Explaining women in combat arms

[Rune]

You could advance an argument that if women cannot even stop their own side raping them then what chance have they of fighting the enemy at close quarters.

Yes you could.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

How about a comparison of foreign soldier rape vs. fellow soldier rape?

American soldiers also rape foreign men, women and children in addition to their female cohorts. Why doesn't this get any press?

And fighting the enemy at close quarters doesn't necessarily mean a rape will follow.

That's a really good point, and it is something we should be thinking about. I mean, if we throw up our hands about the military culture that makes rape epidemic, and say, well the answer is less women in the military, WTF are we destining women in the countries we occupy to? I mean, that is scary.

 

[Rune]

I fail to see how saying that there are record levels of rape is an argument for having more women in the military, especially in the front line where there is much less oversight and danger of getting caught.

Almost sadly, I have to agree with Tom on this, especially in that;

1. The economy is now so poor and the propaganda so complete and successful that many of the already most vulnerable often feel compelled to join.
2. Due to (insert whatever reasons here due to personal veiwpoint) the military's apparent inability to police itself of rapists and those who cover them up, military life is not safe from rapists even domestically never mind in field conditions.

 

[christiefan915]

Again, this is the misunderstanding of the issue.

There is without a doubt a small number of women who are physiologically capable of serving in these billets. The problem isnt with finding 1 or 2 or 3. To suggest that an opportunity has been opened of which no current applicant has been able to succeed is the same as saying that there is no opportunity.

My fear isnt of allowing women to serve in combat arms. It is the clear understanding that in order for women in any multitude to be able to do this the standards for such service must be lowered. This is only sustained on an institutional level. Meaning, every year we have 5 females attempt the IOC (Infantry Officer Course), and for 10 years not one single woman makes it past. How is the institution supposed to implement the policy if the standards and requirements are such that no woman ever manages to make it through?

Why does physical prowess have to carry such weight in career advancement? It seems to glorify brawn over brains.

Then in year 11 one DOES make it through. In that time frame the services and the combat arms community is supposed to fashion policies that deal with this in order for such a small % of successful applications to just simply qualify and pass the initial training?

This would be disingenuous at best. This would take no time to implement. There are a set of standards that exist today. There is no need to evaluate the method of entry... unless you were planning on modifying it.

History shows that many standards have changed over time, why not this also.

There is no necessity to do this either. We have no shortage of infantryman in the Marine Corps or the US Army. The only reason to do this is to cater to a womans desire to improve career advancement in a field that relies on physical performance, unit cohesion, and discipline.

If this is the case, career advancement shouldn't be predicated on physical performance. And I don't get the part about unit cohesion and discipline, please explain. You should applaud anyone's desire to advance in their careers yet you seem to see this as a fault with women.

If you were the platoon sergeant for an infantry platoon and you had 1 female enlisted infantrywoman, would you consider sending her into breech first as you would with any other able bodied Marine? If she is your only one?

Sure, why not? If she's in that position she knew what she was signing up for.

Do you needlessly open yourself up to sending her in first because she is female when no issue comes into play otherwise? Do you open yourself up for being accused of never sending her in first BECAUSE she is a female when no issue comes into play otherwise?

Gender shouldn't be the first consideration in sending someone in. In combat you're a soldier first. And I do believe you can find the 150# small-boned man in the military, yet you haven't even addressed this.

If she is consistently singled out for poor physical performance in comparison to her peers, do you not open yourself for being accused of picking on her because she is female?

First you said she has to pass an excruciatingly high physical standard just to get the position, then once she gets it suddenly she has poor physical performance in comparison to her peers. Does. Not. Make. Sense.

This activity of having 1 or 2 qualifying applications succeeding is still destined for failure, that is why the Chairman in his press conference today said that having 1 or 2 or small number of women being able to enter due to current standards is not going to work. That is why he is offering time to re-evaluate standards and practices in order to open these billets up to women... It is clear that the intention is to lower standards.

