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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.

This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units. Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.

The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.

I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.

Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.

Men are better at some things than women on average.

How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.

Prestor it doesnt matter. Shrike is in fact a SJW who doesn't care a lick for how much this will cost, how many people die because of it, just so long as everything is equal and fair. I am not going as far as saying that D-USA is a SJW because I dont think he is, I think he is one of those fellows who think the whole world revolves around stats and figures and studies and thinks that if you haven't had 10-20 studies on something you can't say its true or use it in an argument.

Beyond D-USA and his constant harping of Studies, the only people who disagree with barring woman from Infantry are those who have no idea about the subject and think regardless of injury rates, budget costs and military strength that woman should be allowed to do this. So it is about the same as trying to point out to a brick wall that Steel is a stronger construction material then Wood.

EDIT: On AVERAGE steel is a stronger construction material then wood. There you go shrike i saved you the time.

Also just to clarify: I'm not even arguing that women should be in all combat roles no matter what. Hell, I work for the VA and I know that we will have issues down the road with increased numbers of female veterans.

I also would like to form an informed opinion about integration, and that needs data. Not feelings and "knowledge" from either side.

That's why you don't find me arguing for or against this, instead you find me questioning data and methodology.

If I remember right new service rifles where going to get our service men killed and everybody "knew" that.

 d-usa wrote:
Also just to clarify: I'm not even arguing that women should be in all combat roles no matter what. Hell, I work for the VA and I know that we will have issues down the road with increased numbers of female veterans.

I also would like to form an informed opinion about integration, and that needs data. Not feelings and "knowledge" from either side.

That's why you don't find me arguing for or against this, instead you find me questioning data and methodology.

If I remember right new service rifles where going to get our service men killed and everybody "knew" that.

what "New" service rifles? the M4 which is the same thing as the M16 except a tad bit lighter and shorter? hell it has almost all the same parts to lol.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.

This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units. Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.

The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.

I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.

Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.

Men are better at some things than women on average.

How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.

Prestor it doesnt matter. Shrike is in fact a SJW who doesn't care a lick for how much this will cost, how many people die because of it, just so long as everything is equal and fair. I am not going as far as saying that D-USA is a SJW because I dont think he is, I think he is one of those fellows who think the whole world revolves around stats and figures and studies and thinks that if you haven't had 10-20 studies on something you can't say its true or use it in an argument.

Beyond D-USA and his constant harping of Studies, the only people who disagree with barring woman from Infantry are those who have no idea about the subject and think regardless of injury rates, budget costs and military strength that woman should be allowed to do this. So it is about the same as trying to point out to a brick wall that Steel is a stronger construction material then Wood.

EDIT: On AVERAGE steel is a stronger construction material then wood. There you go shrike i saved you the time.

Gaz, are you saying that despite what Starship Troopers, and GI Jane depict, along with 40K victories won using combined Sister/IG armies is not reason enough to integrate women into real life Marine combat infantry units?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Also just to clarify: I'm not even arguing that women should be in all combat roles no matter what. Hell, I work for the VA and I know that we will have issues down the road with increased numbers of female veterans.

I also would like to form an informed opinion about integration, and that needs data. Not feelings and "knowledge" from either side.

That's why you don't find me arguing for or against this, instead you find me questioning data and methodology.

If I remember right new service rifles where going to get our service men killed and everybody "knew" that.

what "New" service rifles? the M4 which is the same thing as the M16 except a tad bit lighter and shorter? hell it has almost all the same parts to lol.

The M16 actually. I don't think it was initially well received when it was introduced becaus "it would get people killed" and "the old rifle was fine".

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides.

You forgot the third one. People oversimplifying and miscategorising a discussion to try and appear smart.

Nobody else is taking this personally. Criticize the point, not the individual.

If your point is that we should make lighter weapons so women can serve in combat units then my rebuttal is that the weapon (m4) is light enough as is. Scrawny Israeli chicks carried them every day when I was in and never had any trouble.

The problem lies with the armor and other gear. A fighting load is around 80 lbs. A marching load is 120 lbs +. The backpack weight alone has very little to do with that. If we could use lighter equipment we would. It is a biological fact that women, on average, can't ruck as hard as men. End of story. Arguing against this point is arguing against biological fact. No amount of ergonomics improvement will make 120 lbs doable for someone with 20+% bodyfat on a 120-150 lb frame.


To clarify- women have a place in the military. Women have a place in combat, and can make fantastic pilots, tankers, etc. Women won't make good infantry because of biological limitations. Even if they roided their asses off, the female skeletal frame is not made to support the same activities as the male frame.

