, and she can prove herself capable of doing it, wo shouldn't hold her back just because she is a woman. That's just wrong, period. The world is changing. No longer is the woman just a stay at home, cook and clean kind of person. Heck, 20 or 30 years ago the thought of a woman in the office-place that wasn't a secretary was considered an abomination, and that women were seen as unable to do the job as well as a man. Things have changed since then. I am not saying that every woman should be allowed to just waltz right into a combat zone, but if she says she wants to, we should give her the chance to prove herself. And if she can do it, let her fight!

No.

The military is not a place to be playing games like this. Sure some women may well be able to handle it and want to do it, boo-hoo to them. This isn't about fairness and equal oportunity, its about winning wars. Rather than figuring out and wasting resources to find that 1% of women who can do it (or whatever % it is) I'm more than happy to leave them out, if the barbarians reach the gate they can fight then.

Just becuase women are not in combat roles does not mean that women are not subject to combat. The baisc truth is that if you are in Iraq you are in a Combat zone. Youw ill see combat and the enemy could care less what your gender is. This will always be an issue until they do not let women into combat zones.

If women continue to persue equal rights and everything then there should be no exceptions made for them. If they want to be equal they need to be treated as equals. That means the same standard across the Board. No exceptions. This will never happen but maybe it should.

Well, I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I'll throw in my two cents. I think right now the US military has it mostly right. If you look at what women are banned from, it's the areas of the military that are the most physically demanding. What men in the infantry do, most women could not. Men can ruck for tens of miles with a pack that weighs more than half as much as they do. From personal experience, I know that most women cannot. What men in the artillery do, most women could not. Lifting shells and handling the big guns are very physically demanding jobs, and I don't think most women could do it.

There are some women that can do it, but do you really expect the US military to have separate training units for all of the women who apply, only to have 90% of them attrite because they weren't physically qualified? Think how much more money that costs than just saying across the board that women can't apply. It is unfortunate for those women who are physically capable, but it's economics. Maybe in the future the military will incorporate some sort of physical exam so that those women who wish to apply for the infantry can do so.

Someone said that women are better strategists: well, that may be true, but women can be officers. If they rise high enough, they can make strategy and policy. Someone said something about how older age means relaxed physical standards for men: so what? Most older people are in the higher ranks. For the most part they're not doing the most phyiscally demanding jobs any more. In any case, a women who can't pull a charging handle when she is 20 won't be able to pull one when she is 40. A man who is 40 may not be able to pull a charging handle, but he probably could at 20. In any case, in the Marine Corps that relaxed physical standard applies to all Marines, not just the ones in the infantry.

For myself, I have no problem serving alongside women. I don't think women should be excluded from combat or combat zones, only those MOS' where women could not handle the physical aspect of the job. If women want to get shot at, fine with me. When I went through Marine OCS, the attrition rate for males was 30-40%. For females it was around 60%. I know for a fact that the females had much lower physical standards, yet the attrition rate was still almost double that of the males. If females had the same exact physical standards as the males, there is no doubt in my mind that the female attrition rate would be over 90%.

Thank you. You just agreed with my whole point right in the above excerpt.:thumbsup:

I can care less about studies, the IDF, morale, whatever. It comes down to this: Do we really want to be a country where we send our women to the front lines? I dont think we do

I don't understand. What's wrong with sending women to the front lines?

My argument is based purely on chivalry. To me, we lose something as a society when we send out young women to the frontlines and have them getting slaughtered. We should be protecting our women, not sending them to the frontlines to fight for us

How quaint. Do you think that women should have any choice in the matter?

The military is not a democracy where you go and discuss your feelings and choices

Sounds like the kind of place where the leaders shouldn't really care if women are on the front lines.

C'mon, you act like your appeal to chivalry isn't inherently emotional.

This is where most discussions end.

I never attempted to conceal that. It is an emotion based argument (and thus a liberal one at that) based solely on how we view women in this society

You might be surprised to hear this, but your emotion based liberal argument is actually based on plain old social conservative values. Going even further, most conservative arguments are as emotional, if not moreso, than liberal arguments.

The idea that we should prevent women from seeing combat because we need to protect them regardless of whether or not the women in question are capable of seeing combat betrays a certain amount of disrespect for women in general. Do you treat all the women in your life like they aren't capable of deciding what's good for themselves?

We just disagree then. I, someone who has actually served, do not want our girls on the front line. You, someone who has not served, want girls on the front line. Very courageous of you btw

Hi! I'm on submarines.
On the occassions where we've had female riders it's been... interesting.

I think the primary problem with mixing in the females is the disruption of the extremely juvenile comraderie that spawns in all-male environments. Given enough time the culture will adapt and we'll get back to the same juvenile bullshit thats fun for soldiers of all sexes, but until that adapatation occurs a fairly important aspect of stress relief and unit cohesion is lost.

Not only that, the guys that make the least effort to integrate females as just another member of the unit (i.e. the ONLY people integrating females as just another member fo the unit) are going to get sexual harrassment complaints. Leaving you with the coddlers, which are insidious, and the male chauvanists, which are annoying.

SO... yeah. We don't really have the opportunity for co-ed combat units to exist as anything other than your standard canine-equestrian events and find out how they'd work in the real world. I think they'd do fine once everyone got used to the idea and, like kids at a teenage dance, figured out how to act around each other.

NOW, on the subject of sexually segregated all-female combat units. Go for it, several times at once. No single test case that can be made to succeed or fail due to outside influence type stuff.

Currently serving.
I think you're an quaint old-fashioned fuddy duddy, too.

Funnily enough, hubby and I talked about this today and these were all his main arguments (he was Marine Corps infantry)....and said that an all female combat unit would be just fine, but the co-ed ones just wouldn't work that well.