No, it's not clear that's the intention. Maybe to you but not to everyone. See paragraph below. Why should this woman put her life on the line and not be rewarded for it?

"Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, an Air National Guard helicopter pilot, stands as an example. Although she was shot down, returned fire and was wounded in Afghanistan, she could not seek combat leadership positions because the Defense Department did not consider her service as combat action. Her dilemma was not unique."

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...e-to-terms-with-reality-672073/#ixzz2J6KfAjLy
​

So youre saying, if a women is capable after we lower the standards then let her serve and we can all proclaim progress?

Specifically, which standards would be lowered and by how much?

 

[Rune]

Darla explained it quite nicely, more women, less manly bullshit.

The more women, the less good old boy protect each others back bullshit

It is that easy.

Unfortunately, while this may or may not prove true in the long term, in the short term a lot of enlisted women will get raped before that happens.
More correct IMHO would be legislative cure, especially in our case where we have civillian controll of the military. Those reponsible and their enablers should be punished so severly and imediately as to instantly curtail all such activity to but a freak incidence. Many behaviors by military personel are delt with with absolutely zero tolerance.

 

[christiefan915]

I would live to talk to those women! The women I have encountered who are military do not strike me as the types who would "try to keep men happy". There may be one in a thousand, but I seriously question his story. I will have to ask my many friends and relatives who gave served if they have witnessed this behavior! I will also ask my niece if she plans to be the "happy ending girl"

I wonder if BAC's daughter has witnessed stuff like this?

I'd like to know also.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Almost sadly, I have to agree with Tom on this, especially in that;

1. The economy is now so poor and the propaganda so complete and successful that many of the already most vulnerable often feel compelled to join.
2. Due to (insert whatever reasons here due to personal veiwpoint) the military's apparent inability to police itself of rapists and those who cover them up, military life is not safe from rapists even domestically never mind in field conditions.

This is an incredibly stupid argument Rune. Let's start here:

Women are already in the military. The rate of sexual assault against them is very high. How is preventing them from advancing going to lower rape rates?

Are you proposing banning women from the military all together? If not why not? If not, how does preventing them from advancing negatively impact rape rates?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I would live to talk to those women! The women I have encountered who are military do not strike me as the types who would "try to keep men happy". There may be one in a thousand, but I seriously question his story. I will have to ask my many friends and relatives who gave served if they have witnessed this behavior! I will also ask my niece if she plans to be the "happy ending girl"

I wonder if BAC's daughter has witnessed stuff like this?

It sounds like a "Dear Penthouse, I know this is hard to believe , but, one day, when I was working late, my hot female boss got on her knees and begged for permission to suck my c***"

In other words - yeah right!

I think it's really funny that christie dug that up though. It is very revealing.

 

[christiefan915]

Would you suggest we lower the physical standards needed to fight for our country so more people can be on the front lines?

I'd still like to know what exactly are the physical standards and wish SR would post them.

 

[Phantasmal]

I'd still like to know what exactly are the physical standards and wish SR would post them.

Exactly, are we talking basic training or Seal, Ranger standards because special ops standards are a lot more physically taxing than basic training. My brother in law couldn't pass the Ranger test, but his son did.

 

[Phantasmal]

Exactly, are we talking basic training or Seal, Ranger standards because special ops standards are a lot more physically taxing than basic training. My brother in law couldn't pass the Ranger test, but his son did.

Bud also told me hand to hand combat is rare, even in 'Nam, he never experienced it.

 

[christiefan915]

Bud also told me hand to hand combat is rare, even in 'Nam, he never experienced it.

I always thought it was gun-to-gun combat.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I groaned you so that balances out.

lol, your groans don't carry any weight.....

 

[Howey]

If a man slaps/hits you better hit him back or else you will be looked at as a punk (think Rick James/Charlie Murphy). If a woman slaps/hits you, unless your life is in danger, it's still not acceptable to hit her back. Sexist huh? Sexist men who say it is inappropriate to hit a woman?

