Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

purplefood wrote:Could you tell the gender of a solider under all that kit?
At any rate gender wouldn't come into it if I was shooting...
Take the easiest shot first then try for the other one...
If it was the same difficulty, whichever one is standing on the left.

Whose left? His? Or yours?

Yes you can tell a male and a female in body armor.

I shoot the female for the mental shock to the unit.

The other fatal flaw is this: as honorable men, we the marines will not be able to stand by an think rationally as a woman lays wounded, dying and screaming from combat wounds. This will put other marines at risk as we try to save them without any assessment of the combat situation. I realize that this is the problem of the men, but it is irresponsible to risk the security of the country and the lives of men to accommodate the whims of Washington!

There is a big difference between being in a combat role and being in the infantry. Women have in-fact been in roles that have placed them in harm's way because with modern weaponry, there really is no longer a "rear area" in a combat theater. As such, not only women, but all Marines serving in a support MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) have had to endure dangerous assignments and that is why Marine Combat Training (MCT) was devised years ago. On the other hand, the role of the infantryman is to expect and train to be right there on the front lines or in support of those front line assignments not as a support MOS, but as a direct combat support job.
My personal belief is that women could get the job done, but the way that the majority of males were brought up; to care for the female, it would be very tough mindset-wise to see females being killed and/or injured. As males, we grow up wrestling other guys, tackling other guys, fighting other guys, etc. It definitely would have a mental impact

Two quotes from marines backing up why I would shoot a female first

Avatar 720 wrote:

purplefood wrote:Could you tell the gender of a solider under all that kit?
At any rate gender wouldn't come into it if I was shooting...
Take the easiest shot first then try for the other one...
If it was the same difficulty, whichever one is standing on the left.

Whose left? His? Or yours?

Mine obviously...
I'm the one shooting at them after all...
@Jihadin Quotes from two marines aren't necessarily representative of the entire corps...

Jihadin wrote:Two quotes from marines backing up why I would shoot a female first

I think you missed the point: I've seen men react that way in a sniper situation even when the bait was not a woman, even though their training should have prevented them from doing it. As honorable men, the Marine's reaction is, quite frequently, to pull their friends out of the line of fire, quite possibly at the risk of their own lives. It's just as damaging to force them to watch a pal bleed out as it is to shoot a woman.

Throwing this out before someone gets me on this and really think I'm a cold hearted killer. I will not shoot a woman unless I physicaly see her shooting at us. As for a female sucide bomber she going to succeed due to the fact she is wearing a burqou. The men are a bit easy to spot. Since seeing a well groomed and clean haji who smells good (wind) coming towards us is out of place...way out of place.

Jihadin wrote:Throwing this out before someone gets me on this and really think I'm a cold hearted killer. I will not shoot a woman unless I physicaly see her shooting at us. As for a female sucide bomber she going to succeed due to the fact she is wearing a burqou. The men are a bit easy to spot. Since seeing a well groomed and clean haji who smells good (wind) coming towards us is out of place...way out of place.

Following common sense and the RoE is just good soldiering. What I have to wonder though is, you don't seem to have a good idea of how damaging that sniper trick can be to any unit, with any bait, regardless of gender. There's a reason it still works, even in this day and age.

Jihadin wrote:I shoot the female for the mental shock to the unit.

I for one believe that this mindset won't hold much longer once society has freed itself from the whole "women = weak = need protection by manly men" deal that has been part of Western culture for a couple centuries now, propagated as part of the "proper gentleman behaviour" routine.
People need to realize that this isn't a genetical/biological thing, and hasn't been around forever either. At least I don't think that certain ancient cultures would've been so stupid to include female warriors in their ranks if their deaths would've had such an effect on their morale. I see nothing on such an effect in the historical accounts, at least.

Quite on the contrary, the presence of females in those units only spurred the male warriors on to even greater feats of battle heroism, as the whole "alpha male" stuff is indeed something that might be regarded as instinctive. Of course, this can have negative side-effects as well, but from what I've read of contemporary military articles so far, the positive effects seem to outweigh the negatives. Or rather, the negatives seem to remain limited to the off-duty sector, and this can be kept in check by old fashioned military discipline. Or at least it should be.

