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.

So the fact she's not up to par with infantry requirements mean all women are? She may have been a good 'athlete' but that doesn't mean she ever developed the strength or endurance necessary to perform as a rifleman.

I'd guess less than one in four men are capable of serving in the infantry, the number of women capable of doing so is going to be a lot lower.

Jihadin wrote:http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums/h350/Jihadin/?action=view¤t=armor003.jpg

http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums/h350/Jihadin/?action=view¤t=armor001.jpg

Vest alone with plates and additional attachment...groin, kidney neck piece and detoids (I wear a LRG) is 35 lbs

Loaded M4 is 7 lbs

UBL is supposedly is 7 mags. I carry 15 30 round mags so additional 15 lbs

9mm Baretta is 2.5 lbs loaded

I carry three additional mags...figure 1 lbs

Camelback filled with water 4 lbs

The advance CLS bag is 11 LBS

IFAK under a pound

Emergency Extraction Tool 7 LBS (Its a axe to shatter bullet resistant window

ACH helmet over 3 LBS

PRC commo device under a pound

so far 65 lbs

Bipod on the M4

ACOG

Now this is where it gets way different. Depends on the unit that out the wire

Extra belt of ammo for either the M249 of M240B

Frags
Smoke grenade
Flashbang
Foldable stretcher
SINGAR Radio plus spare battery
2 additional Medic bag (not just one)
Spare barrel for the SAW
Spare 204 rounds
Marker panel
Additional water
AT4/Javelin
NVG's
Assualt Bag (things like 100 mph tape, zipcuffs, sandbags. MRE, more water, and pogey bait)
So your averaging out 90-110 lbs so far

We haven't brought in the crew serve tripod (we never took them)

So far it really doesn't look a lot but soldier out the wire is not going to take minimum stuff. You double up on whatever you think you need to CYA and your buddy.

Even Etools were brought

Wait, no TP? You forgot the most important thing!

Baby wipe travel pack. Located in pouch in front of my vest

Cannot leave stains in your undies. Baby wipes are where its at.

Jihadin wrote:Baby wipe travel pack. Located in pouch in front of my vest

OK. the essentials are taken care of.

Using a roll of TP provided by the military......texture....closest thing I describe it at....is like using 40 grit

Yikes!

That article isn't anything particularly new. There are civilian and military men and women who think women don't belong, and there are civilian and military men and women who think they do. The only things that are, sometimes at least, interesting are the arguments they wield, and where they supposedly got them from.

mattyrm wrote:Ouze the point is, they DONT pass the same tests.. They never do!

Because they aren't even given the chance to do so. I'm a fervent believer in the need to abolish this gak about easier tests as it only hands more ammunition to the mysoginists.

Equality means that gender shouldn't play a role, and this goes doubly so for the military. Either a person fulfills all the requirements for the job, or he/she doesn't. Being a man or a woman (or even transgender) has nothing to do with it, and if fewer or even no women pass the test that's still good as long as those that do are at last regarded as equals. And I really do not believe that the US' basic infantry qualification is that impossible to achieve if females were graded the same as males, as my own unit was guarding a US Army base whose troops (1st Division Mechanized) were in the process of being deployed to Iraq, and I've seen quite a few fatties in it.

I know that the German KSK still has no female Commandos due to the high (and equal) requirements, but at least they can apply.

Female infantry have become less and less a rarity all around the world lately, from South Korean special forces to European and Australian militaries up to, of course, Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military_by_country
Indeed, women have been fighting in wars ever since war was invented. Their role has simply been played down again and again as military service is still defended as being a "manly thing", and introducing women to this would apparently diminish it. From native tribes conquered by the Roman Empire being forbidden to have their women armed, to knightly orders that included women being banned by the Pope, to women being forbidden to join the crusades, all the way to both World War I and World War II and the Soviet Union disbanding its units of female soldiery (and I am not referring solely to those snipers) in spite of them having acquitted themselves well in battle. The massive resistance against women testing themselves for the same positions as men in the US military is just one example in the long list of inequality.

