RE: Women in Combat Arms

Remember what Patton said: a man who won't [have sex] won't fight. He made sure his guys got what they needed to fight...

What’s more important to the Army: “diversity” or “victory”?

My answer: Victory. I agree with you completely. I say that as a woman who can fight and lives on the edge.

"Introducing the temptation of female companionship into the almost-monastic lifestyle of the infantry is a morale killer for the unit"

BINGO!!!

I agree that there are positions within the military that women shouldn't be in. Not so much because there aren't women that can't cut it, because there are more men that can't handle themselves. I hate to say it, but there are some minor, but startling nonetheless, similarities to what some of the extreme muslim leaders have said about their men not being able to control themselves so its put upon the women to veil themselves, to what some of the commenters have said.
Case in point...my mother's AF career. She was passed over twice for E9 because she needed a check on a list of criteria. The problem...there was no way for her to fill that criteria as a woman. She wasn't allowed. As far as her abilities to do her job, she'd been outperforming those in her field for years. In fact, since retirement, she has joined Civil Service, starting as a GS13. She's on par with most 0-6's and has direct interaction with Generals.
The point being, if you're going to bar anyone, male or female, black, white, or purple, to meet the criteria to advance regardless of their ability to do their job, you have a problem. Adjust the standards to allow them to advance within their field allowing for the fact that through no fault or choice of their own, they can't compete in certain fashions.

I think there are women out there, and in currently in the military, who can handle the jobs that they are currently not allowed into. But if we're going to allow them the ability to enter those careers and areas, then we have to allow for the fact that there are going to be alot of women who are going to get chewed up and spit out by the system, just as there are currently alot of men who are chewed up and spit out.

That means expecting to deal with females with PTSD, females coming home missing limbs, females possibly being tortured or sexually assaulted by enemies who have no morales or scruples or sense of common decency. That means having to get rid of alot of the Politically correct line of thought that has permeated our military. Women who are willing to step up and volunteer for combat duty should be expected to hold the same physical, mental, and emotional standards as thier male counterparts. They will not be treated as women, ladies, or females, but as Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. They will have to understand that bad things can and probably happen around them, near them, and possibly to them.

There will be mistakes, there will be tragedies, and most sadly of all, there will a tiny number of assholes among their own rank and file waiting to judge them, hate them, discriminate against them, and even harm them.

I honestly believe that there are women currently in the military who understand these facts, and would still be willing to volunteer for combat duty. I believe that a good deal of them may even be high enough quality to not just hold thier own , but to even excel. However, before we can allow these females the opportunity to step forward and serve thier country in this manner, we are going to have to accept the facts. Allowing women to serve in combat will result in a lot of tore up women. Alot of girls are going to go off to war and come back just as beat up, hard eyed, and broken as thier brother warriors. Some of them are going to come back home in caskets.

I understand that our military has had female casualties already, however most of them have been due to unfortunate accidents and attacks on defensive positions. I do not mean to demean or in anyway lessen thier sacrifice but there is in fact a difference. The nation and the military as a whole can understand and accept casualties to a limited extent when a vehicle rolls over or a helicopter malfunctions and crashes, but do you how do you honestly think the nation would react to visual images of female casualties? What would your reaction had been if, during the battle of Mogadishu back in the early nineties, it had been the body of an American female that the Somalis had been dragging down the street? How would we have reacted during Vietnam if we had to watch twenty two year old female pilots blinking "torture" in morse code while reciting forced confessions to the VC?

Is the nation as a whole trully willing to accept that? Is our military willing to risk that? And the hardest question of all; Can you as a man, with all of your evolutionary hardwiring and sense of honor and decency, accept that?

ok...huge topic here...i am combat arms as well...and we have no females...not even supply...EO would have a field day if they introduced a female into our ranks...not because our men can't controle themselves...but the language that the combat arms have adopted...adn we see this in the civilian world as well...as in heavy contruction...my prior career...i mean c'mon when you have a tool named a dike...it's kinda hard not to offend a woman when you yell out you need a pair of dikes...same goes with our soldiers...we have so many pieces of equipment with "dongles" for those who have no clue...it's a piece of equipment that hangs off another piece of equipment...a hand mic by definition is a dongle...and our vocabulary is just offensive as well...unless a woman is completely ready for what she is going to be walking into...she would take things the wrong way

I have no doubt that there are women who could handle combat, but the majority could not. Men and women are not the same - no matter what some would like to think, and thinking so does not make it so. If women can be in combat along side men, then why not gays? Big can of worms! And America is not ready. Raise your daughters to be strong, courages and smart - able to meet any requirements. Raise them to be military wives, mothers, and helpmeets.

