Commission to recommend women in combat
The Stars & Stripes reports that the Military Leadership Diversity Commission is poised to make recommendations to the Pentagon that women should be allowed to serve in combat arms roles “without restrictions”.
In the draft, commission members call for a phased approach to open additional career fields with ground combat units to qualified women, saying the current policy limits the ability of commanders to pick the most capable person for their missions.
“To date, there has been little evidence that the integration of women into previously closed units or occupations has had a negative impact on important mission-related performance factors, like unit cohesion,” the draft states.
I actually wrote a piece for the Stars & Stripes almost two decades ago on the subject. My opinion hasn’t changed. If the Army intends on putting QUALIFIED females in combat arms MOSs, they must be qualified in every respect. I’ve seen men who weren’t qualified for the infantry, so I’m sure there’s some women out there who want to be infantry but they’re not PHYSICALLY qualified.
Our buddy, Eve Chase is quoted in the article, and we’ve disagreed before, so the fact that we’ll disagree on this one won’t surprise her;
Chase, an Army reservist who served in Afghanistan, said standards for female combat troops need to be the same as those for men, but also noted that brute strength is not the only qualification. Language skills, leadership experience, and other combat-related specialties can be just as vital to mission success.
Yeah, anyone who says that brute strength isn’t the only qualification for the infantry hasn’t spent a day in the infantry. I look back on my daily schedule as an infantry platoon sergeant IN GARRISON and it seems like a Herculean task to me today. All of those other skills are a nice addition, but if your body can’t get your brain to battle, what the hell use are those other nice skills?
I’m fine with women in combat roles, but if they can’t pull their load, if they can’t carry their weight, they don’t belong. They need to have the same physical requirements as the men because a bullet doesn’t discriminate.
Category: Military issues
Not a problem if they can change track on a tank or chuck a 70+ lb round out of the ammo rack and into the breach under 5 seconds….
Won’t happen Old Tanker, but I sure wish it would. Numbers count and as soon as the MOS’s open to women, they’ll get popped in there to make the numbers look good. I ran a small arms shop in 2AD and I was checking my manning roster. Had this 45B I couldn’t figure out who she was. Turns out BN had stolen her to be a clerk. I asked her if she wanted to do her job, but she had no interest in doing what she was trained for. Guess moving mortar tubes was more then she signed up for. So I had her slotted excess. If BN wanted her they could find a slot for her. Moral of the story, They’ll sign up but don’t expect to see them in the line. Well most of them. There are some hard chargers that will love to mix it up.
We keep hearing how women want to be treated the same as men in the service. If they really mean it, then get rid of any differences in pt requirements, appearance regulations, the whole 9 yards. If they can do what a male can do, good for them, I’d gladly pack the two mortars, 100 7.62 rounds and everything else we share into her ruck. Does this mean everyone in the squad has to carry two tampons for her as well?
Are they going to live in the squad bay as well and live like we do, and build that brotherhood that’s too hard to explain to an outsider?
I agree with Jonn here, if they can’t pull their load, if they can’t carry their weight, they don’t belong, and if they can, then fine.
““To date, there has been little evidence that the integration of women into previously closed units or occupations has had a negative impact on important mission-related performance factors, like unit cohesion,” the draft states.” Really? So, those increases in pregnancy rates just before deployment aren’t a negative impact on important mission related performance factors like my personnel status?
A touchy subject, to be sure. Women in combat roles obviously brings the problem of what happens if they get captured. Especially by an enemy who devalues women’s rights so much as a radical Islamist would. But there is also the point to be made that there are women who are in combat already when women such as the Marine’s Female Engagement Teams are on patrol in Afghanistan and the patrol comes under fire. Or the incidents where supply/support convoys during the 2003 invasion of Iraq came under fire. There were women in those units, weren’t there?
The biggest problem that I see is the same as a couple of you have already addressed being that of the standards that women and men are held to in the military. If a woman is physically qualified according to the current standards of men assigned to combat units, then let them be assigned to combat units. If not, then don’t assign them just like you wouldn’t assign a male.
As far as somebody’s question about sleeping arrangements, they’re going to have to share a foxhole so they might as well share a squad bay!
VT Woody, I feel I should address some errors in your thinking a bit. There are several classes of jobs both in the civilian world and in the military. If the requirements for that job are that you be generally physically fit, gender norming makes sense – for example a sonar operator needs to be generally physically fit to be in the military, but she does not need to necessarily meet the men’s standards, have a butch haircut or comply with men’s grooming standards.