And maybe this mental barrier will be broken as well, just like female pilots are now accepted, and like female nurses had to become accepted some time ago, and non-white soldiers some time before that. Many societies are just very traditional, so it takes them longer to adapt to new ideas (see also: stance towards universal healthcare, etc).

Ouze wrote:This cuts both ways, of course; rather then it being hard to get women onto subs biologically speaking it should mostly be women on subs. Smaller, use less oxygen, work better in groups...

And fighter jets. The female body is, on average, better suited to endure G-stress as the blood has a shorter distance to travel to get from the heart to the brain, which means a smaller risk for a blackouts.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Jihadin wrote:A sub with a good portion of the crew is female....imagine replacing the bulbs with UV light bulbs....

what does this even mean

It's the scenario he's pitching for the next big bucks porn production.

I approve, btw.

And the sales could be a massive financial boon in difficult economic times.

Porn does sell well regardless of economy......should we go all amateurs?

It worked for Joe Francis.

You know, this is the only thread I can think of where jihadin hasn't tried to make the topic mean the USA was doomed in the near future.

Relapse wrote:They point out there's data from other countries, but say the Marines are different.

Marines also tried to claim they were different and unique in showing the most opposition to DADT. When it was pointed out homosexual troops were serving without incident in other armed forces, they replied with exactly the same thing 'no, we're different because of really vaguely implied things. Ooo-rah!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:@Shuma,

You mentioned that they shouldn't let in skinny dudes if the y don't allow women. They don't induct or keep people that don't meet the physical standards.

Which is the point. Gender blind recruitment would say if you meet the physical and personality requirement you're in, regardless of gender.

People instead are arguing that even if a woman could meet the requirements they don't get in, because of hygiene and also because a sniper might shoot one in the leg, at which point the chivalrous nature of all the men folk means they'd rush madly to her rescue and all get killed, or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:I agree with seb, if they meet the requirements sure i think they should be able to serve.

The point is, the requirements are ALWAYS easier because women are fething puny.

So I guess I agree with her too.

Well the point is don't make the requirements easier for women. If they meet the standards expected of male marines they're in, if they don't they're not.

If people had come in here and argued that women should have to make the same requirements as men, then I think most people would agree with them. The problem is that instead we're getting nonsense about men dying to save their wounded female friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Girls.. You are wonderful, you are smart, but you are weaker. Just accept it, and do your part by being a pilot or joining the intelligence corps or something.

But while woman on the whole are weaker and smaller, there is considerable variation. Not enough variation that a woman could ever compete with the most elite men (so you'll never see the women's 100m WR time near the men's) but we're talking about the marines here - despite the rhetoric it is a general combat arm, with standards about equal to any developed nations. Elite women can meet those standards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:So the fact she's not up to par with infantry requirements mean all women are? She may have been a good 'athlete' but that doesn't mean she ever developed the strength or endurance necessary to perform as a rifleman.

I'd guess less than one in four men are capable of serving in the infantry, the number of women capable of doing so is going to be a lot lower.

Which doesn't mean, of course, that they don't exist. Point is when they are capable, and willing to serve, you let them.

Did I somehow imply otherwise Sebster? I'm a staunch supporter of women serving in Combat Arms MOSs, but the fact is very few women have the willpower to develop the physical ability to perform as a rifleman let alone as a operator in a Special Forces unit.

Amaya wrote:Did I somehow imply otherwise Sebster? I'm a staunch supporter of women serving in Combat Arms MOSs, but the fact is very few women have the willpower to develop the physical ability to perform as a rifleman let alone as a operator in a Special Forces unit.

No you didn't. I'm just saying the article quoted in the OP is making the argument that no woman should serve, and a few posters have tried to support that argument. Whereas I think everyone disagreeing with that point is very much of the 'if they can meet the requirements let them serve' mindset.

And yeah, I'd agree not that many women would have what it takes to be a rifleman (not on the willpower front, just on the physical ability side). Moving that standard to a more elite requirement, like Special Forces, I'd expect most women would drop off, to the point where there would be very few capable of making the grade.