Curtis is 100% correct. It would just be too much too see a woman being tortured with the stone hearts of our soldiers breaking.

Here's the deal, and Charlie nailed it - sex. I must emphasize and re-emphasize, lest I be labelled sexist, that the sex issue is NOT, I say again, NOT the fault of the man or the woman. It's human nature for men and women to procreate, whether they work at Burger King or in the military. The fry cook wants to bang the drive up window chick, that's human nature. As for the retired AF woman, who is now a GS13, that doesn't apply here and frankly, I don't buy the line of crap that "she couldn't get promoted because she wasn't allowed to do something male counterparts could do." That's an excuse, not a reason. Women cannot serve in combat units and therefore cannot be screened to command infantry/artillery/tank battalions or regiments. They can however command combat support and combat service support battalions and regiments, and command well in most cases. There is the distinction people. A female admin Marine is not going to be held back from promotion to higher ranks because she doesn't have command experience of an infantry platoon in combat. Charlie is also spot on in his observation on the monastic life of your average combat arms soldier or Marine. I joined the Marine Corps to blow shit up, kill the enemies of my country, lead Marines and do exciting, death-defying things. I think I deserve the right to blow off steam (or, more accurately, 'deserved' the right way back when because now I am a sissy civilian) in anyway I saw fit, short of breaking the law. Political correctness is blunting the sharp edge of the greatest military in the greatest country on Earth.

I can't think of one thing that a female couldn't do in the Air Force these days, short of foward air controller and pararescue. Both are very small fields.

Outside of those two cases, women serve in all the other combat arms of the Air Force: pilots, navigators, air battle managers, missileers, security forces, etc.

But, I think that Tanker's Wife's mom was in a different Air Force, at a different time. Gender norms may not have been what they were when she was in....

Tankerswife provides an excellent case-in-point.

"She wasn't allowed. As far as her abilities to do her job, she'd been outperforming those in her field for years. - tankerswife

She wasn't allowed based on objective standards, or wasn't allowed simply because she is female?

The point being, if you're going to bar anyone, male or female, black, white, or purple, to meet the criteria to advance regardless of their ability to do their job, you have a problem. - tankerswife

Exactly right. These are subjective standards, not objective standards.

Adjust the standards to allow them to advance within their field allowing for the fact that through no fault or choice of their own, they can't compete in certain fashions. - tankerswife

Unfortunately, adjusting the standards to accommodate subjective critieria is what got us into the problem we have now.

It is most certainly true that some people "can't compete in certain fashions". And this applies to both men and women. The problems arise when those 'fashions' can not meet the necessary standard for success.

If we lower the standards necessary for success, to meet the fashions of those less capable, we effectively set those very same people up for failure. And we set the whole organization up for failure.

And if my point is clear... Lowering the objective standards necessary for success to meet subjective criteria sets everyone up for failure.

Again, this is no personal reflection on the mother of tankerswife.

Lowering the standards is simply not the answer.

If you can't meet the standards for the job you can't meet the standards. Its not a dishonor, its merely a fact. I'm in the airforce, and I'm male, and I can tell you that if I tested for TACP or PJ tomorrow, I almost certainly could not be able to meet the fitness standards. I would try my best, but I would almost certainly fail.

I'm not about to say that airforce is discriminating against me because of my health. Or because I'm a skinny techno nerd as compared to a musle head fitness nut. If I really wanted to, I could still put in for those jobs. I could still try out for them, and I would probably be rejected based on my medical records, (Bad eyesight, post surgical knee) and if not that, I'd probably wash out of the training. But how many men wash out of sniper training, ranger training, airborne training, or even just basic infantry training?

Make the standards standard. (Seems logical, doesn't it?) set the standards realistically, and set the standards high. Explain to the women, and all applicants that if you can't meet the standards, you won't get the job. Theres no dishonor in trying your best and not suceeding.

