TexasCHLforum.com

Having never served, I'll keep my opinions to myself - but curious what some of you active duty, reserve, or retired military think of this ...

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/content ... d=pJD9Bg7m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to defense officials, the new rules are expected to continue the long-held prohibition that prevents women from serving as infantry, armor and special operations forces. But they will formally allow women to serve in other jobs at the battalion level, which until now had been considered too close to combat.

Personally, I think the battalion level is too integrated for women in front line combat units. The story mentioned female medics at the battalion level, problem is medics are assigned to the battalion but tasked down all the way to the platoon level so that female medic would be expected to be right in the middle of it all, and likely the only female in that platoon. I wouldn't mind a female intel officer (also mentioned in the article) but that position is different than a medic spot.

I fear we are adjusting our rules here based on the current combat situation, but urban occupation warfare is not always going to be the war we are fighting.

I was Active Duty Navy in the early 70's as a Hospital corpsman. In those days, the basic training was totally seperate--women received no weapons training, and our firefighting training consisted of identifying different types of fire extinguishers. When I went to corp school, many of the lectures were on "what to do in combat" of which women knew they wouldn't be a part, but still had to pass the tests.

My niece just finished Army Basic and AIT(reserves). Her unit was totally integrated and everyone completed the same training side by side. I don't know how much "gender norming" was involved.

I was stationed on a Marine Corps base as a corpsman-first in the hospital, then in the base clinic/medical records office. I did receive a lot of the general harrassment toward any female in the service--it wasn't exactly friendly in those days! In fact at times it was almost funny.

My feelings are that if a woman(note individual womAn, not generic womEn) is able to obtain the same standards required of a man (not adjusted for gender), then she should be able to do the same job.

My take on more women at battalion level was more that more women would be in leadership roles at battalion level. I may be wrong but that is what my impression was.

tallmike wrote:Personally, I think the battalion level is too integrated for women in front line combat units. The story mentioned female medics at the battalion level, problem is medics are assigned to the battalion but tasked down all the way to the platoon level so that female medic would be expected to be right in the middle of it all, and likely the only female in that platoon. I wouldn't mind a female intel officer (also mentioned in the article) but that position is different than a medic spot.

I fear we are adjusting our rules here based on the current combat situation, but urban occupation warfare is not always going to be the war we are fighting.

On his website, Michael Yon has photographs of female medics, currently in the field in Afghanistan, during ground operations, under fire. I'm an old fashioned throwback in that I think that men should be protecting women, not sending them into harms way. But that said, I have no doubts whatsoever that women are capable of functioning in combat to at least an acceptable level.....if not better in some ways. And, this has been going on for a long time now.

What's that gal's name that got injured and captured back near the beginning of OIF? As I recall, she was part of a vehicle maintenance battalion or some kind of logistics battalion. That didn't stop her from getting shot, and some of the guys (and another woman) with her from getting killed. I think that was in 2003 IIRC.

Plus, Meg Ryan got shot and killed in "Courage Under Fire" back in 1996.

...at risk of being skinned and hung on a fence...here goes...

...first...having been a Marine...I can understand why JustMe said it was funny...and why she said almost...the WMs when I was in were not given respect, camaraderie, or even the chivalry that a lady needs to be able to expect from a man...and there was a lot of resentment and friction because of it...shouldn't have happened...but it was real...
...I don't believe women should be put into a combat situation...EVER...though I would train them with small arms to protect themselves should it become necessary, and I would arm them...but only for their own protection...
...two reasons: the first...I believe that woman was created to give life and not to take it...she's wired differently...nothing to do with better or worse or any chauvinistic tripe...but just differently...there's something in a woman that does not expect to be hurt...women in law enforcement have hesitated or not reacted properly because they just didn't believe that the person they were facing would actually harm them...that hesitation has caused male partners to either be shot or hurt because the situation was allowed to escalate too far before being stopped...a male is wired to expect challenge and no quarter...and to handle a situation accordingly...a lady usually expects to be treated differently...this happened a lot when women were put out on patrol in the early days...
...the second...a woman who's taken prisoner in combat's facing a whole lot of grief that a male doesn't...will likely be singled out for mistreatment to force the males to comply/give info and so forth...women shouldn't have to be in that situation...it's not necessary...
...that being said, there are many support roles that women can ace that men struggle with...and their value is not one iota less than the man who fights...it's just that their contributions are best employed in other than street patrol or other combat situations...

