TexasCHLforum.com

MadMonkey wrote:If you join the military, you should expect to be in combat even if you're a woman. If you joined thinking it would be a cakewalk to pay for your college... well, sorry. They can vote, they might as well fight.




Sorry, I just read Starship Troopers. Maybe it's made me a little cold and cynical

...those who HAVE served in America's armed forces...for whatever reason they enlisted...have EARNED any benefits they are entitled to...and anyone who's been through boot camp knows cakewalk ain't even close...

MadMonkey wrote: If you joined thinking it would be a cakewalk to pay for your college... well, sorry. :

Yes, I joined to pay for college---but NO, I didn't think it would be a cakewalk-I knew I would be working for it

Interesting thread.

In my experience, the aspect of young men and being distracted is really a non-issue.

I was in a Special Operations Civil Affairs Team (Direct Support Team). We typically hauled along female doctors, interpreters and the like on missions. Some of our teams had women members that were killed in the first week that we started operating in Afghanistan.

Civil Affairs Teams are exposed to the operational environment (I am not talking about Provincial Reconstruction Teams and the pogues that sit on the bases, but the small 2-4 man teams that operate independently), and are composed 98% of Reservists called to Active Duty. CAT-A members are almost exclusively made up of Officers/Enlisted that have had previous experience both in the Military and Civilian world. In fact there is only one active-duty Civil Affairs Bn in the entire Army. They want experienced members only.

The point of my post is this...women worked out fine in our little operations. I don't want to annoy the 11-Bravos on this website, but I personally knew a few that were walking around wearing the Combat Action Badge and deserved it. I don't have a problem with them.

G26ster wrote:I have to at least speak up for the helicopter pilot crowd. Females have been flying combat missions for decades, from the Gulf War to the present, to include female attack helicopter pilots. Same is true for A1- Warthog pilots in the USAF. While you may go back to a cot and a tin roof when not flying (same as front line troops when not on mission), you certainly are on the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area), usually on a daily basis for single or multiple missions. If I may be a bit dated, 5,086 out of 11,827 helicopters that served in RVN were destroyed, and helicopter crew deaths accounted for 10% of all RVN deaths. With that said, we've been putting female troops in harms way for 20+ years, so I'm trying to get a handle on just where the line is the military doesn't want to cross.

Women in military aviation have been proven to be capable of sustaining higher G's naturally (in general) and have the ability to multitask well in the front office (in general). Israel has had women (and yes I have seen some very nice looking Israeli soldiers) in their front line service for years. JustMe is correct in her statement about self control, but that goes both ways. 35 years ago the women went through basic separately but were integrated for AIT (in this case 82C). My unit shared the parade grounds with them, ate with them but we were in separate barracks (mine was a combat MOS). But havoc swept through the other platoons as the half dozen females were involved with male members and even some DI's including one of mine. Without details I will say some good, decorated soldiers' careers ended before the dust settled. I was in jump school when I heard about it (the fallout).

The first female fighter pilot (F-14A IIRC) in the Navy was reportedly given latitude in grading standards and again in CARQUALS. She was being touted as a ground breaker, and IMHO was pushed through the pipeline when she should've been directed to another type of aviation. While on approach with a compressor stall in one of two engines, she was waved off and rather than go to MIL power and go around she delayed throttle input until her AOA was high and she was low power. When she finally powered up she pitched up further and stalled the wing on the engine out side. Her RIO escaped, she did not. Despite the reports by her RIO and a long line of instructors she was cleared of pilot error and no one that had rubber stamped her progress was disciplined for it.

As a firefighter I have served with multiple females. Some were determined and capable and i wouldn't hesitate to enter a burning building with them...and have. Several, however, were the product of affirmative action and I would not expect nor wish to see them in a fire. As the push for females came up, the standards (height, weight and physical agility) were lowered. The result is that there have been increased worker's compensation expenditures for them and their partners. By lowering the physical standards there were also males that passed the requirements that should not have. The sexual harassment card gets played a great deal, some legitimately but more often to deflect scrutiny or discipline. This is not a judgement or opinion, it is observation.

Again from observation and studies is the resulting physical detriment to women who find themselves in rolls such as soldier and firefighter. My opinion is that women serve a particular purpose in God's design and these types of assignments go against that purpose...but that is my opinion.

However Israel has proved that women are capable of elite combat action. Females have demonstrated their ability in military aviation. But, and this is a big but, women should not be allowed in combat for the sake of allowing women in combat. I have known many courageous and strong women that I would not doubt for a minute in a combat situation but I've known more that were there because they were women. They should assess to the same standards (standards that should not be lowered BTW) as their male counterparts. The lessons learned from the first female fighter pilot has produced many CAPABLE women combat pilots since. Israel most certainly has not lowered their standards.

[quote

. But, and this is a big but, women should not be allowed in combat for the sake of allowing women in combat. I have known many courageous and strong women that I would not doubt for a minute in a combat situation but I've known more that were there because they were women. They should assess to the same standards (standards that should not be lowered BTW) as their male counterparts. .[/quote]


EXACTLY!!!!