There are men who try out in spite of the fact that they are short (true fact, one of my male NCOs currently stands at 5'6' with heel extensions on his boots) Men who try out in spite of the fact they are small. (I'm 5'9" but I only weigh in 125 pounds. When my retrain cycle comes up in a year, I'm wanting to put in for a career that will require me to attend SERE school) and some men who try out in spite of whatever medical conditions they have going. (One of the other guys in the maintenance shop is going asthmatic. If he isn't careful some of our chemical fumes can put him on the floor.) We don't expect buy outs for our individual weaknesses or differences, we just realize that in certain areas, we have to try harder. SSgt Eddy the Christmas elf NCO drags a ladder just about everywhere he goes so he can reach high objects, stuff that I can reach flatfooted. I keep trying my damnedest to eat more and work out more so that I can move the heavy stuff around the maintenance bay. Eric the Asthmatic is always exceeding the standards on Personal protective equipment to keep from breathing in the paint and fuel fumes.

I'm all for giving the women the opportunity to try out whatever profession they want to. But the military is going to have to be fair and honest. And the special buyouts based on standard female physique are going to have to go for those careers. If a woman wants to try out for infantry, but is afraid she can't carry all the heavy gear her squadmates are packing, then she better hit the gym and hit it hard. If she doesn't think she can run as fast, then she better start taking a longer jogging route in the morning, and taking it faster. If she thinks she may not be able to make it because shes a woman, then she needs push herself harder in order to make the standard. She needs to be realistic about what she must do to overcome,compensate for, or mitigate anything that she considers a weakness. And at the end of the day, if she still can't pass the test, and inspite of her best efforts she still winds up getting washed out, she needs to learn how to cope with that failure without being tempted to blame it on her gender, her coworkers, her chain of command, or most importantly herself.

I've known women in my maintenance bay who couldn't hack the work pretty much because they were female. I've known women in my maintenance bay who used all the "Weaknesses" that came with thier gender in order to be some of the best maintainers we ever had to step through the door.

Two points...

Yes my mother served in a different AF than we currently have. However, the promotion board wanted a mark checked that as a female, she wasn't allowed to check. Not because she couldn't do the job, but solely based upon her gender. And that's wrong. Liekwise, its wrong to promote someone because of their gender or race. I firmly believe that a promotion board should be given nothing more than a gender and race neutral fitrep with nothing more than a SSN for reference.
Which leads to point two...if a person, male or female, is able to do the job, then let them. I'm not saying that the military, any branch, should change/lower the standards for any position to allow those less capable to move into those positions. I'm saying that anyone capable of doing the job, as prescribed, should be allowed to do it, regardless of gender.

Yes, there are women, and men, out there that will take offense at the world around them. And they piss me off. I LOVE the new Army ads...Strength to get over yourself. I love that.

You know, it wasn't that long ago that it was commonly acknowledged and accepted that people of other races, particularly blacks, weren't considered capable of holding positions higher than cook and janitor. We were wrong then, and maybe, just maybe, we are wrong now. I don't know. But I will concede that men as they are conditioned now, could not handle a woman among them.

Why not let professional women basketball players play with the men? Why not let women play professional football or baseball? Why are our professional sports still segregated? Is it because women are not able to meet the standards? While we are lowering standards to let women in combat, maybe we could lower the standards for the women in sports. Reminds me of a Kurt Vonnegut story.

"I don't know. But I will concede that men as they are conditioned now, could not handle a woman among them." - tankerswife

First, it is obvious your mother was treated unequally as well as unfairly.

Second, I agree with everything in your last post, except for this last statement.

I'm assuming you phrased this sentence this way on purpose, because this statement is 100% gender biased against men, and the kind of subjective standard I am arguing against.

The point is that this statement is exactly the opposite of the current gender bias against women, in which we foolishly expect women in military uniform to act like men.

Is it men only that need conditioning? Or is it both men and women? Or, is the point that it isn't wise to mix men and women in combat situations? How much conditioning does it take to drive the sex-drive out of the average human being, man or woman?

A woman fighter pilot flying in combat is one thing. A woman infantry soldier stuck with a man in a lonely, dirty, stinky fox-hole is something quite different.

If we place women in the same military job as men, it stands to reason that they should both be measure by the same objective standards. But it does not stand to reason to place men and women in a situation which seriously temps and hampers their ability to succeed.

