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.

Amaya wrote:Really, you would honestly attempt to argue that anyone would refer to olympic lifters as bodybuilders?

That's an unfathomably ignorant position

Edit: That's like comparing marathoners and sprinters because they both run.

Yeah you might even call them "runners" how ignorant.

If they want to and are willing to enter the Military, and especially the frontline, then they should be able to. You don't see people stopping men from waving around their patriotism to defend their country.

And yes, women are usually weaker than men. Well then they just have to train harder don't they? Don't see how that's such an issue.

Only thing I'd see is there would have to be separate divisions, since I honestly wouldn't trust the men around them as far as I would throw my own Baneblade... And as i don't have one, it wouldn't be far at all.

Otherwise, it should be encouraged, as women in the military are already on the "frontlines" in those convoys that are attacked by militants, or bases that are attacked. Not like it's trench warfare going on.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Matty, fair point about frontline combat in a high intensity place like Afghanistan, but I remember my Northern Ireland days and my mistrust of all things female for reasons which are obvious. So there is a role for women in some sort of fighting capacity.

Back to the original point about women in the frontline, I may be a dreamer but I hope the day comes when we don't have anybody in the frontline, be they male or female.
I can just imagine Frazz saying 'people like you are the reason why the world is a dangerous place!'

or aalternatively, I salute your dream of having robot troops deal with our enemies video game style.

Killer robots, where have I heard thiws before?

Frazzled wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Matty, fair point about frontline combat in a high intensity place like Afghanistan, but I remember my Northern Ireland days and my mistrust of all things female for reasons which are obvious. So there is a role for women in some sort of fighting capacity.

Back to the original point about women in the frontline, I may be a dreamer but I hope the day comes when we don't have anybody in the frontline, be they male or female.
I can just imagine Frazz saying 'people like you are the reason why the world is a dangerous place!'

or aalternatively, I salute your dream of having robot troops deal with our enemies video game style.

Killer robots, where have I heard thiws before?

oh damn you, there's some flashbacks I could have done without

Oh man, the robot wars.

Such horrifying memories...

Never forget, yo.

Nicorex wrote:I have no question that Women can and could serve in a combat capacity. I still dont want them too. I admit its a bit old fashioned but I belive that Women should be protected.

I imagine attitudes like this may also be an issue in the military. If men think like this and put themselves in danger to protect a woman or keep her away from danger in a way they wouldn't do with a male squad mate that could be a problem.

carlos13th wrote:

Nicorex wrote:I have no question that Women can and could serve in a combat capacity. I still dont want them too. I admit its a bit old fashioned but I belive that Women should be protected.

I imagine attitudes like this may also be an issue in the military. If men think like this and put themselves in danger to protect a woman or keep her away from danger in a way they wouldn't do with a male squad mate that could be a problem.

but men do the same thing to protect other men. some people throw them selves onto the hand grande, others jump away from it. if you're that brave sort who'd sacrifice himself, you'd do it for anyone man or women.

I think there should be one unified, grueling test to become an infantryman regardless of what sex you are, and I think if you pass it you're good to go, regardless of your gender. Even the people that sort of are against this (like Matty) also stipulate that if they saw a woman who could do this they'd be OK with it.

I think such a test would naturally weed out more women than men, but I'd find such a result acceptable regardless because it's a realistic measure of your ability to do that specific job.

There are also some roles in the military that probably should be more biased towards women than men. Submariners should be a nearly exclusively female position.

Ouze wrote:I think there should be one unified, grueling test to become an infantryman regardless of what sex you are, and I think if you pass it you're good to go, regardless of your gender. Even the people that sort of are against this (like Matty) also stipulate that if they saw a woman who could do this they'd be OK with it.

I think such a test would naturally weed out more women than men, but I'd find such a result acceptable regardless because it's a realistic measure of your ability to do that specific job.

There are also some roles in the military that probably should be more biased towards women than men. Submariners should be a nearly exclusively female position.

Namor has no place in a discussion about modern militaries.

There's been some claims by people studying the Israeli Defence Force that the male soldiers are prone to go "protect-mode" if they see a female squadmate go down. Dunno if it's true or not, haven't been able to find any sources, so take it with a truckload of salt.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:There's been some claims by people studying the Israeli Defence Force that the male soldiers are prone to go "protect-mode" if they see a female squadmate go down. Dunno if it's true or not, haven't been able to find any sources, so take it with a truckload of salt.

If protect mode means unstoppable death machine, I'm all for it.

Women shouldn't be banned from any job but the fact of the matter is that the majority of women imply don't have the physical capability to be a front line soldier. If they can keep up with their male counter parts then that's fine but in my experience only a very small minority of women would be able to.

I know this because I am in the army, I serve with a lot of women due to my trade and I have only worked with maybe 3-4 women who are robust enough to carry the loads required by modern infantry.

