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.

Know you are just grasping at straws

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have read your posts, I just know that pregnancies wipl not be the first time a team is down a member

A pregnancy takes you off the track/out of the squad for over a year....

Not many injuries I've seen took guys out for nearly that long. My PSG broke an ankle and was off his track for 3 weeks.

Look at the studies I posted above. The quick take away is without being in infantry and armor units, women had a higher evac rate then men (including those who WERE in those units).

But I'm sure you know more about than I do. And more than the folks who collected the data.

I again ask, SO? Other jobs have to deal with it, why not the military.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Oh no, I wasn't referring to you when I meant the person wasn't replying. You'll have to excuse my ignorance of the quote function.
...
Didn't mean any disrespect, Pendix.

None taken.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
But yeah, I'll conclude by agreeing that everyone should only be judged on their individual capabilities and skills and if they prove to be genuinely proficient at something they should be allowed to do it and leave it at that. Everyone should be judged by the same objective standards when being evaluated for completing a task.

At the end of the day that's what is really important. If it turned out tomorrow that most of the stuff I've read was completely wrong, and men and women are radically special sub-species, the basic principal of equality would still hold; treat a person as an individual, not a label.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I again ask, SO? Other jobs have to deal with it, why not the military.

You're absolutely right. There is clearly zero difference between a deployed infantry unit and say a WalMart.

Just as long as folks admit there are differences in injury rates and deployability between male and female troops, if as a nation we say 'SO?' then so be it. feth it, who cares about silly things like those differences anyway, right?

 CptJake wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I again ask, SO? Other jobs have to deal with it, why not the military.

You're absolutely right. There is clearly zero difference between a deployed infantry unit and say a WalMart.

Just as long as folks admit there are differences in injury rates and deployability between male and female troops, if as a nation we say 'SO?' then so be it. feth it, who cares about silly things like those differences anyway, right?

You clearly haven't seen Walmart on Black Friday. I still have the flashbacks

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Also, women get pregnant, it sucks, but it isnt something that has started happening, the military can adjust.

Unless you mistyped that, you are so seriously wrong here....

My wife is still in the army, and has been pregnant while in the army.... twice.

If they can meet the requirements, they should be able to serve.

 Ouze wrote:
If they can meet the requirements, they should be able to serve.

Maybe if we gave them all exo suits then they could all make those requirements easy peasy

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
If they can meet the requirements, they should be able to serve.

Maybe if we gave them all exo suits then they could all make those requirements easy peasy

Yeah, but we don't have them, so maybe don't fill the thread up with garbage?

 Ouze wrote:
If they can meet the requirements, they should be able to serve.

But... but... my wiener will feel small[er] if there is a woman that can do something just as good as a man!

I mean, the next thing we know women will be wanting to drive automobiles and vote! What is this world coming to?!

 Ouze wrote:
If they can meet the requirements, they should be able to serve.

While I agree with that principal, I think that in practical terms "the requirement" might end up being just a ban by a different name. It's like the requirement to be over 9 feet tall, hypothetically, someone could meet that requirement, just not any living person, so it becomes moot.

 Smacks wrote:
While I agree with that principal, I think that in practical terms "the requirement" might end up being just a ban by a different name. It's like the requirement to be over 9 feet tall, hypothetically, someone could meet that requirement, just not any living person, so it becomes moot.

That hasn't happened in practice. After 2 women passed Ranger school, they wound up dropping a requirement that women attend RTAC first, and now just recommend it for both women and men. There have been allegations - no evidence for and denied - that the standards actually were relaxed.

Not very many women will qualify; but that's OK. The standards should reflect the realities of actual ground combat requirements, and the goal is to be equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.

It would be cool if a country that constantly bragged about how exceptional it is could get to where Israel was 15 years ago.

If women are allowed in then it removes all the heart from infantry singing "This is my rifle, this is my gun". Sure the girls can still sing along but it loses something.


Historically women were kept out of service to protect a nations ability to repopulate, 1 man can impregnate 100's of women if needed so you can have lots of men die off without impacting the population rate as harshly. You start losing your women in large numbers the population will decline very quickly.

Also in ages past battlefields and the campaigns on the road were hardly a clean or hygienic venture, those conditions can lead to several types of infections that don't occur quite as easily in men. (particularly in the ages before tampons and monthly bleeding wasn't easily controlled) Not a lot of women like being in the great outdoors due to a lack of facilities, they are more agreeable when it's at a dedicated park or somewhere with at least minimal access to toilets and washing facilities, but most have absolutely zero interest in truly "roughing it" and combat deployment in many parts of the world can require enduring some pretty nasty hygiene levels at times.

Trench rot wouldn't be just for feet anymore.

I don't see the problem with women joining the military. They will have to prevent any sexual misbehavior from both men and women during service, though.