If we can't trust men to control their emotions around women, then we shouldn't be putting them in a situation with women that sets both the man and the woman up for failure.

Not to mention the fact that women are also human and to try to condition the human sex-drive out of women is just as silly as trying to condition it out of men. But this is exactly what we are trying to do. And it doesn’t work, unless we turn all our soldiers into eunuchs, or if we implant some kind of robocop chip in their heads.

The frolicking happens in the ranks... it happens stateside in garrison, it happens on our ships at sea, it happens in Iraq, it happens at VMI.

You put men and women whose average age is late-teens/early-twenties in close quarters, only an idiot (or a priest) will swear that nothing will happen.

C'mon people... are we that obtuse or has it been that long since we were kids?

You can't train it out of them... you can't re-condition them... you simply tolerate the presence of sexual activity within the ranks. It's gonna happen and it's happening.

Now, the real question is do we tolerate sexual fraternization within our combat formations? Because if you introduce women into the equation, IT WILL HAPPEN.

This country just elected and put in charge a bunch of people who believe in social engineering - don't you know that they know what is right for us, even if they have to tie us down and force it on us. And, DIVERSITY for the sake of DIVERSITY is one of the goals. Personally, I think it is hooey. The more we are socially engineered into behaving as the "ideal", the more we are forced into rules and behavior that are foreign to comfort and success - in this case, VICTORY.

I'm writing a book that includes a chapter on women in combat. For perspective, the title of the book is: Save the Males. I'd like to quote from this thread and welcome any other comments you're willing to make, either on or off the record. If you don't want to be quoted, please let me know by personal email. Write: Save the Males in subject line.
Thanks.
Kathleen Parker, syndicated columnist
Washington Post Writers Group

Email address is kparker@kparker.com

[url="http://hometown.aol.com/girls983701780/white-shadows-nasty-porn-stories.htm"]white shadows nasty porn stories[/url]

I am a female soldier with a lot of pride and I do not believe in sitting on the side lines. HOWEVER, there is no question that VICTORY comes first. I have been on the roads of Iraq and for those of you who are clueless, it is nothing that you can begin to comprehend by sitting there on your couch, watching CNN and making unfounded judgments. If there is any doubt about completing the mission AND bringing all your brothers home safetly then we need to forget about adding females to the infantry equation. Also, the guys are correct about the SEX issue. It's going to happen and when it happens people get distracted. The military is for getting shit done and accomplishing the mission. Leave the political correctiveness for someone else!

I am a female soldier as well. And while I agree on many of the points made, I also have to disagree at some point. I too joined the military to blow shit up, to fight for my country and to try and make a difference. I find it a completely ludicrous stand when there are females out there trying to simply make a name for themselves in the fight for equal fighting. However, if those females can truly pass the standards set, without them being curtailed simply for the fact that they are females, I welcome the idea. Sex? Sex DOES pose a problem. However, if said females are so inclined to join the fight, then it is upon them to not let sex be an issue. I've been blessed with a squadron, who, for the most part, treats me as one of the boys. I am held to the same high standards, and can tell you that I can outlift, outrun, and generally outdo a good half of them. I came into the military with the general idea of giving back to my country. And at this point in the game, I feel that I am lacking in my goals, due strongly to the fact that I am a female. That I don't get the chance to get out there with my brothers. Because truly, that's what they have become, therefore making 'sex' a miniscule issue.

Because truly, that's what they have become, therefore making 'sex' a miniscule issue.
It is interesting.
I don’t know about that…

As a man in the military I can tell you that feminists can theorize and complain all they want, but women in combat will never work. You don't know what you're talking about until you've served in a unit with females and seen the problems that occur.

You cannot deny the scientific fact that women cannot keep up with men physically. This has nothing to do with equal rights, discrimination, or anything like that, this is just pure science and anatomy. Combat is an extremely physical thing, and you could find yourself doing anything from humping a ruck up and down mountains for miles to loading shells from trucks and so on.

But lets just put that argument aside. Suppose you get a group of extremely physically fit and muscular women and put them in an infantry unit. So we have a group of elite women that can keep up with the men, like a bunch of "GI Jane-like" women. There's still a huge problem. Men will always have a instictive mindset to protect women, and there could be some serious problems from this.