That said, there are jobs where ability to lift, tote, haul, and slog are part of the job. If you want that job, there should be one set of physical standards. (I still disagree on the haircut thing). If you can’t meet the standards, find another job.
As a general rule, I can do anything a man can do intellectually. However, as a heterosexual woman, I appreciate the fact that men and women are physically different. Heck, I thought God gave women men for the purpose of having them lift, tote, haul and slog. 🙂
A light load for a standard infantryman is 60 lbs. If the average female weighs 120, that’s half her body weight. Now throw in a SAW or 240 Bravo. I know some guys in Afghanistan that are carring at least 100 lbs easy. That isn’t easy for a guy, and probably too much for most women. Now try to run. Now you 240 LB buddy is shot, drag him for 100 meters. It wore me the hell out, and I WAS IN THE BEST SHAPE OF MY LIFE.
Now, throw in sex, which is bound to happen in close quarters. God alone knows how many “FOB wives” there are and the brigade that replaced us had an actual PROSTITUTION ring. I think when it comes to combat conditions units should be unisex, that is to say all men or all women. Its a personal opinion that does not fall into the PC view of the world.
Now allow me to be honest, I think women in uniform is sexy. But just because I can appreciate the beauty of such a thing, does not mean I want women facing the same horrors I have. Call it sexism, but I was raised to think that men should use their strength to protect women, and children, from the horrors of war. That though they may not be as virtuous as we hope, we should still strive to defend said virtue. I think perhaps this is the best of traditions of “men at arms” that should be preserved.
#7 Susan – “God gave women men for the purpose of having them lift, tote, haul and slog.” That is hilarious! TY for the laugh this morning!
My primary concerns are not whether men or women are equal mentally, physically, or emotionally. Women have fought honorably, and likewise have gotten pregnant to avoid fighting.
It is the cost of integrating women into combat arms:
To bring women fully into the infantry (mortars or anti-tank or even lightfighters) means a two-tiered promotion point/board system. It means longer wait times for PLDC, BNCOC, ANCOC, SGM Academy. Same goes for Airborne, Air Assault, and Ranger schools. Oh, and the Q Course.
It means undermining the integrity of UCMJ, wherein a female receives a lesser, or even no punishment compared to a male counterpart.
It means officers and NCOs watching their numbers to ensure they don’t fall below the threshold separating a ‘good command climate’ and ‘sexist homophobes in need of discharge.’
As has been seen with every other ‘first’ the powers that be will move heaven and earth to ensure the success of the first; but doing so undermines the integrity of the same powers that be, and the first.
Susan, there are already different Physical Training standards for men and women. If there is a man and woman that are both 71L (clerk typist) the man still has to perform at a different physical level than the woman in the PT test.
Now, to get into Airborne training, the physical test requirements are harder, yet, to even be considered. I guess what is being questioned is this: As in the civilian world, the physical standards are always lower for women, whether it’s firefighter or police officer in the civilian world, or PT in the military. The amount of women that could pass the physical standards of men in a combat arms MOS aren’t the rule, but the exception, unless they lower the physical standard to accomodate the women. If they do that, then you are lowering the overall effectiveness of the unit to function as it needs to and that will cost lives. Do we really want to continue down this path in order to have yet another social experiment thrust onto the military in wartime?
During a training exercise, the call was made to have a co-ed support unit join our task force by higher ups under pressure from certain lawmakers. In the view of the combat units, it was a disaster, because at the time, there were extra accomodations that had to be made for the females with seperate showers on the FOB, seperate sleeping quarters, as well as other considerations for the nocturnal security of the females. We were supposed to be a Rapid Deployment Force and the extra baggage kind of took the “Rapid” out of the equation as well as the added planning that took focus off the mission. Luckily, my unit was a combat unit so we didn’t have women and we weren’t on the FOB. I did hear from several of the males in other support units that really didn’t like the added crap, either.
Just my 2 cents
Susan,
Don’t forget we’re here to get things off the top shelf and open jars too 🙂
Ok a few things I need to point out here so y’all can understand where I am coming from.