Nugz, how are Israeli women intergrated into the combat forces over there? Do they get put in with all combat units or certain select ones. This could answer some of the debate going on here.

Israel is one of only a few nations that conscript women or deploy them in combat roles, although in practice, women can avoid conscription through a religious exemption and over a third of Israeli women do so.[25] A study of women in the IDF from 2002 to 2005 found that women are often superior in discipline, motivation and marksmanship. However, the study noted that women still face gender discrimination in the IDF.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Women

That is very interesting. Thanks for pointing it out, Relapse.

Edit: Wow, there's a lot of interesting stuff going on. Their army is fairly sexist and still

Gender segregation or sex segregation is allowed in the IDF, and the IDF reached what it considers a "new milestone" in 2006, creating the first company of soldiers segregated in an all female unit, the Nachshol (Hebrew for "giant wave") Reconnaissance Company. "We are the only unit in the world made up entirely of female combat soldiers," said Nachshol Company Commander Cpt. Dana Ben-Ezra. "My girls often carry out tasks more difficult than those of male combat soldiers."[39]

Prestor Jon wrote:
How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.

Your question isn't one that anyone here can answer, so I won't try. Sorry about that.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Prestor it doesnt matter. Shrike is in fact a SJW

Real classy, making assumptions about who I am and what I want.

who doesn't care a lick for how much this will cost

Depends on how you implement any sort of change. How about better screening before sending people to training camps?

how many people die because of it

How many people will die if females are allowed into front-line combat, with the same minimum requirements as men?

just so long as everything is equal and fair.

Well, equality is nice. I'm sure being short is just disadvantageous in the military as being female, yet you allow short people in.

I am not going as far as saying that D-USA is a SJW because I dont think he is, I think he is one of those fellows who think the whole world revolves around stats and figures and studies and thinks that if you haven't had 10-20 studies on something you can't say its true or use it in an argument.

No, I think d-usa disagrees fundamentally with some of the rather interesting claims you've been making in this thread.

Beyond D-USA and his constant harping of Studies, the only people who disagree with barring woman from Infantry are those who have no idea about the subject and think regardless of injury rates, budget costs and military strength that woman should be allowed to do this. So it is about the same as trying to point out to a brick wall that Steel is a stronger construction material then Wood.

EDIT: On AVERAGE steel is a stronger construction material then wood. There you go shrike i saved you the time.

*sigh* Broad brush strokes.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Israel is one of only a few nations that conscript women or deploy them in combat roles, although in practice, women can avoid conscription through a religious exemption and over a third of Israeli women do so.[25] A study of women in the IDF from 2002 to 2005 found that women are often superior in discipline, motivation and marksmanship. However, the study noted that women still face gender discrimination in the IDF.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Women

That is very interesting. Thanks for pointing it out, Relapse.

No problem. It's been a question on my mind throughout this debate. I thought perhaps it would be good to see how a nation whose literal existance hinges on how it's military is configured would provide some good clues. It was a good article you linked, and many thanks for that. Here is the interesting part that stood out to me:

"As of 2010, 88% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates. and women could be found in 69% of all IDF positions.[33] Elana Sztokman notes it would be "difficult to claim that women are equals in the IDF." The IDF concedes that fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions. Rather, they are concentrated in "combat-support" positions which command a lower compensation and status than combat positions."

It appears that they are leaving the main amount of fight on the ground to the men and have most of the women in support positions. Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.

Relapse wrote:
This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides. Marines who have extensive combat experience who know first hand what it would take for someone to be able to hack it in an extended real life situation who say putting a woman in a front line infantry unit would put more people at risk than the social experiment is worth.

You (and others) seem to be pleading to authority. So it's important to ask what you are actually an authority on. I will grant you that marines who have extensive combat experience, are no doubt experts in what it is like to hack it in a combat situation. However, if they start claiming "woman in a front line infantry unit would put more people at risk." that would seem to fall outside their area of expertise. Aside from a few anecdotes, I doubt they know much more than any other layman about the limitations of female fitness. Also many people would say that institutional sexism is still very prevalent in the military. So a bunch of macho military types saying "girls aren't good enough", doesn't really carry much weight.

On the other hand we have those who believe SOME women could do just as well as a man in the field...

That is almost a certainty. I'll admit that there probably aren't many women who weigh 70kg and can do 20 chin ups in 3 mins, but if a woman can cut it physically and she wants in, then the army should be glad to have her.