Amaya wrote:Did I somehow imply otherwise Sebster? I'm a staunch supporter of women serving in Combat Arms MOSs, but the fact is very few women have the willpower to develop the physical ability to perform as a rifleman let alone as a operator in a Special Forces unit.

very few men do, as well. Hell, I'm probably stronger than the average guy on dakka, and I'm just trying to stay fit.

Melissia wrote:
very few men do, as well. Hell, I'm probably stronger than the average guy on dakka, and I'm just trying to stay fit.

Haha. I wouldn't doubt that using the fact that modern men are lazy and do feth all exercise.

This is the internet though, so according to some of the posts I've read on here, non SF army, sailors and airmen apparently do 25 mile marches with 120lb rucks on while training for some bizarre reason, guys who work for insurance companies can run a 4 minute mile, and the bloke who works in a FLGS in San Bernadino once dragon-punched an armed gang banger so hard he landed on the roof of the Deli two blocks away.

Oh and the Queen knocked on my door last week and asked if she could use the toilet. She was with Sting and Lord Lucan.

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:
very few men do, as well. Hell, I'm probably stronger than the average guy on dakka, and I'm just trying to stay fit.

Haha. I wouldn't doubt that using the fact that modern men are lazy and do feth all exercise.

This is the internet though, so according to some of the posts I've read on here, non SF army, sailors and airmen apparently do 25 mile marches with 120lb rucks on while training for some bizarre reason, guys who work for insurance companies can run a 4 minute mile, and the bloke who works in a FLGS in San Bernadino once dragon-punched an armed gang banger so hard he landed on the roof of the Deli two blocks away.

Oh and the Queen knocked on my door last week and asked if she could use the toilet. She was with Sting and Lord Lucan.

Yes there is a lot of exageration no the internet. Fortunately the awesome of 10,000 - 20,000 strong herds of attack wiener dogs is absolutely true. I remember seeing a wiener legion track a herd of jackalopes for 20 miles one time. It was epic.

mattyrm wrote: This is the internet though, so according to some of the posts I've read on here, non SF army, sailors and airmen apparently do 25 mile marches with 120lb rucks on while training for some bizarre reason

Perhaps it's just me remembering relatives telling stories from vietnam/korea, but I recall that overly heavy packs are often the sign of a green recruit rather than an experienced veteran.

Training and combat are two different arena's. Standard for a 12 miler is under three hours with a 45 lbs ruck, weapon and ACH. Now its up to the uit commander/1st SGT to add to it. Body armor due to the "Train as you would fight" standard mentality.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote: This is the internet though, so according to some of the posts I've read on here, non SF army, sailors and airmen apparently do 25 mile marches with 120lb rucks on while training for some bizarre reason

Perhaps it's just me remembering relatives telling stories from vietnam/korea, but I recall that overly heavy packs are often the sign of a green recruit rather than an experienced veteran.

Aye, basically people tell alot of porkies. Soldiers always say "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" and this is true, considering the tip of the spear (SF and top tier infantry) make up about 3% of the armed forces, but whenever you meet a soldier/sailor/airman/bugle boy in a bar they are the ultimate bad ass.

The maximum I have ever had on my back is about 105. That was a night time insertion into Iraq with no idea exactly when we were getting a resupply, so it was mainly water and rats, a few hundred round of link for the MG, couple of greenies, a sleeping bag and a gak load more ammunition. You figure water and ammo are the most important things cos you can stretch your rats out if you really need to.

When we got started we realised that 95% of the Iraqi army had wrapped their tits in and went home... and I wished I had swapped 300 rounds for some more black bean burritos.

Anyway, the point is you cant run with 105lbs on. You cant fire and manoeuvre either, it doesnt matter how fit you are. And if you are pretty skinny you need a hand actually getting it onto your back in the first place! You just bend over, stick your thumb up your fething arse and march for miles whilst spitting curses and pissing with sweat, sure you could probably yomp it about 80 miles over a few days if you really had to. But it hardly ever happens anymore. Not since they invented helicopters. So when people say they have done it they are talking gak.