(As for combat performances, I don't know. If women pass the same tests as men and qualify, that's fine.)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Also, women get pregnant, it sucks, but it isnt something that has started happening, the military can adjust.

Unless you mistyped that, you are so seriously wrong here....

My wife is still in the army, and has been pregnant while in the army.... twice.

So, then, pregnancy has already been a thing in the military? Shock, and are you sure the military hasnt fallen apart like other posters said it would?

As long as they meet the same recruitment and training standards, why stop them?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as they meet the same recruitment and training standards, why stop them?

The problem is that they don't currently have the same training standards. I see no reason to limit them from taking on those roles should they pass all of the exact same fitness and training standards as men, not weighted scores based on gender. If they are given a lower standard then it puts lives at risk and that is not acceptable.

 stanman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as they meet the same recruitment and training standards, why stop them?

The problem is that they don't currently have the same training standards. I see no reason to limit them from taking on those roles should they pass all of the exact same fitness and training standards as men, not weighted scores based on gender. If they are given a lower standard then it puts lives at risk and that is not acceptable.

Then that's a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

There should be a bar set for serving in front line combat, and anyone who fails to reach that bar (man or woman) should not be allowed to serve in a front line combat detail.

No arguments there.

So I can assume you folks are against things like separate APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test) standards for males and females, right?

Do you think the male standard is too high or the female too low? Where should the new standard be?

Of note, currently a 17-21 year old female would have to max her push ups to meet the minimum passing score for a male.

I suspect if you decide to go with 'use the current male standard' the number of females in the military would drop. Drastically. But that would be fair, right?

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect if you decide to go with 'use the current male standard' the number of females in the military would drop. Drastically. But that would be fair, right?

If the number of push-ups currently required for men realistically matches the level of physical fitness required in a combat role, then yes, it would be fair; even if it meant only a small number of women were able to meet that standard. Mind blown, right?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
It's okay for those African cultures to do things differently. I'm not one to tell them they're wrong. Did their women have larger bone structure and more heavily muscled bodies? Did the men primarily care for children?

If not, then I simply question the physical advantage they saw as to why it was the women doing the fighting, as I am now.

Cause they saw women as better fighters, more aggressive and more protective than men.
Really this idea that women are better than men at somethings, and mean vice versa is an idea that needs to die.

I'm better at pissing out a fire than any woman I've challenged.

Fact.

It seems the people who were against it before are still against it and that those who were for it are still for it. Of course it doesn't matter who is for or against it as it now exists regardless.

I thought soldiers would adapt to the change such as when they integrated the military, allowed women in in the first place, ect ect. Yet maybe vaginas in combat is a step to far for them. Adapting to something so radical may be beyond them? I wouldn't think so yet here we are.

 Ahtman wrote:
I thought soldiers would adapt to the change such as when they integrated the military, allowed women in in the first place, ect ect. Yet maybe vaginas in combat is a step to far for them. Adapting to something so radical may be beyond them? I wouldn't think so yet here we are.

The unit is not an instrument of social change, but they'll get over it.

Its not a matter of adapting. This will seriously impact the infantry's ability to effectively do its mission. In every single country this has been tried, it ha been a failure. In the long term test the marines did, even stacking the teams in favor of the women, it was a failure.
Physical:
- women are 6x more likely to sustain injury just from normal activities, running, rucking, maneuvers etc.
-A 160 pound woman(not going to pretend they will be sci-fi trope petite little girls) carrying 70 pounds of her own gear and weapon is not going to be able to carry and run with a 220 pound guy with his 70 pounds of gear. That's a standard activity by the way, we used to do this for relay races at PT.
-Will that same woman with 70 pounds of gear and a 100 pound rucksack be able to walk right into a firefight after a 12-25 mile march? What about carrying a 240 and its belts of ammo?
-Will she be able to go a month without taking a shower and not having hygiene issues impacting her performance?
-Pregnancy- Infantry squads train nonstop, we were at a range usually once a week when we weren't in the field a minimum of three weeks every two months(sometimes more) and this is during peacetime at base. A squad requires to work together over and over to build muscle memory, rehearse where who goes where, to the point its instinctive as to what the rest of the team is doing. We hated just getting new guys or losing an old guy to PCS(changing stations) because we would have to start all over again. So now we have a pregnant woman, who will be out all the time, will be dragging the squad down, will miss what 2 months for popping the kid out? Whats this going to do with vehicle crews like in a tank company where they don't have spare people just sitting around to take the woman's spot? Be interesting to see a woman in a tank company, there is nothing light weight on an M1 and she will be expected to pull her weight like a man.

-Social- Now you have the social aspects. Working close with a woman, no matter how much you claim discipline, self control or outright rules against it, relationships will happen. It will as the marines clearly showed impact the mission.