Relapse wrote:
It appears that they are leaving the main amount of fight on the ground to the men and have most of the women in support positions. Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.

It is worth keeping in mind that Israel has mandatory conscription for women as well, and while ~30% sit out for religious reasons, it still means those 4% are quite a lot.

Relapse wrote:
Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.

Probably nowhere near the amount American marines seem to have to carry, given the plethora of articles about how heavy their load is.

(Of course, Israel probably operates slightly differently, given that their military almost exclusively takes part in engagements near home territory, but I don't know to what extent that would affect things.)

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time?

The unwillingness of male Marines to report injuries, or undue stress on their bodies? The "suck it up" mentality is something US Marines focus on and is not exclusive to that organization.

 CptJake wrote:

Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?

You could be correct, but that only supports the notion that physical tests should be emphasized.

Physical tests were emphasized.

And are you actually arguing that the female marines in this test were more prone to whine about injuries than males? That is pathetic. If anything, they had more reason to 'suck it up' but the fact is, certain injuries, which they suffered in much higher percentages than their male counterparts, prevented them from task completion and in some cases from completing the overall test.

That really isn't disputable. And other tests conducted in the past have shown very similar results (I brought them up way before this test was even started in a thread of a similar topic).

 -Shrike- wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.

Probably nowhere near the amount American marines seem to have to carry, given the plethora of articles about how heavy their load is.

(Of course, Israel probably operates slightly differently, given that their military almost exclusively takes part in engagements near home territory, but I don't know to what extent that would affect things.)

People like to bring up the IDF. In these discussions. As an IDF infantry veteran I can give you my perspective :

Women only served (when I was in...07 to 09) in one combat infantry battalion in the IDF, Carcal. I understand since then they've opened a second unit. Female infantry in the IDF serve alongside male counterparts. Those units are not regular infantry units and they don't participate in open warfare.

1) Carcal doesn't require the same health profile as other infantry units. It's for women and men with physical health problems like bad knee/back etc.

2) Carcal works on the Egyptian border specifically where human trafficking is a problem. For this reason having women available to strip search detainees is practical.

3) Most of their work is mounted.


There are women in other combat units like field intelligence but again they are not infantry units and do not participate in open warfare.

 -Shrike- wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.

Your question isn't one that anyone here can answer, so I won't try. Sorry about that.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Prestor it doesnt matter. Shrike is in fact a SJW

Real classy, making assumptions about who I am and what I want.

who doesn't care a lick for how much this will cost

Depends on how you implement any sort of change. How about better screening before sending people to training camps?

how many people die because of it

How many people will die if females are allowed into front-line combat, with the same minimum requirements as men?

just so long as everything is equal and fair.

Well, equality is nice. I'm sure being short is just disadvantageous in the military as being female, yet you allow short people in.

I am not going as far as saying that D-USA is a SJW because I dont think he is, I think he is one of those fellows who think the whole world revolves around stats and figures and studies and thinks that if you haven't had 10-20 studies on something you can't say its true or use it in an argument.

No, I think d-usa disagrees fundamentally with some of the rather interesting claims you've been making in this thread.

Beyond D-USA and his constant harping of Studies, the only people who disagree with barring woman from Infantry are those who have no idea about the subject and think regardless of injury rates, budget costs and military strength that woman should be allowed to do this. So it is about the same as trying to point out to a brick wall that Steel is a stronger construction material then Wood.

EDIT: On AVERAGE steel is a stronger construction material then wood. There you go shrike i saved you the time.

*sigh* Broad brush strokes.

1: not making assumptions, making an educated assessment based on your posts and your complete lack of understanding of the opposite side of this argument. So far you haven't conceded anything.
2:short people are not at a disadvantage to the military. In fact short people have many specific uses in the Infantry. However, they still have to be strong.
3:Broad brush strokes huh? your entire argument is based on the fact that a handful of woman would be Average or slightly above average in the infantry. And you thin that they should be given the chance to join the infantry. That is a fine thought, except this isn't a college campus or a Corporation, this is front line combat where you are expected to pull your share. Several Anecdotes taken from Marines in the study (Male and Female) said they felt females on AVERAGE could not cut it. Many of the females complained of hip problems and one even mentioned that she and her friend were the only ones out of 12 females in their company to not suffer sufficient injuries to be put on light duty for one of the training periods. And that female eventually dropped on request due to injuries.

Because I disagree with Woman in the Infantry you and your buddies on here have labeled me a sexist. So because I don't agree with your point of view I am wrong. Noted.