TL;DR women should be allowed at the front line but only if they don't become a liability.

Bwahahaha. Female Infantry
Perception:

Reality:

And that's completely leaving aside the general inability of female soldiers to keep up, carry thier wieght, and not become a liability to everyone around them.

And one more of Katrina Hodges, because why not.

The second picture is actually a sailor (the anchor cap badge is a little bit of a give away) so not really very relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Norris Is a better example, the first ever female recipient of the MC.

Chongara wrote:Then set physical requirements. You know, actual real observable metrics. "Able to run for Y hours, at X MPH carrying Z KGs of Load". If a woman can meet those requirements, why not let her do the job. Clearly if she can meet the requirements her being a woman isn't relevant to the physical requirements by virtue of her meeting the physical requirements. Similar to how (already) a man who doesn't meet the requirements isn't fit to do the job just because he's a man. Seriously, I'm a dude about the only combat role I'd be suited to is "Human Shield" and even then I'd a heavy one.

As plenty of folks have mentioned, there are quantifiable standards. Currently in the US Army, there are standards that vary by sex and age for the APFT.

An argument a lot of you are making is 'If a woman can meet the male standards she should be allowed to .... '

That sounds good. Let me try to explain why it may not be as good as it sounds though.

First, historically it just doesn't work that way. When the army attemps a 1 standard rule they end up failing a much larger proportion of females than males. Congress has issues with that. As a result pressure is applied to either lower standards or have a dual standard. Airborne school is a great example. The point of requiring a student to be able to do X amount of pullups is because he/she is going to have to pull their weight on the risers to control their chute. Females couldn't do the pullups so standards changed.

But you say THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT!!!! Hooah. I'll buy off on that for now.

Second, There probably are females that can do a 5 mile 40 minute run, cary 80-120 pound ruck for days, and all the other associated physical hardships of something like Ranger School (and yes, if a female wants to be successful in Infantry Branch SHE MUST be able to get through Ranger School or she will be very limited in what leadership positions she is allowed to take). So she makes it through. Unfortunately for her (and for you the tax payer) she must pretty much maintain her condition the whole 20+ years she is in. Here is where physical differences between the sexes really come in. The types of activities done for prolonged periods of time needed to be a successful infantryman wear HARD on the body, and studies have shown that female bodies (knees hips pelvis especially) don't stand up to it as well as male bodies. This means the female body breaks down sooner, and often more severely. So for a female to have a succussful infantry career she has a lot higher chance of being disabled or more severely disabled when she retires than her male counterpart. The most likely scenario is after 10-15 years her body is shot which limits the career progression. She suffers, you the tax payer pick up the tab.

And now a myth that pops up a lot on these topics. Not allowing females into certain branches limits their career potential. That is BS. Infantry officers and NCOs compete against other infantry officers and NCO for assignments and promotions. Signal officers and NCOs compete against other Signal Officers and NCO for assignments promotions. Yes, not being combat arms limits some assignments, but your male non-combat arms counterpart is ALSO denied those assignments.

Just my take.

There's lots of males who are forced out of the Infantry due to injuries sustained in combat or from the training.

A friend of the family retired as Sergeant 1st Class and spent I believe 17 years in the Infantry. Back injuries for sustained jumps forced him to spend his last three years in the Army in military intelligence.

Amaya wrote:There's lots of males who are forced out of the Infantry due to injuries sustained in combat or from the training.

A friend of the family retired as Sergeant 1st Class and spent I believe 17 years in the Infantry. Back injuries for sustained jumps forced him to spend his last three years in the Army in military intelligence.

Exactly. And the female body in general doesn't hold up to that abuse as well as the male body. So in your example it is likely a female would have had to take a medical chapter, or would not have made it through 17 years.

And combat injuries (being shot/blown up) are NOT what I am talking about.

CptJake wrote:The types of activities done for prolonged periods of time needed to be a successful infantryman wear HARD on the body, and studies have shown that female bodies (knees hips pelvis especially) don't stand up to it as well as male bodies.

Actually, a lot of the studies have shown that this is due to improper training methods, improperly fitting uniform and armor, and similar things.

Hell, for a while female soldiers basically had to wear male uniforms and armor and we still haven't gotten it down right yet; similarly, Israel has found that because of cultural norms wanting women to be less active than men, it needs to have an extended boot camp for women so that the extra time can be spent making up for the cultural effect.

So are you for similar standards Melissia or two different standards? What if only 1 in 100 potential infantrywomen meet the standard?

Frazzled wrote:So are you for similar standards Melissia or two different standards? What if only 1 in 100 potential infantrywomen meet the standard?