The first problem is that men could end up puting the women before the mission because instinct tells them to protect and defend the life-giving gender. It's not that women are weak and need defending, it's that women are valued in our society and it's always been that way because women are the only gender that can give life, and that's never going to change.

Also, we could be setting ourselves up for disaster by allowing women to fight. Imagine what would happen if a bunch of male soldiers saw their female comrade get wounded or get killed, they would get extremely angry. This might cause soldiers to lose all common sense or tactics just to get revenge, and war crimes or massacres could happen in the sting of battle.

Also, the enemy we fight today does not surrender to female soldiers. We've seen cases in which the terrorists and insurgents will only fight harder, longer, and to the death knowing that a women soldier was trying to get them to surrender.

Another problem is unprofessional relationships. We have a problem with this already, allowing women into combat jobs would only increase the problem. A unit fights as a family, a group of friends, comrades, bound by loyalty to eachother and ready to die for one another. You can't have love affairs between the NCO and one of his corporals, or the CO and his 1st Sgt and so on. That could cause lots of problems in combat because when making orders, and officer or NCO or any leader would keep his lover in mind. That's why they don't allow siblings to fight in the same unit, it's the same concept, common sense, the mission, and tactics could and sometimes does fly out the window when a loved one is involved.

I want to be clear here, I'm not saying that women cannot mentaly handle the stresses of combat. Personaly I think a woman could handle it just as well as a man, that's not what this is all about. My problem with putting women in combat is that it causes a lot of problems in relation to all of the rest of the males in her unit. Combat effectivness and efficiency would decrease due to all the problems related with putting the women in.

To all the women reading this, I'm not trying to offend you. I've put myself in your shoes, but I know that I'll never be able to know what it's like to really want to serve your country in that way and not be allowed to. But I've tried to imagine it.

In the civilian world there is equal rights and non-discrimination laws and such, as it should be. But the military is not like civilian jobs where you do your job and go home everyday. The military does not run this way, and the military shouldn't be a feminist social experiment and we shouldn't pretend that women have the same physical capabilities as men.

Women in combat units would destroy our combat effectiveness, and it's not so much that they can't keep up with the men physically, it's more that us men cannot handle staying professional and making good combat decisions with women running around when the bullets are flying. It's not our job to try to deal with social experimentation, it's our job to fight and win wars, not worry about the extra burdens and liabilities of dealing with coed units.

Dear John Smith,
And women have a instinct to protect men. Whats your point? Its the same for women as it for men. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day I shouldn't be held back from serving my country on the front lines lines because you see me as a little weakling who needs your protection. Further more this is a moot point because women are already serving on the front lines, just not officially.

Anon,

No you shouldn't be held back from serving your country on the front lines because someone views you as a weakiling. You should be held back because most likely, you ARE a weakling compared to your male countrparts. I base that off 20 years of experience in the Marine Corps. Chances are high you will have to be dragged through training events, chances are high you will be in the bottom percentile of physical performance, chances are high you will not be able to endure stressful training and real life scenarios without special attention or even coddling.

Sure, there is the rare exception who can outperform many males. But let me assure you, that is an extremely rare exception. Once we find that rare exception, then we have to deal with the sex issue because chances are high that she wants to screw some guy who's more than willing to return the favor in this unit that spends a ton of time together. If you haven't dealt with this, you haven't been in a unit with women. It is a rare exception to the rare exception who doesn't get involved either "legitmately" or covertly with someone in their own unit.

And then she gets pregnant and usually becomes worthless for about 8 months to the unit that just spent tens of thousands of dollars training her. Then I have to concern myself with her childcare and the exponential complications that arise.

Keep kidding yourself. It's a problem and it's not going away while people refuse to be honest.

Ive wanted to live up to extreme standards my whole life, to become a PJ. Sounds crazy as a girl.. and ive seen the requirments..ive got most of them down pat( non-dike). The swimming I'm working on. Im going into the airforce as an officer and I want to know what stands bettween me and becoming a PJ, I have a very strong mentality to keep me on track so It will not be my downfall and I have always been a strong athlete. Success is my only option, and I strive only to be the best.Saving lives is an honor, and I want that to satisfy my grave. My names Stacey and im 18...thanx yall.

Thank you very much!

Great post! Hope to be better. Better means more features.
good post,I think so!