No man should ever hit a woman. It's not about sexism, it's about respect.

You could advance an argument that if women cannot even stop their own side raping them then what chance have they of fighting the enemy at close quarters.

Ya know, Tom, I've known a lot of Brits in my lifetime. Many are good friends. Never have I seen such a level of obvious misogyny coming from my Brit friends as I see with you. Get help and learn to respect women as equals, willya?

Howey was in the military for many years also, and his opinions carry some weight with me.

Dear gawd, where to start...guess he has been exposed.

Because I was in the military for so many years is precisely why I knew off the bat he was full of BS. I don't know if I've told y'all this before, but for many years my position was to process administrative separations from the military (separations for cause). I dealt with the scum of the earth misogynists on a daily basis as they were weeded out. One thing all of them had in common? An inherent fear of women being stronger physically, emotionally, and most of all intellectually than them.

Actually, an argument can be made that rape can be more traumatic for men, since it is not something they can talk about and it may well effect their own sense of "maleness" in addition to the normal trauma of rape.

There is no "normal" trauma of rape. Men and women react the same. And, guess what? Most male on male rape in the military involved heterosexual soldiers raping homosexual soldiers.

More women being around, becoming more accustomed to being in the situation, and less fear all point to reducing the number of rapes by their fellow soldiers.

I've said before what the problem is. I'm sorry you didn't read it. The problem with rape in the military will cease to exist when commanders acknowledge it and get rid of the offenders instead of covering it up.

I stand corrected in the way I said that. It is not more traumatizing. I simply think the experience is very different for men, without saying anything is easier for the women.

Again, there is no difference. Rape is rape.

Unfortunately, while this may or may not prove true in the long term, in the short term a lot of enlisted women will get raped before that happens.
More correct IMHO would be legislative cure, especially in our case where we have civillian controll of the military. Those reponsible and their enablers should be punished so severly and imediately as to instantly curtail all such activity to but a freak incidence. Many behaviors by military personel are delt with with absolutely zero tolerance.

I have to disagree to an extent, Rune. The problem with rape in the military is commanders and top NCOs going to great lengths to shield rape occurrences. There is no "zero tolerance", there is "avoidance".

I'd still like to know what exactly are the physical standards and wish SR would post them.

As I stated before, there are none.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Darla explained it quite nicely, more women, less manly bullshit.

The more women, the less good old boy protect each others back bullshit

It is that easy.

I would think arming more women with combat weapons would tend to reduce rape......

 

[cawacko]

No man should ever hit a woman. It's not about sexism, it's about respect.

So who determines the line between what is respect and what is sexist?

 

[Howey]

Exactly, are we talking basic training or Seal, Ranger standards because special ops standards are a lot more physically taxing than basic training. My brother in law couldn't pass the Ranger test, but his son did.

Let me repeat this one more time, as the issue's causing confusion.

Seals, Rangers, etc., are not front line troops. The front line troops are the grunts. They require no more training than how to shoot a rifle and kill someone. They are, given their mission, disposable.

Why waste the money giving them expensive training?

 

[Howey]

So who determines the line between what is respect and what is sexist?

I don't get your point. Are you saying a man hitting a woman is sexism? I guess so.

Are you saying if a woman hits a man, it's sexism? No, it isn't.

sex·ism
/ˈsekˌsizəm/
Noun
Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

They are, given their mission, disposable.

I know most liberals don't understand this, but the purpose of soldiers isn't to die, its to kill.....

 

[christiefan915]

Let me repeat this one more time, as the issue's causing confusion.

Seals, Rangers, etc., are not front line troops. The front line troops are the grunts. They require no more training than how to shoot a rifle and kill someone. They are, given their mission, disposable.

Why waste the money giving them expensive training?

That's why they're called "cannon fodder."