My primary MOS is 11B
Ok try this again…… My primary MOS is 11B and has been since 1985. I have no qualms with women in my beloved Infantry but like many have already stated there needs to be some balancing of the standards if such is going to happen. I attended Basic at Fort Benning GA at E-9-2. My DI’s were in your face and back then they could say some things about Momma and your sister(s) that in todays Army would get them run out of the Army. I watch these shows on the Discovery Military Channel about Basic Training today and I see these little young ladies crying because the DI is getting in her face and telling her she F’d up. (Not in those words but that was the gist of it) The thing about it is is it was the woman DI who was doing the yelling. I wonder how these young ladies would act were it an 11B qualified MALE DI screaming at them because what they just did could have gotten their buddy killed in combat. I honestly wonder how a woman would react to seeing their Patrol getting shot up. Men are genetically predisposed to react by going caveman and unloading on the enemy. Most women, like some men, are not predisposed to dropping the hammer on the bad guy nearly as fast as a man. Another thing to think about is how would the enemy react to a woman being in that Patrol? Would they keep her alive simply to do the horrendous things we all know they would or would they simply shoot her dead like they would a male? My beloved Infantry is a bastion of testosterone fueled male cavemen who love nothing more than dragging there clubs along on a fight and beating the holy shiite outta the guys who would do nefarious deeds to their buddies and women. Another thing to think about that should be at the forefront of this discussion is the undeniable fact that SEX happens and if/when this integration happens that is going to happen a lot more.… Read more »
My loadout in Iraq as a SAW Gunner was as follows:
IBA (without all the weight added since then, only the vest and plates): 17 lbs
M249 SAW w/M145 MGO, RIS, AN/PEQ-2A, Sure-Fire, M5 stock, and loaded 100 rd soft pouch (no short barrel): 23+ lbs
900 rounds 5.56mm: around 31 lbs
Spare barrel w/bag and accessories: 5 lbs
That’s 76 lbs and does not include the squad equipment I carried (PLGR, poleless litter, etc); nor does it include water or other necessary items and personal effects (knife, ASP, etc).
I have seen and read accounts of females that were very effective mounted gunners, but in my opinion they would be handicapped as a machine gunner of any sort in a dismount role.
On the subject of women in combat, I know that some are ferocious in a firefight. In an ambush outside of Baghdad in 2003 our female LMTV driver tried to “man” the mounted .50 when her gunner froze. A PL riding as TC ordered her back to her seat, though, despite the fact that the entire convoy had stopped and we were sitting in the line of fire.
Tankers…..guys who could not make it as Infantry so they ride around in Tuna cans with tracks. 🙂
Another note on the subject of physical qualifications that gave me insight into the physical capabilities of most female Soldiers:
I started Air Assault School about a week and a half after I got back from Iraq seven years ago. At the beginning of zero day we had at least 20 females and by the end of zero day we had exactly 1. The obstacle course defeated the majority of the females and a relatively small number of males. As for the female Captain that made it, she was a definite stud–myself and a scout from the battalion were cruising along on our road march (2:58, we weren’t in a hurry) and she was coming in from the last leg of the march when we were headed back out.
To this day I see few females sporting the Air Assault Badge. More than a few have earned jump wings, but the “lesser” badge seems harder for them to obtain. I guess there is a big difference between passing an APFT at female 17-21 standards and passing an obstacle course where there is only one standard.
I was not an 11B. I was a Medic. Doc. I’ll be the first to tell you that women make great medics. BUT. . . there were SO many jokes about the. . . promiscuity, that it was somewhat embarrassing. There were also political considerations. My Charlie Med on my first tour was a little too much like a prime-time show on a network.
There were so many interpersonal conflicts, and relationships, and “long talks” it was pretty bad at times. If everyone wasn’t wearing clothes that said “Army” you’d think it was a reality show or something just as bad. I hate to say it but there is that aspect as well. Social issues suddenly become far more important that doing the mission and that can be lethal on the line.
Does anyone even wonder why the US military has a “Military Leadership Diversity Commission? That really ought to just send off trip flares and fireworks.
And, this smells a whole lot like libs pandering for votes from the “diversity” crowd.
WTF? “Military Leadership Diversity Commission” Is this some PC phrase? Where in hell does it have a place in the military?
I am tired of arguing about keeping women/gay/clowns/etc out of the military. Just do the right thing, keep it fair. Take the Mens/Womens signs off the restrooms, squad rooms, platoon bays, showers, etc. Make it 100% equal or not at all! Want equality? Have it!