@Baron. Only one experience in my squad. My turret gunner that took one to the ACH on a convoy to Wilson. Not going to count the one that shut down Northen Bagram for 5 hrs (he nailed two peeps on that one) but pretty much delayed the aircrafts from taking off and landing. The marines at Fullujah, Iraq was a good training tool on what to expect for a sniper that knows what he is doing.. I'm not going t count my time either at Al Sharif in western Afghan because I do believe we had just amateurs taking a shots at the FoB. I've seen the effect though on 5/2 Stryker in Southern Afghan when a Stryker got hit with an IED that flipped it and began to burned. SOldiers tried to assist but there was a sniper. Regardless if they manage to get tothe troops inside the ramp was distorted to open and it was upside down. Eight burned alive. The IED broke the Halon system before it can go off. Now Strykers roll with two Halon systems. Still that platoon was devastated.

Military discipline? Now why would you expect any of that?

That's like... expecting COMPETENCE.

How DARE you expect either one from military men!

Jihadin wrote: Still that platoon was devastated.

Then you see my point. The scenario you laid out would have mostly likely been devastating to the platoon regardless of the gender of the bait. And that was in a situation where there was no chance of saving them. Now picture the situation where they're literally laying in the open five feet away. Those guys would be straining at the bit to pull that guy to cover rather then watch him die. Even if none of them do it, they're going to be left permanently fethed up after an experience like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Military discipline? Now why would you expect any of that?

That's like... expecting COMPETENCE.

You'd be surprised. Both in who is competent and who is not.

Baron I alrady knew that. Regardless of gender. In fact I mention it earlier. Males have the ability to emotionaly shut down and drive on. A screaming wounded female breaks that psych because it pretty much unnerves everyone. Where is a male pretty much get nailed either cussing or concentrate ignoring the pain till jostled then he cuss at the guy jostling. WHen I got nailed I asked like three times "WTH happen?" a couple of "What asshat shot me in the back" thinking at first a negligent discharge. I wasn't shot I got struck down by a rock the size of a grapefruit from an IED. At first I was pissed it was a rock then the pain came in

I found an interesting article here that makes some really good arguments on why mingling the ranks is a bad idea.

Just keep replacing "negro" with "woman", and you'll be enjoying all the same arguments about how it would totally ruin discipline and morale and unit cohesion.

Nice read but one point. It involve males from a different era. Better yet it was a different ERA. It was acceptable to use the word "negro" back then. Trying it today would result in me slamming you at the least. The company commander might take it farther but SMAJ will make you worry about your carreer

I'm trying to figure out if your last post had an actual response to the point Ouze was making, and yet it seems instead that you went off on a tangent to avoid actually having to make a proper response.

The idea that men would turn into irrational, suicidal super-hero wannabes the instant a female comrade is in danger does nothing except say "Men have neither the discipline, nor the emotional maturity to be trusted in a theater of war". Let's face it if they so easily crumble to fulfilling that immature "Rescue the damsel!" power fantasy I have little reason to believe they won't want to take of their shirts jump out of cover and fire widely into the engagement because "That's how a real action hero takes down bad guys" or refusing to move away from an air strike target because "I have to walk away from the explosion without looking at it to be cool".

Besides it's emotional connections and the general state of being human that makes people take risks for each other, at least the big ones anyway. Soldiers are already have that in large amounts with each other, the fact that a person has ovaries really isn't going to have a huge impact on that.

It shows that men don't have the self discipline that women do, and shouldn't be allowed in the military at all because self discipline is the foundation of all military manoeuvres.

ERA....E...R...A....was the point I was making.

At that time caucasion troops would not be lead by a color officer unlike now
At that time the Negro's were not considered on par to their white counter part in education unlike now
Segregation was still enforced in the military to seperate black and whites including billet areas unlike now
Also a provision in the selective service was in play:

That no man shall be inducted for training and service under this act unless and until he is acceptable to the land or naval forces for such training and service and his physical and mental fitness for such training and service has been satisfactorily determined: Provided further, That no men shall be inducted for such training and service until adequate provision shall have been made for such shelter, sanitary facilities, water supplies, heating and lighting arrangements, medical care, and hospital accommodations, for such men, as may be determined by the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy, as the case may be, to be essential to public and personal health.