The worst part about this is that the SecNav is a SJW as well and doesn't care about combat efficiency and cares more for making policy changes to reflect what the President wants for his legacy.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides. Marines who have extensive combat experience who know first hand what it would take for someone to be able to hack it in an extended real life situation who say putting a woman in a front line infantry unit would put more people at risk than the social experiment is worth.

You (and others) seem to be pleading to authority. So it's important to ask what you are actually an authority on. I will grant you that marines who have extensive combat experience, are no doubt experts in what it is like to hack it in a combat situation. However, if they start claiming "woman in a front line infantry unit would put more people at risk." that would seem to fall outside their area of expertise. Aside from a few anecdotes, I doubt they know much more than any other layman about the limitations of female fitness. Also many people would say that institutional sexism is still very prevalent in the military. So a bunch of macho military types saying "girls aren't good enough", doesn't really carry much weight.

On the other hand we have those who believe SOME women could do just as well as a man in the field...

That is almost a certainty. I'll admit that there probably aren't many women who weigh 70kg and can do 20 chin ups in 3 mins, but if a woman can cut it physically and she wants in, then the army should be glad to have her.

I'm sitting on the sidelines leaning heavily towards believing the Marines on this page who have been in combat and know first hand the stress, both physical and mental involved. I grew up in farm country where I spent my youth, from 9 to 15, working from 5 to 7 daily in the summer vacation months, doing light work at first, but building into, as I got older and stronger, clearing fields of rocks, haying, herding cattle and pigs as well as doing all the other associated work. Women would sometimes be out there with the men, but 99 % of the time would be doing the lighter work, tractor and truck driving, combining,etc, but leaving the heavier stuff alone because men are better suited to it and won't hurt themselves as much as women would.
That's what I base some of my opinion on with women doing extended heavy labor like has been depicted by Ghaz and others.

Stop it Nuggz, you'll destroy that myth of The Israeli Infantry Women that folks like to point to as evidence It Works.

 CptJake wrote:
Stop it Nuggz, you'll destroy that myth of The Israeli Infantry Women that folks like to point to as evidence It Works.

Everyone has their fantasies. Unfortunately all the hotties go to the air force. Maybe if the infantry training bases had swimming pools we could compete.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It appears that they are leaving the main amount of fight on the ground to the men and have most of the women in support positions. Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.

It is worth keeping in mind that Israel has mandatory conscription for women as well, and while ~30% sit out for religious reasons, it still means those 4% are quite a lot.

Very true. Israel is in a situation where it has to be "all hands on deck" or the country is gone the next time a couple or three countries take it into their minds to invade it. In a live or die based on the strength of you military situation, where women get placed telling, and I'm fairly sure Israel has the data to justify the way it's forces are configured..

Relapse wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It appears that they are leaving the main amount of fight on the ground to the men and have most of the women in support positions. Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.

It is worth keeping in mind that Israel has mandatory conscription for women as well, and while ~30% sit out for religious reasons, it still means those 4% are quite a lot.

Very true. Israel is in a situation where it has to be "all hands on deck" or the country is gone the next time a couple or three countries take it into their minds to invade it. In a live or die based on the strength of you military situation, where women get placed telling, and I'm fairly sure Israel has the data to justify the way it's forces are configured..

I believe crew served weapons aren't issued to women generally. I've never seen a picture of anyone in Carcal packing a Negev or MAG let alone one of the female soldiers so my educated guess would be that in those units they hump their fair share of a much smaller load because of the way the unit operates (i.e , mounted in hummers and without crew served weapons).

 Ghazkuul wrote:
1: not making assumptions, making an educated assessment based on your posts and your complete lack of understanding of the opposite side of this argument. So far you haven't conceded anything.

The position you are advocating is that women should not be in combat because they are women and are inherently weaker. I disagree, I think height and shoulder width are a much better basis on which to preclude people from active duty. If that includes a higher proportion of women than men, it doesn't matter.

2:short people are not at a disadvantage to the military. In fact short people have many specific uses in the Infantry. However, they still have to be strong.

A short man and a slightly taller woman are probably equally strong, but you would bar the women from front-line combat.

3:Broad brush strokes huh? your entire argument is based on the fact that a handful of woman would be Average or slightly above average in the infantry. And you thin that they should be given the chance to join the infantry.

Yes. If that is what they want, and they pass all the requirements, why not?

That is a fine thought, except this isn't a college campus or a Corporation, this is front line combat where you are expected to pull your share.

Obviously. If they jump through all of the hoops, what would prevent them from pulling their share?