Purplehood wrote:Interesting thread.

In my experience, the aspect of young men and being distracted is really a non-issue.

I was in a Special Operations Civil Affairs Team (Direct Support Team). We typically hauled along female doctors, interpreters and the like on missions. Some of our teams had women members that were killed in the first week that we started operating in Afghanistan.

Civil Affairs Teams are exposed to the operational environment (I am not talking about Provincial Reconstruction Teams and the pogues that sit on the bases, but the small 2-4 man teams that operate independently), and are composed 98% of Reservists called to Active Duty. CAT-A members are almost exclusively made up of Officers/Enlisted that have had previous experience both in the Military and Civilian world. In fact there is only one active-duty Civil Affairs Bn in the entire Army. They want experienced members only.

The point of my post is this...women worked out fine in our little operations. I don't want to annoy the 11-Bravos on this website, but I personally knew a few that were walking around wearing the Combat Action Badge and deserved it. I don't have a problem with them.

Good points and well spoken.

There is another school of thought. History is loaded with stories "he/she can't do", "it's disruptive," "it can't be done or it's just plan proposterous." Now some of those events are part of our daily lives. We don't even think about them. Back in the 40's and 50's a poll was conducted with men on whether women should work outside the home. The majority of men said women should stay home. When woman started working, there was a lot of friction. In 2009ish a new poll was conducted. The results shifted substantially the minority was men stating women shouldn't work. What I mean is, when the volume in any situation is low, the inbalanace is obvious. If you have 50 soldiers in a platoon and only 4 of them are women, then if one isn't performing well, it's going to make the whole lot look bad. If theres an even number then the differences will be less obvious. Because of the low volumes, tensions will be high in the beginning. As the number of women in combat increase and it will become the norm. It'll be another thing in history people won't think about.

History is loaded with stories "he/she can't do", "it's disruptive," "it can't be done or it's just plan proposterous."

Well, until the human being evolves, or the good Lord decides to "rectify" the sexual-dimorphism that exists in our species, the female will always be at a strength, speed, and endurance disadvantage compared to her male counterpart.

I was in back when Clinton broached this very same issue, and I find myself once again amazed at the complete disregard our citizens have concerning the quality of our armed forces.

If the Olympic committee eliminated gender bias in competition, and only awarded the top performers in each event, REGARDLESS of gender, the world would be outraged and cry out "UNFAIR!!!".

The females couldn't compete, and wouldn't win a single event, or medal.

HOWEVER, when it comes to defending our nation, and providing our front line assaulters with the most capable man to their left and right as they go through the breach, many are willing to accommodate weakness.

That's just plain idiotic.

I just wish the folks that insist on making these ludicrous policy decisions had to actually put up with them, but they never do.

It's easy to make decisions when you aren't impacted by the consequences...

I think lowering standards was a mistake and it's literally gender discrimination.

Purplehood wrote:Interesting thread.

In my experience, the aspect of young men and being distracted is really a non-issue.

I was in a Special Operations Civil Affairs Team (Direct Support Team). We typically hauled along female doctors, interpreters and the like on missions. Some of our teams had women members that were killed in the first week that we started operating in Afghanistan.

Civil Affairs Teams are exposed to the operational environment (I am not talking about Provincial Reconstruction Teams and the pogues that sit on the bases, but the small 2-4 man teams that operate independently), and are composed 98% of Reservists called to Active Duty. CAT-A members are almost exclusively made up of Officers/Enlisted that have had previous experience both in the Military and Civilian world. In fact there is only one active-duty Civil Affairs Bn in the entire Army. They want experienced members only.

The point of my post is this...women worked out fine in our little operations. I don't want to annoy the 11-Bravos on this website, but I personally knew a few that were walking around wearing the Combat Action Badge and deserved it. I don't have a problem with them.

How many teenagers were on those teams?

The physiology of men and women is different. That doesn't make one less effective than another. It makes them effective in different ways. Men are stronger and have more endurance with less effort. Women can develop strength and endurance but it requires a whole lot more work. Women have a higher pain threshold and can carry on even in great pain. Men have a lower threshold and tend to give up earlier. Women are naturally more sound sensitive then men. Men have to train to develop the same sound sensitivity. Men's visual acuity is better in lighted situations and women's is better in the dark. I'm sure there is many more. There are positives and negatives for both genders. It's amazing how those differences are polar opposites of the other gender. If the differences are leveraged at the appropriate times for a combined effort it's possible to have a well rounded military. A female soldier is not less than a male soldier. The death of a female soldier is not less significant than that of a male soldier. Women do not want to be men anymore than men want to be women. The desire to protect and serve is not a gender specific characteristic.

Men tend to tell women what women are capable of. Women tend to support men but will remind them if they fail. I'm sure the argument between the sexes will continue long after I'm gone.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

History is loaded with stories "he/she can't do", "it's disruptive," "it can't be done or it's just plan proposterous."