Unlike now

Do I need to clarify further on why it was two different era's Mel?

Melissia wrote:I'm trying to figure out if your last post had an actual response to the point Ouze was making, and yet it seems instead that you went off on a tangent to avoid actually having to make a proper response.

Yep, I was right. You were dodging the point.

Afraid of having to confront it, are we?

Melissia wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm trying to figure out if your last post had an actual response to the point Ouze was making, and yet it seems instead that you went off on a tangent to avoid actually having to make a proper response.

Yep, I was right. You were dodging the point.

Afraid of having to confront it, are we?

Dude you're talking to yourself again.

This is not an unusual occasion.

Melissia wrote:This is not an unusual occasion.

You're not crazy if you talk to yourself.
You're ony slightly crazy if you answer back.
If you get into a shouting match and fisticuffs with yourself, then you're crazy as a gak rat...

What if I roleplay with myself as the GM and the four player characters?

Melissia wrote:What if I roleplay with myself as the GM and the four player characters?

Thats...(starts to back away)...just...fine (turns and runs away).

Jihadin wrote:ERA....E...R...A....was the point I was making.

At that time caucasion troops would not be lead by a color officer unlike now
At that time the Negro's were not considered on par to their white counter part in education unlike now
Segregation was still enforced in the military to seperate black and whites including billet areas unlike now
Also a provision in the selective service was in play:

That no man shall be inducted for training and service under this act unless and until he is acceptable to the land or naval forces for such training and service and his physical and mental fitness for such training and service has been satisfactorily determined: Provided further, That no men shall be inducted for such training and service until adequate provision shall have been made for such shelter, sanitary facilities, water supplies, heating and lighting arrangements, medical care, and hospital accommodations, for such men, as may be determined by the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy, as the case may be, to be essential to public and personal health.

Jihadin, I know you're smart enough not to have missed Mel 's(surprisingly accurate for once) comparison, which was that your basic argument against women now is the same one they made against blacks then.

On this one I agree with Mel, I dont really see an issue, forget the whole female/black thing.. isnt that the exact same thing they used to say about letting gay soldiers serve?

As If you would suddenly start to ignore orders and run off to go see your lover because you happen to have sex with him a whole bunch?

Its all about being professional, it's why I never once mistreated a prisoner despite the fact he was just taking pot shots at my troop, and one time the fether shot two lads in my section and we had to get them an air casevac. Actually.. here I have an amusing picture.



That was just after he got flung off the sergeant majors quad, and just before he got stuck on the chopper.. apparently it missed his femoral artery by an inch. The CSM always got casualty photos with people giving the thumbs up so they would look like tough guys if they wound up stuck on the wall of death!

We captured three guys shortly afterwards and they got processed as normal, simply because that is what professionals do. I didnt feel an urge to go and pummell their faces in because its ridiculously idiotic. If your intel guys say "you follow the procedure because it allows us to get the most information from POWs" then you don't allow your stupidity to get in the way of the task in hand.

If a soldier hasnt got the brains to know why we follow orders, then he has no business carrying a firearm.

As I said though, I am arrogant because I wasnt in a chicken gak outfit. I would not expect this type of sex issue to affect anyone I ever worked alongside, but perhaps it might be an issue for less well trained soldiers, such as national guardsmen.

But they wont be at the tip of the spear anyway, so who gives a gak?

All the guardsmen I have worked with have been so far in the rear they had to send their laundry forwards!

I agree.

Feminists are ignorant on this issue and want to force women to be raped. Should I go into detail about what happened on the Eastern front? None of the enemies we have ever fought respect women. If the Germans, who everyone thinks were "civilized" for some reason, gang raped and killed every woman they captured, what do you think the bas****s we're fighting will do?


