women in combat/battle

I would send out the email, PFT coming up!!!

Then I'd see maybe one or two 1st classes in the gym once about a week before hand "getting ready".

Really guys?

 

Maybe this is a non-issue for me, for my entire career we've allowed women in Combat Arms. In fact, they've been permitted for 22 years.

I'm of the opinion that as long as you can pass the standards, I don't care what you have between your legs, you can do the job.

My last deployment was mostly spent doing dismounted ops in the Arghandab river valley. We had a couple of women in the Sqn I worked with, and they were both a Combat Arms trade. The humped the same patrols as us, carried the same combat loads, slept in the same holes and fought in the same fights.

Yeah, some women can't do the jobs. I also know men who can't. I'll never take anything away from someone who wants to do the job, and has the mental and physical ability to do it.

 

It would be awesome if the world was as easy as you put it Beadwindow. But unit cohesion will go to an all time low with girls sleeping with different dudes and jealousy issues.

It would be cool if this could happen but too many other problems would happen for me to approve this.

 

See that all the time!!!

 

It's not justification, it's how the infantry works. Everyone I talk to in my company feels the same way. We make sexual jokes 24/7 and mess with each other as brothers would do. We can't be this close nit with woman around and us getting equal opportunity complaints (EO) by femals.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned then but I think I would like the woman of America to be protected and the men that are willing to put there life on the line should do so. If you can't be on the frontline as a man then it's not your problem to worry about.

My other argument is there is no pt test to drag me across a field but MOST woman would not be able to drag me at 180LBS plus 30LBS for my gear out of the kill zone. Maybe some men can't but my odds are better.... And I'm one of the smaller guys in my unit.

 

Like every coin there are two sides. I see the need as a man to inherently want to keep women away from danger and it must be frustrating to have people think that that feeling is coming from a bad place.
I guess the real concern comes from the adjustments that will be made to accommodate the new situation. I can't argue with a guys who is concerned about who is watching his ass i would have the same concern regardless of gender. it will be interesting to see who this plays out in the long run. I know this situation exists in other country but america is a hell of an animal.

'Merica!

 

Yes, thank you. Even if you're not picking sides... At least you understood my point and maybe made it sound a little clearer.

It's true, I'm not meaning to put any of this in bad light. Just real concerns in my mind.

 

I definitely see where you're coming from. We call those kinds of chicks "groundsheets". But honestly, I've never seen big issues at the level that you'd think. Most girls I've worked or served with have been one of the guys, joking and smoking with the rest of us. And I'm about as PC as 1930's marketing. In my troop, the only thing off limits for jokes is wives and kids. And we do have fraternization rules when it comes to relationships in the same chain of command.

As far as jealousy and fighting over women, I've seen it happen about as much guys fighting over chicks at the local off-base bar, or sleeping with exes. And I haven't seen it very much.

Personally, I think it all depend on the professionalism of the girls who want to do the job. The ones I know who are good want to leave no room for question and try to exceed all standards. And really, most of the ones who truly want to be combat arms want to do the job. They aren't just doing it for the sake of saying that they can do it as a girl. Besides, it's funny as hell when one of the girls tells a guy who's complaining to get the sand out of his vagina.

As far as physical demands, our Battlefield fitness test has the same standard for everyone, and does include a casualty drag of a standard weight. Things are different everywhere.

I can definitely see it being a culture shock, and I do understand the concerns at the first line. I know it was a big thing at the Battalions when it first started happening here. And maybe it's a cultural difference between you guys and us. I can't say either way. But I've seen it work throughout my career.

As a man, yeah, it seemed to hit me harder when I lost a female comrade as opposed to a male one. Maybe that's the genetics of being a man. But either way, we carried on and did the job, and remembered the ones who gave their lives doing their duty, regardless of sex.

 

When I was in, I def knew some chics that could hack anything more than some dudes I knew. But those chics were the minority of the ones I knew. There is no doubt that there are chics capable of doing combat missions. There are dudes that cant. But my concern would be the jealously issues with a chic hooking up with a dude, and a girl walking into the locker room environment and getting offended. Then it becomes a shit storm. And its not like there isn't a sexual assualt problem in the military to begin with. I felt like that was half my training.

The other issue is I feel this is more political than anything. There is no need for women in combat. We are not in a war where we need bodies, we are not being invaded, these are not desperate times. So its most likely a chic wanted to check the box get a combat role and make a promotion and wrote her congeress person about it causing a stink. Now its a personal agenda for both parties. Other countries such as Israel, face a threat in daily life and its part of their duty to serve. Same with teh Swiss but there not fighting anyone. There was a Russian sniper in WW2 that was a chic that had more kills than anyone on the eastern front. But once again those were desperate times.

 

Very well put my friend. +1 for you
Thank you for the great discussion

 

Nope.

 

x2

 

No? Did I say I did or give my opinion on the OP question?...

This is true, mostly individual however. If it was a vote by somehow everybody who had the right experience then that would be more accurate hopefully. Only problem is how to go about that...