Men in the military would not be allowed to wear a bra, keep that in place too. Men must cut their hair “high and tight”, good one also, keep the equality thing going, and do not discriminate against, (or for), the “ladies”.
Didn’t read all the comments above, so I may be repeating something, but this is my take on it
Can we spell EQUALITY, boys and girls?
> there are already different Physical Training standards for men and women
Yeppers, How about we equalize this little tidbit first and then sort out the ones who can actually hang after that. Frankly, as a woman I am okay with saying I am not as strong as a man. I could never do many pullups, and I certainly could never lug the gear that infantry guys to for any long period of time. What the hell is wrong with our society that simple facts get in the way of politically correct notions of equality? Generally not to be gross, but from my persepective woman need more hygiene than men, so staying weeks out in no mans land is not feasible. We smell 10x worse without a shower and are prone to infection.
There is also the little fact that we don’t have the testosterone in our bodies. You come at my children, and my adrenaline and instinct will scream kill, but any other time-I am docile as a kitten for the most part. That’s not to say that some woman don’t do well.. Just with men, they have testosterone that helps them-and they do better.
>Another thing to think about that should be at the forefront of this discussion is the undeniable fact that SEX happens
Yes, but I think they lost that argument when they repealed DADT. People who are advocated for women in combat will not make the point that sex can now happen in combat units anyways due to the liklihood of two gay soldiers, and if regs are in place for them- then regs are in place for woman/men.
Frankly I agree with you, but it is the circular argument they used to get DADT repealed… sex happened in regular units and regs are in place to deal with it. No one addressed how distracting and detrimental it was to the unit though.
I’m tired of the old “I’m fine with women in combat roles, as long as they fulfill the same physical requirements” argument.
Two things. First, you’re asking for the male physical requirements to be lowered. That’s what happens when women can’t make the grade. The grade gets lowered. Then, once they meet the new grade, they brag that they’re pulling their weight along with the men.
Second, regardless of whether or not a woman can meet the physical standards, she still introduces the elements of amorous/sexual relationships into any unit she enters, AND she can get pregnant. Pregnancy was a HUGE problem when I was in.
Men and women are not interchangeable parts. They are different. That’s why there’s no harm in treating them differently.
Old Grunt:
I’m just posting in here to point out that some of us exist who will cheerfully take someone out with fire and fury, and don’t tend to resort to tears at the first sign of hardship.
You may know many different women than I do.
Any recommendation from a ‘Military Leadership Diversity Commission’ should be ignored.
In fact, organization calling itself the ‘Military Leadership Diversity Commission’ should be disbanded.
This is getting absolutely fucking ridiculous! Campus sensititivty trainers are running the fucking military! Is there any doubt in your mind the the express purpose of political correctness campaign in the military is to weaken it?
Old_Grunt
Grunts….guys who make good track grease 🙂
@Ben
Isn’t military diversity an oxymoron.. Isn’t the sole purpose of the uniform and the haircut etc. is uniformity. Basic is suppose to break down the individual. Why are we trying to diversify the military? I thought the whole point of the military was to make the individual a team member.
Ok, me again. I appreciate you willingness to get things on top shelves and open jars – those are useful skills. However, never question my willingness to open a large can of whoopass if necessary. I can and will beat the shit out of anyone who threatens me or mine. Period. I will use whatever means necessary and do not believe in proportional response. I might – and I emphasize might – puke or cry after the deal is done, but I do not panic in a crisis.
However, women should not be in the infantry or in the special forces units for a variety of reasons. First, there are far too few who would actually qualify without changing the standards to warrant the costs – and changing the standards should not be an option – the job is what it is. Second, it will impact unit cohesion. Third, men drawn to infantry in an all volunteer force are likely to be the same sort of men who will get themselves killed or negatively impact a mission to “protect” a woman – it seems to be genetic (and before you get pissy AS – that is the exact wording of a friend who is a West Point grad, airborne qualified, and was a chemical weapons officer with the 101st who determined that her men did stupid things to “protect” her and their were places a woman should not be and another friend who is a retired Gunnery Sgt.) Finally, and importantly, it negatively impacts the fear the enemy has of the US armed forces. Part of what makes SF units effective is the fear they generate. The enemy’s view of the SF would be diminished, rightly or wrongly, by the presense of women.