As for training, they would risk injuring grunts by making them march 50 miles with full kit on, so they are full of gak as well. On SF selection the longest one dayer you do is 26 miles. So why the feth would grunts in gakky things like the Air Force be doing it!?

Basically take military talk with a pinch of salt. But I'm OT, all I was trying to say was that I think chicks should be allowed to serve if they do the exact same stuff, but its hard enough for a man in a decent unit, so don't expect many ladies to make the grade.

And that's a good thing, ladies are pretty. If even ten percent of them could do it, then the whole world would be rammed with girls who look like they went bobbing for apples in the deep frier at Macdonalds.

On SF selection the longest one dayer you do is 26 miles.

Land nav portion. It blows your mind

And your kneecaps.

It serves its purpose though, because in ten years and six deployments I never once said "This is even harder than selection.." which is the whole point.

I wonder how Karskin/Stormtrooper training compares to that...


[/hides to avoid incoming Kanluwen]

mattyrm wrote:

Aye, basically people tell alot of porkies.

Not everyone. I was a REMF and proud.

I tend not to glamorize my experience in the service either, I stood early warning radar and worked comms, my story would go something like this:

"So there I was sitting at my station when all of a sudden I get a radar sig from a Chinese freighter some hundred miles away!"

Audience: "What did you do!?"

"I notified the conn and logged it."

Audience: "Gasp!"

Although it was kinda fun when our Cold War era early warning radar would classify a trawlers short range radar somewhere in the Straight of Juan De Fuca as a Russian Acula Class sub... you couldnt use the auto classify function because it was so biased towards Russian equipment, and you would be recommending emergency deep every 5 min.

More people are amazed that a 6'3", 230lbd guy like myself served on submarines than anything, although I will say the first time we came out of drydock and did "angles and dangles" (45 degree up, 35 degree down, full right rudder, full left rudder for about 2 days in hour on, hour off increments) and went to test depth with bucket brigades to check for leaks was pretty fun

I want to see Matty vs. Melissia, steel-cage deathmatch, winner gets Texas. That should settle whether women are strong enough serve, once and for all.

Wha? I like Matty, I wouldn't want to fight him... nevermind that he'[d probably kill me a few times before I hit the ground.

filbert wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Aye, basically people tell alot of porkies.

Not everyone. I was a REMF and proud.

Yeah of course, well, I suppose most people the right side of 30 don't eh? Its just kids stuff.

Who gives a gak anyway? I don't have scorn for people in the rear echelons at all, all links in the chain are equally important, and anyone with a brain knows it. Your fethed if you don't get your ammo storemen or your truck drivers to bring you your bullets and beans. I only have scorn for people that tell ridiculous lies even though they are speaking to someone in the military.. some of the gak I have heard over the years beggars belief.

A bloke in a pub once told me he was in 41 commando.. and, well, I don't and didn't know off the top of my head, but they got disbanded long before I ever joined up. Maybe in the 70s or something? So I called him on it and asked him his PO number, at which point he said he forgot it, and then he accused ME of not being RM because I didn't know who "Tom White" was.

And then he tried to headbutt me... ahh.. memories.

Melissia wrote:Wha? I like Matty, I wouldn't want to fight him... nevermind that he'[d probably kill me a few times before I hit the ground.

I'm not so tough really.. people think I am thanks to my qualifications, but physical fitness, stubborness and a rub of good luck earn you green berets, but they don't make you a fist fighter.

I'm fit but I'm a shade under 5 foot 9. If your tall you could put your hand on my skull and then boot me in the bollocks at arms length like your fighting a midget.

Melissia wrote:Wha? I like Matty, I wouldn't want to fight him... nevermind that he'[d probably kill me a few times before I hit the ground.

Well to be fair, all Texas women come armed with matching pickup/SUV.

On the positive, unlike women in Louisiana, they will only usually run over you once.

Also shotguns, but I bet matty is a better shot than I.