 

If you haven't spent a week, month or some time in a OP-LP, or a improvised fighting position pissing in a bottle, bathing out of an ammo can and crapping in a bag....I am sure you think it's a great idea. It ain't like TV.

 

Women are already allowed on combat supporting roles and get to see combat. I don't know how infantry works in other branches other than some Army dogs I've worked with but the Marine Corps Infantry is nothing like the movies portray it. There are too many variables. Here is where I am at, and hear me out:
This is not, in any way shape or form, an issue of gender fairness.
It is, absolutely, an issue of combat readiness.

PFT means pretty much nothing to us. Yes we can pass it, but those of you that keep saying "as long as the PFT is the same for men and women. . ." that means nothing. I am well aware there are women out there who can hack it physically, although not many, there are.
There are the issues of carrying weight, emotional distress when putting her buddies legs back on or his brains back in, guys going all gung ho and off mission because it is his innate response to protect women, or maybe he fell in love with one, can she jump canals and climb over walls with all that gear, day in and day out with little to no sleep and her nerves all out of whack from half her friends dying and never knowing if her legs will get blown off next or shell get shot in the face next.
Now, every single one of these things, and the many more issues CAN be addressed and remedied to an extent BUT it will destroy our combat effectiveness.

I have worked with woman Marines, very few pulled their own weight and most whined when gunny yelled at them. BUT I do understand that there are women out there who "could" hack it.

IF, we introduced them into training in a time of peace and pushed them harder than they have ever been pushed right along side with men and it becomes a tried and tested system that definitely works over a long period of time then MAYBE they could be integrated in, and hack it, and not hurt combat effectiveness.

But you just don't test something out on the front lines when lives are at stake. I'm not anti-woman nor am I anti-women in the infantry. I am pro-combat readiness and this will hurt it. I really, really don't want to seem like a jerk here, but if you are not in the infantry and especially haven't been on the front lines (yes there are scum in the infantry that haven't done a thing) then you really have no idea what you are talking about. Theories don't play out well at war.

 

No worries Brother. Really, in the end, on the 2-way range, MOSID and trade doesn't really matter. It's what you do when you're there.

 

As an infantry veteran in the USMC, I disagree with this decision for a few reasons.


While there are some combat roles that women can do effectively in capacity, there are roles that they cannot. How many women can hump a full war gear for up to 25 miles? Or even 15 miles? Not many. How many can body carry? How many could swim in full war gear or broach a Zodiac if needed? How many can even do the men’s confidence course? Those are just a few of many examples. There are certain physical aspects of the job that most women would not be able to do. As much as that would offend some women, it’s true. Deal with it. It’s biology/physiology. There are some things that men cannot do that women can. Deal with it. It’s biology/physiology.


There would be some women that can do the job just fine, even some would do better than some of the men. Still, the ROI for getting women into these combat roles would be a gross waste of tax payer money. How much would be wasted in weeding out the scores of applicants just so the 10% those women who can actually do the job effectively, fill the politically-correct quota? How much money is going to be wasted in revamping berthing areas, close quarters, and barracks so they can have their privacy?


Why reinvent the wheel? Men have largely hunted in packs for thousands of years. It’s in our DNA. Men do the fighting for several reasons. Men get fat in the midsection instead of the legs (like most women) for a reason. It’s so we can keep mobile on our feet…speed of travel in hunting. That’s what we’re built to do. Genetics. Why is it too much to ask nowadays for men to have something, anything, without involving women? Jesus. Can we keep some sense of chivalry??


The terms esprit de corps, camaraderie, fraternity, and brotherhood mean something. It is the #1 factor in the success of a combat unit. Combat readiness. Men who spend very close quarters, who shed blood, sweat, and tears together, bond to a point where it’s indescribable. I have brothers for life even though I have not seen many of them in years. I would still do anything for them. This bond, this one-for-all mentality, this many-men-fighting-as-one ability, is partly achieved by having fog-of-war removed from the equation.

Fog of war = Vaginas. Estrogen. Women.

A good grunt unit is borderline barbaric and sadistic in mentality/humor. You start introducing that fog into a fighting unit and that brotherhood balance is thrown off kilter. Bad things will start to happen.


During our 22MEU float in 1994, the co-ed Navy supply ship for our detachment (the USS Shenandoah? I don’t know, I forget) ended with a greater than 40% pregnancy rate. Something else to think about....


And my biggest reason, women on the front lines is bad news for the American psyche. This decision seems warm and fuzzy now, until a video is released showing the first female POW repeatedly gang-raped and beaten. When this happens, many (some already have) will question why we’re sending our daughters, mothers, and sisters into direct combat. This is especially true now, when the majority of our adversaries see women as nothing more than stray animals.

My $.02

 

No - you didn't give your opinion about the OP question, but by your logic...you should have no input into how the military runs itself, because you haven't been part of it.
See the problem there?? Boxing out all the opinions besides the Been There, Done That crew = Normalizing mindsets into a single group...and ANY group is fallible, so leaving no room to question is just bad business.

 

What do you mean ?