Historian Szymon Datner wrote in his work about the fate of POWs taken by the Wehrmacht, that thousands of Soviet female nurses, doctors and field medics fell victim to rape when captured, and were often murdered afterwards.[34] Ruth Seifert in War and Rape. Analytical Approaches wrote: "in the Eastern territories the Wehrmacht used to brand the bodies of captured partisan women - and other women as well - with the words "Whore for Hitler's troops" and to use them accordingly."

In Soviet Russia rapes were only a concern if they undermined military discipline.[65] The German military command viewed them as another method of crushing Soviet resistance.

According to the historian Regina Mühlhäuser the Wehrmacht also used sexual torture and undressing in numerous cases of interrogations.

Estimates regarding the rape of Soviet women by the Wehrmacht reached up to 10,000,000 cases


From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht - CC-BY-SA

1925 Army War College report called The Use of Negro Manpower in War

Was a major influence back then on african american troops unlike today. It was a standard that was acceptable back then unlike today. Basically a written policy that had a major influence among white officers that prejudged unlike today. A different war and a different society unllike today. If someone bringing up the past as a comparison to today then one should know why it was in play in the past. Example on another thread was the vietcong execution by the National Police chief of South Vietnam. What lead to that event and why.

Also it concern the male gender not female

As for females in combat today I've no issue with it since everyone regardless of MOS is a target. The difference though is combat role and a combat line unit. The marines test program compose of officers. Females going to a line platoon. Baron you know and I know that a line infantry platoon is not going to slack on the standards and basically try to break the officer. If an officer/NCO cannot make it within the platoon you and I know what will happen

Marines did though create FET's. Which has already put a dent into the project because of previous members of FET's performed under standards while attach to marine rifle platoons. I'm sure the marines went over the AAR's and reports concerning FET's in combat and implemented actions that would help improve the female chances.

Unlike back then compare to today there is no written report in play concerning females in combat compare to the war college report on african american in combat

All the guardsmen I have worked with have been so far in the rear they had to send their laundry forwards

Most A10 squadron are National Guards....thought you love the A10 Matty

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:I agree.

Feminists are ignorant on this issue and want to force women to be raped

Yes mate, of course captured women are risking a raping, but they still volunteer for service! If we had conscription, you may have a point, but we don't.

Ergo, they cant be forced into getting raped.

Any woman who enters service has to know that she is likely to get raped surely? Its common sense. If they still volunteer, then all power to them!

gak, I thought the Afghans were proper gay me. Loads of them.. aren't men at risk of getting raped too? I was in Sierra Leone when 6 Irish guards got captured, they all got raped. I also read a book called "Unscathed" by a RM major, and he describes in detail a Norwegian soldier getting staked to the floor and ass raped by about ten guys. Is it any better for us?!

Plus, considering they have a penchant for putting you in a jump suit and then lopping your crust off with a machete, I think risking a good raping would be the least of my worries!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Most A10 squadron are National Guards....thought you love the A10 Matty

I think they all are nowadays aren't they? They don't deploy to the sandbox year round anymore either sadly. :(

You know I love the A-10, I just meant "worked with" as in on the ground, not up in the air. We used to RV with the Intel guys from the Oklahoma guard once or twice a week and they were good guys, but they had external assets for ground ops generally, the point is, snatch and grabs and advance to contact stuff aren't generally done by the guard.

To be fair, its not smart to send less well trained guys into the grinder when you have thousands of other assets to use is it? Generally the big dogs take the locations and then the Guard man them later on. The USMC took Fallujah when I was in Baghdad, they wouldn't have said "Pull the devil dogs back, lets get some of those green civvies from the guard to have a crack at it first!" would they?

Maybe every soldier should carry doctor's notes that say they have one of a variety of STDs(printed in 10 different languages)

Well, feminists want women to be conscripted.

Since we're on the subject, I'll mention why every rape victim should be offended by feminists. They are extremely diminishing of the tragedy of rape with their over inflated statistics.

According to feminists, women are more likely to be raped in the United States than in eastern Germany at the end of the war.

The number of Nazis raped at the end of the war was 1 in 5. Feminists claim that in America it's 1 in 3 or very occasionally 1 in 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Maybe every soldier should carry doctor's notes that say they have one of a variety of STDs(printed in 10 different languages)

It's not really that funny, and I doubt they would pay attention to it.