The US military is not a social experiment. Just because you think you could make it or do it does not mean the US military should make changes to accomodate you. The purpose of the US military is to defend the US and kill those who would do us harm before they get the chance.
End Rant.
We all have to know our role…mine is to kill the bugs, take out the trash and make sure that the “check engine” light on the wife’s wagon doesn’t stay lit more than 100 miles after it comes on.
#28
ROFLMAO!! Yup!!
>We all have to know our role…mine is to kill the bugs, take out the trash and make sure that the “check engine” light on the wife’s wagon doesn’t stay lit more than 100 miles after it comes on.
(sigh) And we sure miss you guys when you are deployed.. My husband retires next year, and returns next month from his last deployment.. I mowed the lawn in October -thinking between him and my 11 year old son.. this should be the last time I should ever have to mow the lawn.. Woopee!
“That’s 76 lbs and does not include the squad equipment I carried (PLGR, poleless litter, etc); nor does it include water or other necessary items and personal effects (knife, ASP, etc).”
Totally agree. I have never been able to figure out where the military got their load-out weights. Just my PPE, water, ammo, comm, and weapons were 83 lbs. Never mind the 20-40lb of medical gear (depending upon mission).
Strength and endurance are one issue. The other one that is easily forgotten is “logistics”. When women are integrated into front line combat units i.e. USMC Battalion Landing Team, then separate accomodations must be provided (berthing/hygiene). This is an unacceptable use of cargo space when a contested area is being assaulted. This is also why the FETs are placed under within the Regimental Combat Team. Regiment is considered “rear” enough to warrant using extra logistical support to provide separate berthing/hygiene for females……this part of the argument is “easily” nullified by eliminating the requirement for separate hygiene/berthing.
Additionally, women smell differently and that can be the difference in whether or not your presence is detected.
This has been very insightful reading all of these posts. I did notice, though, that nobody has brought up a simple question that should have occured to me earlier.
Didn’t the Israelis already try this and discard it as being a bad idea after actual combat experience with the subject? If they did and did go back to all-male combat units, how are we supposed to make it work? After all, you’d think that with their limited population base to draw off of, they’d be trying everything they could to maximize the number of combat troops they could field. Especially considering the vast disparity of populations arrayed against them.
Just some food for thought.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission–WTF! Makes me glad to be retired. I pretty much agree with most statements here.
I know naught about the Army and its training other than Jump School. Womens Boot Camp at Parris Island is the same as mens, and they have to pass the same 72 hour Crucible at the end of Boot Camp to earn the EGA and title. I’ve known women I would trust to watch my six over some men…we’ve all probably “Been there, Done that”. That said I think back to 77 days on a hill top outside Khe Sanh perimeter and wonder if the affect would have been positive.
But hey, if they can hump the load, walk point, sit in an LP, stay awake and turn and burn, and not shit their fart sack…then whos to say.
Now I have go open that jar, clean the top shelf of the pantry and swab the deck. Then I’m going out to the backyard and hang some “Politically Correct Diversity” on the target line and blow the hell out of it.
Now I have go open that jar, clean
What would truly knock my socks off, if I wore ’em, would be for the powers that be truly be smart about women in combat arms. So, from another perspective:
The physical conditions will not change, regardless of the standard of physical fitness. With those conditions being constant, what jobs, right now, can be done (maybe even are being done) by women?
Vehicle gunners (didn’t say loaders)
Drivers (including Commanders’ drivers)
Computers (of the artillery type)
command post personnel (a villainous black hole that always absorbs good joes and turns them into blobbits)
There are roles and missions that suit woman equally with men. The next question is: what is the recruitable population of women who would go into these roles? Would being limited to certain roles (MLRS crewmember instead of Cannoneer) be acceptable, or is this an exercise in opening the entire branch to women?
Define women. Born and identify as women? Born men and identify as women? Born women and identify as men?
After re-reading that last, I need a beer.