...as a disclaimer, I personally know of women who can whip me five ways to Sunday...outshoot me, outrun me, and I knew of one lady officer who was a kickboxer and any three men couldn't best her...but those are the exception, rather than the norm...nothing I said here shows a lack of respect for women...instead a respecting of what makes them different from men...it's my honest, long-held, thought out opinion, and I won't debate it...it's based on a lot of history from when women were first put on patrol in my dept...so what I say here is a statement, not a challenge...

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.

It has been 45 years since I was in a combat situation. I can’t remember where, but I’m sure that I read that the average age of the combat troop in Viet Nam was 19 years old. At 19 years old most men are easily distracted. I believe that females would cause a distraction that would jeopardize the cause. I didn’t put a lot of thought to this idea. I can take the heat.

Commander Cody wrote:It has been 45 years since I was in a combat situation. I can’t remember where, but I’m sure that I read that the average age of the combat troop in Viet Nam was 19 years old. At 19 years old most men are easily distracted. I believe that females would cause a distraction that would jeopardize the cause. I didn’t put a lot of thought to this idea. I can take the heat.

When i read this thread i had the same thought.

I think it's long overdue to require women to register for selective service too and face the same penalties as men if they don't.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

tallmike wrote:Personally, I think the battalion level is too integrated for women in front line combat units. The story mentioned female medics at the battalion level, problem is medics are assigned to the battalion but tasked down all the way to the platoon level so that female medic would be expected to be right in the middle of it all, and likely the only female in that platoon. I wouldn't mind a female intel officer (also mentioned in the article) but that position is different than a medic spot.

I fear we are adjusting our rules here based on the current combat situation, but urban occupation warfare is not always going to be the war we are fighting.

On his website, Michael Yon has photographs of female medics, currently in the field in Afghanistan, during ground operations, under fire. I'm an old fashioned throwback in that I think that men should be protecting women, not sending them into harms way. But that said, I have no doubts whatsoever that women are capable of functioning in combat to at least an acceptable level.....if not better in some ways. And, this has been going on for a long time now.

What's that gal's name that got injured and captured back near the beginning of OIF? As I recall, she was part of a vehicle maintenance battalion or some kind of logistics battalion. That didn't stop her from getting shot, and some of the guys (and another woman) with her from getting killed. I think that was in 2003 IIRC.

Plus, Meg Ryan got shot and killed in "Courage Under Fire" back in 1996.

Her name was Jessica Lynch...and according to the media, she's a bigger hero than Alvin York, Audie Murphy, and Carlos Hathcock put together...at least, by the number of stories about her, and the amount of coverage she got, I kind of figured she must be. I'm not sure how the actual combat vets feel about her, and I have nothing PERSONAL against her...but I sure did get awful tired of hearing about her.

In regards to women in combat, I've got two things to say, and they go together: One, some women out there are tougher than I am and can fight...but IF they are going to let women into ACTUAL combat positions, then that whole "gender norming" junk MUST go away...they need to go all "GI Jane"...because, IMHO, if they don't they are going to get someone killed. SOME people in our society want everyone to be "just the same", like interchangeable units...well, then so be it...IF they are actually going to make them meet the SAME standard as the men in those military jobs.

Whoever made this decision I hope thought all this through because to me on the surface it seems a not very wise decision for several reasons.

#1 Women on the whole are not as physically strong as men--there are exceptions, but they are just that exceptions.

#2 Women are prone to being more viciously assaulted if they are captured alive.

#3 part A Women have menstrual cycles, get pregnant, and then have babies. That is not a bash on women it is just fact. Lets say they use contraception (like the pill) in order for it to be 99% effective you have to take it at the same time every day without fail to ensure that it works. Are they going to be able to say--sorry time out--I have to go get my bottle of water pop out my pill and take it... Ok--game on. That is not going to happens so what is going to happen is we will have women serving in combat-ish positions who are pregnant. Surely we are not ok with babies on the battle field. Additionally those cycles have to be dealt with and you need at least somewhat sanitary conditions to deal with it or the woman can develop infections.