Several Anecdotes taken from Marines in the study (Male and Female) said they felt females on AVERAGE could not cut it. Many of the females complained of hip problems and one even mentioned that she and her friend were the only ones out of 12 females in their company to not suffer sufficient injuries to be put on light duty for one of the training periods. And that female eventually dropped on request due to injuries.

Wow, anecdotes again. If the average women can't cut it, don't take the average. Institute a better screening process for potential recruits.

Because I disagree with Woman in the Infantry you and your buddies on here have labeled me a sexist.

I'm not sure I have buddies on here, but do show me where I've called you sexist.

So because I don't agree with your point of view I am wrong. Noted.

Again, is that what I actually said?

The worst part about this is that the SecNav is a SJW as well and doesn't care about combat efficiency and cares more for making policy changes to reflect what the President wants for his legacy.

The less you talk about SJWs, the more serious a discussion we'll be able to have.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Stop it Nuggz, you'll destroy that myth of The Israeli Infantry Women that folks like to point to as evidence It Works.

Everyone has their fantasies. Unfortunately all the hotties go to the air force. Maybe if the infantry training bases had swimming pools we could compete.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/

Hmmm...

Oh look, the Russians do it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military

Females with broad shoulders still have female pelvises. That is the major difference that contributes to many of the injuries. Broad shoulders don't compensate.

 CptJake wrote:
Females with broad shoulders still have female pelvises. That is the major difference that contributes to many of the injuries. Broad shoulders don't compensate.

Which injuries are those? (Sorry, I'm sure someone mentioned it earlier, but this thread is quite hard to search through by now)

 Ashiraya wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Stop it Nuggz, you'll destroy that myth of The Israeli Infantry Women that folks like to point to as evidence It Works.

Everyone has their fantasies. Unfortunately all the hotties go to the air force. Maybe if the infantry training bases had swimming pools we could compete.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/

Hmmm...

Oh look, the Russians do it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military

Hmmm. Your article is very VERY sparse on how it is working out for any of them. For example, how many females have made it into Australia's SAS? How many of the 2% of females in the Canadian Army that are combat arms are infantry? How do they perform? How do the females making up just 1.7% of French infantry do? Of the 800 females in German 'combat units', how many are infantry? How are they performing? We already know about female infantry in the Israeli Army.

Do the Russians have ANY females in combat arms, specifically infantry or armor? Or are females just allowed in their military?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Females with broad shoulders still have female pelvises. That is the major difference that contributes to many of the injuries. Broad shoulders don't compensate.

Which injuries are those? (Sorry, I'm sure someone mentioned it earlier, but this thread is quite hard to search through by now)

Lower body injuries due to carrying heavy weight for extended distances/time. Female hips, ankles, knees, feet all suffered more than the males. And a lot of that is due to the skeletal differences of the pelvis and how weight is born due to those differences.

The women USED to have a much bigger combat role in Russia than they do now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#Land_forces

It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.

Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.

 CptJake wrote:

Physical tests were emphasized.

Not when it comes to a specific MOS.

 CptJake wrote:

And are you actually arguing that the female marines in this test were more prone to whine about injuries than males?

No, I am claiming that female Marines are more likely to admit to being injured because male Marines, and male soldiers in general, don't like to do as much.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The women USED to have a much bigger combat role in Russia than they do now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#Land_forces

It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.

Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.

This isn't about sexism. How big a ruck did a Russian female infantry woman carry in ww2? She wasn't wearing armor, carrying as much equipment, etc. As I understand it Russian females were largely serving in sniper roles. It's silly to cite cases from 70 years ago when today's requirements are completely different.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Physical tests were emphasized.

Not when it comes to a specific MOS.

 CptJake wrote:

And are you actually arguing that the female marines in this test were more prone to whine about injuries than males?

No, I am claiming that female Marines are more likely to admit to being injured because male Marines, and male soldiers in general, don't like to do as much.

What do you mean 'not when it comes to a specific MOS'? All the females in this test went through the initial infantry training prior to it. Of course physical tests were emphasized both in that training and in this test.

As for your claim, I think you are very wrong, especially in regards to this test, which is what we are talking about. An injury is an injury. It either slows you down/prevents mission accomplishment or does not. If you want to claim the females 'tapped out early' that itself would say a LOT about their suitability to be infantry. I personally don't think they did so. There is no indication they did, everything I've read points to them trying as hard if not harder than the men.

dogma wrote:

No, I am claiming that female Marines are more likely to admit to being injured because male Marines, and male soldiers in general, don't like to do as much.

Do you have any information to substantiate that claim? Because the alternative seems just as plausible.