Melle1228- “isn’t military diversity an oxymoron?”, well universal camo(the ACU pattern) was. The country’s so royally screwed its not even funny. These are the decisions made by people, without a basic understanding of the consequences of what this entails. Physically, there are very few women who can measure up to even the weakest of men. How many women have the endurance of a man? How many the endurance and upper body strength? I would estimate the numbers are tiny, not that they don’t exist. I recall(sorry can’t remember where I saw it) a statistic somewhere stating that the average woman had 15% less upper body strength then a man, a lower center of gravity, was more prone to injury, had a higher body fat percentage, and was more likely to wash out of basic training then a man. Not to forget hygenic issues but what about the explosion of nondeployable single parents(most are women) that are on the rolls. Other thoughts 1)”Gender”-norming tends to dumb standards down. Women really are, to borrow a term from social security, a third rail in the military. No one wants a serious conversation about the true abilities of women for fear of its conclusiuons. Many of the currently opened MOSs to women, would most likely be closed again. Everyone wants gender equality, but no one wants to take the fall, for the consequences that such a policy entails. The sexs are complimentary not equal in dexterity. Are we really willing to compromise combat effectiveness for equal opportunity? There is absolutely nothing to gain by instituting such a policy, and much to lose. Most of the fighting has been done at the battalion level, a semi pure block element, and below in Iraq/Afghanistan. A bulkhead against much of the chicanery that has negativelly effected the rest of the military over the last 20-30 years. Are we ready to sabotage it too? You man the legions by the standard, not the exception to the rule(there will always be a few). 2) This is purely political. I recall in the 90s Dacowitz, was the big women’s E.O.… Read more »
At some point… it will become common knowledge that there are and have been women living amongst both infantry and SF units since the beginning of these two conflicts. Although not common practice, it is becoming more common. — Sanitation never has been and need not be of anyone else’s concern. Women, since the days we walked in the Garden of Eden and in third world countries all over the globe, have been managing these things quite well though arguably these young ones growing up in our utopian society of pads and tampons, will need some training. I took Depo whilst on deployment and never worried about periods. I also became adept at bathing with a canteen sized amount of water. If you can’t figure out how that works, then take my word for it. It’s possible. — We’re already sharing quarters with men. Not all of us even WANT kids and please don’t insult us ALL by asserting that we’re really that interested in your smelly asses. Please don’t flatter yourselves. We don’t all join the Army for our MRS certs. — My DI at Basic was 100% pure Infantry and he made sure to let us know it. We were his first co-ed cycle and it was his first time dealing with females in the military. On the night of our Right of Passage ceremony, he said one thing to me and it was the ONLY compliment he gave me the entire cycle, “It’s too bad you’re female.” — Almost every woman I have spoken to, and I speak to many military/veterans, agrees that the current physical standards for women are low in the Army. Some believe that there are jobs in which it’s unnecessary to raise them but ALL agree that IF THE IDEA were given serious consideration (to put women in the infantry, etc.) the standards should be the same. I’ve trained with infantry, engineers and others that were too old to pass the course, much less out pt/shoot/maneuver me in full kit. During our peer reviews, our team (in which I was the only female)… Read more »
One last point, a few years ago Canada opened all of thier MOS/jobs to women. Only one made it into the infantry. Former occupation you ask? lumberjack.
How many female Lumberjacks have you even known about, or even heard of? The exception that proves the rule.
I don’t believe Donnelly has ever served in the US Military, much less in either conflict. I’m not sure what relevance her statement has.
My comments come from personal experience and observation.
Ms Chase out of curiosity what exactly was your job?
I don’t contest a basic point of yours that there have been some overlap, not just over the last two wars but even before and possibly in the future. You still have not acknowledged that the impact has been mostly negative, or at best neutral and therefor should be reasonably avoided. Your entire argument rests on career advancement not combat effectiveness. See above
Elaine Donnelly is relevant in regards to sitting on Dacowitz in the 90s.
And let me be clear that my opinions are not the official statements of the organization or any company/agency that I work for or am associated with.
Sorry, I simply can’t respond to every comment as much as I would like to… but I will state that I am not basing my argument on career advancement alone. It was an article written by a reporter… and apparently taken quite out of context by many here. (Surprised, I’m not.)
Additionally, simply stated – the best of the best. I don’t care what gender, sexual orientation, race, or age you are. If the reqs for a unit are such that there isn’t a woman that can meet them, then so be it.
>Women, since the days we walked in the Garden of Eden and in third world countries all over the globe
Yes, and what is the life expectancy of these women and why? Usually they die at an early age due to thing such as chronic infection. I could not clean myself with a canteen of water daily and not be prone to infection. It must be wonderful for you, but it isn’t so for every woman, and more often than not you are the exception to the rule.. That is why woman’s vaginal products such as yeast infection etc. products are a billion dollar market.