Well, until the human being evolves, or the good Lord decides to "rectify" the sexual-dimorphism that exists in our species, the female will always be at a strength, speed, and endurance disadvantage compared to her male counterpart.

I was in back when Clinton broached this very same issue, and I find myself once again amazed at the complete disregard our citizens have concerning the quality of our armed forces.

If the Olympic committee eliminated gender bias in competition, and only awarded the top performers in each event, REGARDLESS of gender, the world would be outraged and cry out "UNFAIR!!!".

The females couldn't compete, and wouldn't win a single event, or medal.

HOWEVER, when it comes to defending our nation, and providing our front line assaulters with the most capable man to their left and right as they go through the breach, many are willing to accommodate weakness.

That's just plain idiotic.

I just wish the folks that insist on making these ludicrous policy decisions had to actually put up with them, but they never do.

It's easy to make decisions when you aren't impacted by the consequences...

As a former USAF E-7 (Master Sergeant) aircraft mechanic and supervisor, I'll put it this way...if you take a man who is mechanically inclined vs. a female who is mechanically inclined, I will likely take the man on my team BECAUSE he is likely to be stronger physically. If you take a man who is NOT mechanically inclined vs. a female who IS, I will take the female on my team because she is able to do a majority of the tasks that he cannot, except perhaps the most physically demanding...but once again, if you take both of them being NOT inclined, I will take the man on the team because he is physically stronger...even if he is a lousy mechanic, he can at least do menial labor tasks that the woman will most likely NOT be able to accomplish. It is about the amount of work that I can get out of each individual...some people think that the military is too big, but I promise you, if you spent a day on the flightline in the desert turning wrenches, you wouldn't think that anymore, we NEVER had enough people for all the work we had, to repair every aircraft as quickly as we should have, so there was no room for slackers, either men or women...I have worked with some really great female mechanics over the years, one of whom taught me how to overhaul actuators, valves, light assemblies, you name it...she was awesome. But there have been some real slacker women who then got shuffled to office jobs so that they wouldn't go to Military Equal Opportunity for being "harassed" by trying to make them do the job they signed up for...I didn't put them in the office, my bosses did...and they didn't put the women who WANTED to fix airplanes into the office...they let them turn wrenches if they wanted to and showed the aptitude for it. The problem is, once again, that we didn't have enough people in the first place and every mechanic shuffled off to a "make work" job in an office is one less on the flightline...BUT THE SLOT is still filled on paper, so you don't get another body, you are just down a worker. So, I hope you all can see where my heartburn comes from...yes, I have seen some male slackers over the years, but they couldn't play a "harassment" card if they got their figurative backside whooped and were made to work. So, I can only imagine what sort of troubles may arise in an environment where the bad guys are trying to make you get dead for your country, as I said in my earlier posting.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

. . .

If the Olympic committee eliminated gender bias in competition, and only awarded the top performers in each event, REGARDLESS of gender, the world would be outraged and cry out "UNFAIR!!!".

The females couldn't compete, and wouldn't win a single event, or medal.

. . .


It's easy to make decisions when you aren't impacted by the consequences...

Interestingly enough, I can still remember when there were events in which the genders competed on an equal basis, and women won, or at least should have.

Look up Margaret Murdock and Lanny Basham.

Shortly after 1976, the International Olympic Committee decided to separate the last gender equal competitions.

IT WAS SHOOTING!

Non issue, has been for several years.. only an issue to ignorant folks and politics.

The only issue with women in the military is, like or not, they are different then men (I happen to like the difference a great deal, thank you very much) and accommodation for those differences have to be made. Sometimes that's very hard to do. in 2004-2006, I had my entire company living in a farmers house three rooms for 3 months... there was no privacy, we peed outside at a designated spot and crapped in a bag, to be burned later (WAG bags). You had only a large open room to dress, sleep, wipe nasty body down with a wet rag.. Outside four walls you were in full kit and as likely to get shot at as not..We were the farthest north and west US Army unit Iraq at the time,.. Marines to our west, nothing north for many miles. Once we had the patrol base built, concrete T walls, defensive barriers outside that, towers, built, RAID cameras set up, and the local populace safe and happy (driving out the insurgents) at about the 3 month mark we took in two female medics, one route Clearance Husky veh driver and one of the cooks that showed up.

No worry's at all by then, we had move living quarters to tents and had a make shift mud hut turned into a shower room.. complete with water tower and manually heated water from a fire pit outside .. Once we had just a bit of security and and a way to have some privacy in living / hygiene space all was fine.

Smart leaders look at the mission, then capabilities first, sustainability, and logistics play a part.. Gender only matters if it impacts the mission, not your feelings.

I am younger than some of you and I am a product of my generation. I think women should be allowed to serve in any role.

But I'm also a realist and think the standards should be the same for everyone within that role. Same for men and women. Same for married and single. Same for dark and light skin color, or hair color, or eye color. Ideology and political correctness has no place on the battlefield. It has no place in business either, and that's one of the barriers the government puts in the way of businesses, but that's a discussion for a different thread.