This subject has been studied to death, the results are clearly obvious. Even countries that have female infantry has them segregated in lighter duty assignments. Can a woman hold and shoot a fixed position? Of course. But that is not US combat doctrine, we move and shoot, non-stop.

This is a prime example how the SJBs and the ilk that support them are destroying our country. San bernandino is an example of how SJBs and their mission to destroy the fabric of this country have gotten innocent people killed. This newest case will get US soldiers killed, all for the alter of deviant political correctness.

Col. Dash wrote:

This is a prime example how the SJBs and the ilk that support them are destroying our country. San bernandino is an example of how SJBs and their mission to destroy the fabric of this country have gotten innocent people killed. This newest case will get US soldiers killed, all for the alter of deviant political correctness.

I laughed pretty hard.

Maybe you're going too far linking a presumed terrorist attack and the admission of women in infantry corps ?

Col. Dash wrote:
Its not a matter of adapting. This will seriously impact the infantry's ability to effectively do its mission. In every single country this has been tried, it ha been a failure. In the long term test the marines did, even stacking the teams in favor of the women, it was a failure.
Physical:
- women are 6x more likely to sustain injury just from normal activities, running, rucking, maneuvers etc.
-A 160 pound woman(not going to pretend they will be sci-fi trope petite little girls) carrying 70 pounds of her own gear and weapon is not going to be able to carry and run with a 220 pound guy with his 70 pounds of gear. That's a standard activity by the way, we used to do this for relay races at PT.
-Will that same woman with 70 pounds of gear and a 100 pound rucksack be able to walk right into a firefight after a 12-25 mile march? What about carrying a 240 and its belts of ammo?
-Will she be able to go a month without taking a shower and not having hygiene issues impacting her performance?
-Pregnancy- Infantry squads train nonstop, we were at a range usually once a week when we weren't in the field a minimum of three weeks every two months(sometimes more) and this is during peacetime at base. A squad requires to work together over and over to build muscle memory, rehearse where who goes where, to the point its instinctive as to what the rest of the team is doing. We hated just getting new guys or losing an old guy to PCS(changing stations) because we would have to start all over again. So now we have a pregnant woman, who will be out all the time, will be dragging the squad down, will miss what 2 months for popping the kid out? Whats this going to do with vehicle crews like in a tank company where they don't have spare people just sitting around to take the woman's spot? Be interesting to see a woman in a tank company, there is nothing light weight on an M1 and she will be expected to pull her weight like a man.

-Social- Now you have the social aspects. Working close with a woman, no matter how much you claim discipline, self control or outright rules against it, relationships will happen. It will as the marines clearly showed impact the mission.

This subject has been studied to death, the results are clearly obvious. Even countries that have female infantry has them segregated in lighter duty assignments. Can a woman hold and shoot a fixed position? Of course. But that is not US combat doctrine, we move and shoot, non-stop.

This is a prime example how the SJBs and the ilk that support them are destroying our country. San bernandino is an example of how SJBs and their mission to destroy the fabric of this country have gotten innocent people killed. This newest case will get US soldiers killed, all for the alter of deviant political correctness.

I am going to assume that in your pregnancy argument, you are saying that she will be out 2 months for popping a kid, 1 month before and 1 month after? Can you name one doctor in the world that would let a pregnant woman run military drills/be active duty in a combat zone? That is ridiculous man. Come on, think for a second. She would be replaced as soon as the pregnancy test came back.

As for the San Bernadino comment, it just amazes me that you can somehow blame that on "SJBs"

Col. Dash wrote:
IThis is a prime example how the SJBs and the ilk that support them are destroying our country. San bernandino is an example of how SJBs and their mission to destroy the fabric of this country have gotten innocent people killed. This newest case will get US soldiers killed, all for the alter of deviant political correctness.

I think you're reposting an argument from the 1940s, when arguments about how blacks would destroy unit morale and cohesion were all the rage. Those SJB's, they just don't stop.


edit: gak, HBMC beat me to it with that great video I didn't watch until now :(

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I am going to assume that in your pregnancy argument, you are saying that she will be out 2 months for popping a kid, 1 month before and 1 month after? Can you name one doctor in the world that would let a pregnant woman run military drills/be active duty in a combat zone? That is ridiculous man. Come on, think for a second. She would be replaced as soon as the pregnancy test came back.

Actually, no, she would not be replaced in most cases. She would be pulled from the position (and if deployed, evaced back to the states), but the unit would just end up being short handed until she could return to duty. You lose her effectively for about a year. She could work in other positions in the unit (orderly room clerk) in garrison, but not deployed. There is not pool of replacements like we had in WW2. And as long as the position is 'filled', even with a person who cannot perform the duties, you can't get another body in. You are only authorized a certain number of folks (and those are by MOS and grade). Unless you actually drop her from the unit manning document and reassign her somewhere else, she still fills a slot on your roster.