>I took Depo whilst on deployment and never worried about periods.
Are you willing to make Depo mandatory for all women? Nope, because the same people crying for women in combat would pitch a fit just like they did when the General in Iraq wanted to punish females for getting pregnant. Periods are not the only sanitary problem.. Women just generally smell after long periods of bathing.. And Depo does not stop the period of every women, sometimes it does the opposite- it makes heavy periods or creates an everyday period.
There are some great women military members, but we are kidding ourselves that women belong in every area of the military. To sacrifice military readiness on the alter of “equality” and “political correctness” is societal suicide and frankly I am sick of it.
Correction:
>smell after long periods of bathing..
smell after long periods of NOT bathing…
When I was a young private, I espoused the belief that if women could meet the same standard, they should also be allowed in every MOS. There was a particular NCO I used as an example.
That NCO’s performance in a combat zone became the example why I changed my mind.
With experience in all-male and “co-ed” units, as well as multiple combat zones behind me, I can now assuredly say the concept is detrimental to unit and soldier effectiveness.
The results of the recent Captain Honors video is an example. And 90% of the arguments here are valid reasons, but the bottom line is that there is no room for added sexual tension in combat units. There is no room for a member of a combat squad that cannot carry an equal part of the weight. There is no room for lowering the standards, AGAIN, for combat forces and elite units.
The argument that has been used by those who advocate “sexual diversity” are invalid. Women already attain the top ranks in the military, without a combat MOS.
The argument that there are a rare few that could meet the physical standards does not justify the problems those few would cause. And Chase, it has nothing to do with your reproductive desires.
There have been a few instances of female military units performing superbly in battle. It’s not about that either. Those units disallowed men from their formations, because again, there is no room for added sexual tension on the battlefield.
Our MEN need to be focused on the threat, not preserving the piece of tail they’d like to tag when the patrol is over. Should men “get over it?” Nice counter-point, but in complete contradiction to the basic animal instincts which have populated the earth and that wins battles.
As a female that spent 13 years in I think PT standards should match the job. We needed a lot more upper body strength than the ability to run. Same standards irregardless to sex. I was in a signal usit assigned to a “combat arms” Brigade and have nothing but respect for them. But if you can’t hump a 70 pound ruck, bust a track or load a shell pick a different job. If you can’t carry your toolbox, your weapon and do maint. pick another job. That is the min. standard.
I also don’t think putting a bunch of horney 18 year old men and women in a stressful combat enviroment would be good for the military mission of fighting and winning wars. “Mission 1st!” WE can worry about social engineering later.
How many dead and wounded will it take for the social “feel-good” types who don’t have to live with the consequences of their decisions to realize this was a REALLY bad idea?
Oh, and women on submarines–three years. None will make it past their Department Head tour.
They can just let the transvestites fill the “female” quota…
God protect us if the Chinese decide to fight over oil/minerals/etc.
I wish I had a canteen sized amount of water to bathe with way back when. We went about 45 days without a proper bath (or change of clothes) during the invasion and after, it was okay though because I went commando and my DCU pants were torn from the crotch to the knee, allowing for plenty of ventilation; some of the braver souls got off some of the grime in a swamp on the outer perimeter of Saddam Intl Airport when we had an ECP set up there. As for water, our first couple of weeks in Baghdad we were lucky to get 3 liters a day, definitely not enough to waste on unimportant things like bathing. The female drivers and such that made the push with us stayed in the “rear” after our initial GAC. We didn’t know how well the POGs had it until we went back to the airport (by then known as the name I refuse to call it, BIAP) in early May. They didn’t even have slit trenches…how do you fight a war with Porta-Johns? 🙂
GC: You are what I was saying; the exception, not the rule. That’s not what is being discussed here. If they have their way, the rule would be changed and you can bet that it would drop unit cohesion and mission efficiency; and for what? So a bunch of fatasses in the crystal palace can pat each other on the back at their “diversity”? Maybe my opinion is biased because I had to spend some time on bed rest because a female that was assigned to a mission I was on refused to pull her shift and the rest of us had to cover for her to complete the mission. I ended up with walking pneumonia and was pissed, because this diva didn’t want to get her hair wet. Yeah, she got in trouble for not pulling her shift on guard duty, but big fucking deal, it didn’t make me magically feel better. Granted, with her attitude, we didn’t want her walking a post anyway, but it was the principle of it all.