That depends entirely on the system used. Because our culture emphasizes "soft" women, a longer boot camp which emphasizes helping build up muscles needed (actual relevant muscles, not the bodybuilder junk described earlier in this thread) for the job would be a good idea. Does that mean "different standards" to you? We also need to produce better fitting uniforms for female soldiers, and better fitting armor-- does that mean "different standards" for you? We also need competent medical personnel who know how to deal with the female body as well as the male body, does that speak of "different standards" to you?

Yes it does actually. But we'll go with that. if they can't make the "exit standards" is that an issue?

You'll note the posts I've made on this thread have been "women should be able to do anything they can do, and if the actual full time shooting infantry is out, just about everything else is available." Besides its more fun to fire a 120mm going 40 than a 5.56 sitting in a foxhole.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:The types of activities done for prolonged periods of time needed to be a successful infantryman wear HARD on the body, and studies have shown that female bodies (knees hips pelvis especially) don't stand up to it as well as male bodies.

Actually, a lot of the studies have shown that this is due to improper training methods, improperly fitting uniform and armor, and similar things.

Hell, for a while female soldiers basically had to wear male uniforms and armor and we still haven't gotten it down right yet; similarly, Israel has found that because of cultural norms wanting women to be less active than men, it needs to have an extended boot camp for women so that the extra time can be spent making up for the cultural effect.

You can say that,but it really isn't accurate. The issue has existed way prior to every troop being issued body armor and having to wear that body armor for extended periods of time. It has to do with how the frame and muscles on that frame differ by sex, and the weights and types of motions, durations and distances of movement, and so on involved in a career as an infantryman. Over time, the female body just does not stand up to it the way a male body does. And it is very punishing on the male body, not every male is capable of it.

Again, there is a big difference between getting a person into condition to make it through a school or single training event and a career spent in an infantry MOS.

Frazzled wrote:Yes it does actually. But we'll go with that. if they can't make the "exit standards" is that an issue?

You'll note the posts I've made on this thread have been "women should be able to do anything they can do, and if the actual full time shooting infantry is out, just about everything else is available." Besides its more fun to fire a 120mm going 40 than a 5.56 sitting in a foxhole.

Maybe, but you should keep in mind that there are cultural reasons for the majority of fitness-level differences between men and women, and boot camp needs to overcome those. And the various branches of the military have their own problems with sexual harassment and assault.

Any soldier who sexually harasses or assaults another soldier is a piece of trash who deserves a dishonorable discharge and time in jail, and yet so many get away with it and then the army punishes the victims instead.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the military needs a ton of reform. Focusing on the exit tests is stupid, because there's far more important problems to fix first. Tweaking the exit tests so it actually tests for relevant standards is just one of the many things taht needs to be done. And frankly, if the various military branches' inefficiencies and problems are brought to the fore because of allowing women in, then that is really only going to be a good thing.

On the flip side big Jake (is that a Harley? I can't tell form the pic), what does it matter if they burn out. I don't think most groundpounders hang after their term is up, no?

CptJake wrote:You can say that,but it really isn't accurate.

Yes it is, according to Israel's research on the subject.

I've no quarrel with woman serving in the forces so long as they meet the physical and mental requirements. What concerns me is that less suitable applicants might be let in for the sake of window dressing - obviously that puts lives at greater risk. Is Western society mature enough to pick only the best of the best, regardless of what gender/ethnic ratio results from such a policy?

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:You can say that,but it really isn't accurate.

Yes it is, according to Israel's research on the subject.

Israel aint

Frazzled wrote:On the flip side big Jake (is that a Harley? I can't tell form the pic), what does it matter if they burn out. I don't think most groundpounders hang after their term is up, no?

It matters becaue you the tax payer invest a crap ton in their training and professional development. If you make that investment you want the return. If you get less of a return it is a dumb investment.

It matters because if they can't last as long, it ends up HURTING their careers, which seems to have the exact opposite effect of what the point seems to be.

It matters because if they fail or are prone to disabilities in much higher proportions then men there WILL be pressure to lower standards (see my above post for examples).

I suspect some real looking into the Israeli infantry would actually show I am not off base. A lot of the studies Melissa refers to have been debunked or misrepresented by folks looking to push an agenda.

Having said that, if you (the American People you) can hold then to The Same High Standard, go for it.

You have to remember, I have an active duty BN CDR wife. When I was a company commander I had a female 1SG and a couple female platoon sergeants in one of my companies. I have no doubts what so ever females can be and are fantastic troopers (look up the story of SGT Hester to see the movie Hollywood should be making). I just do not see standards NOT being lowered and have plenty of historical examples to back up thoughts. I also know it is FACT that the female pelvis is built differently and that has an effect on long term health when the life of an infantryman is looked at.

Frazzled wrote:Israel aint

And yet, they're one of the few sources of actual research instead of "pulling opinions out of my donkey cave".