#3 part B Same song of #2 and #3 together. A woman is captured, assaulted, and then becomes pregnant (because her birth control injection only lasted for another 4 weeks). Are we ok with that?

#4 This fails to play to women's innate strengths in the military.


I say all this as a woman, and a woman who carries a .45 caliber weapon everyday.

Flame if you like

I think a lot of the arguments, or similar ones, apply to women in law enforcement.

The argument about not being as strong as a man sure....but police officers don't have to trot into an area and hold a position for 18 hours at a time while under enemy attack. At least not very often here in America. Police officers don't have to be able to carry their food, water, ammunition, weapons, for a 10 day hike into a combat zone. Police officers (at least not yet) are not as likely to be captured by the "enemy" and be assaulted for long periods of time. The duties of a police officer while similar in kind are extremely different in degree.

Whether women are permitted in combat situations is neither here nor there for me. I've never served. I am a woman and it was never a thing of interest for me. I deeply respect all those that have served! They have sacrificed many of the pleasures I take for granted for my freedom and the freedom of others.

That being said I feel the same as many of you, there are valid arguments for it and there are equally as many valid arguments against it. I've not always done things because they made sense, I've done it because someone felt the need to tell me that I wasn't capable or I wasn't good enough. Maybe that's the product of my upbringing. My parents reinforced in me that I could be and do anything my heart desired if I was willing to put the work in for it. Sometimes equality in respect, power and pay drive women to act. I work in a large corporation where very few women are in positions of power its not uncommon to hear "well she was just being a B**** today" or "it must be that time of the month". A man saying the exact same words with the same tone is "standing up for what he believes in" or "looking out for the best interests of the company". This isn't just the men saying these things, it's the women too. I got caught up in battling these attitudes years ago with my career. It took receiving a stage 3 cancer diagnosis to finally reached a point where I'm happy in just being respected by those that are important to me. We can change some but we can't change all. If those perceptions would shift, I think women would lose interest in pursuing those things previous defined as a "man's role."

20 years of service.

Infantry.

Women are a detriment to the force, not an asset, for two key reasons.

First, they are physically weaker and slower as a whole. Period. Don't blame me, blame God. Ladies, I love ya', I respect ya', but the fighting needs to be left to the boys. Period.

EVERY SINGLE strength, speed, and endurance record is held by males. This over all dominance is NOT exclusive to athletes. It is STUPID to draw from a gender pool that is physically inferior, when it comes to physical performance, and by lowering standards, the tax payer is paying more for less. It's hard enough getting males into shape, let alone females who start at a physical disadvantage already.

Weakness hinders the ENTIRE force. Those that slow down must be carried, or the ENTIRE force must slow down in order for the weak to keep up. Equipment that can't be carried must be cross-loaded among the force, increasing their already heavy burden. Not good. Leads to mission failure, casualties, and death.

Speed and strength can be the difference between life and death as an assaulter. The faster you can move, the longer you can move, and the more you can carry, the better your chances of completing the mission with fewer casualties. Sadly, the majority of the force doesn't understand this, because they don't have to do it, as most of the force serves in supporting roles. Non-serving citizens don't understand this AT ALL.

Second, and THE most important factor, cohesion.

Like it or not, females introduce sexual relationships into the equation, and ALL the issues that go with them. Love triangles, STD's, pregnancies, jealousies, all that bull hinders an organization simply because leaders and troops alike, have to DEAL with all that crap instead of DOING THEIR jobs. People can talk about being "professional" until they're blue in the face, but the reality of the situation is this: you can't control biology.

Males want females. Females want males. Period. Oh...except for homo's, which the force now has to deal with thanks to Obama and congress.

These crazy kinds of relationships can KILL morale, and hinder effectiveness. Amazingly enough, they are NON-EXISTENT in male only organizations. Go figure. This means we spent more time training, more time getting in shape, and more time focusing on the mission, and NO time dealing with "drama".

Except for closet homo's, NOBODY ever thought the PL was "hot", and NOBODY ever wanted to date a leader OR soldier, and not a single leader ever made advances on one of our assaulters. EVERY SINGLE service school I attended, that had females, introduced these ridiculous relationships, and I was always thankful for returning to my parent organization. Females were ALWAYS on the "sidelines" in EVERY physical thing we ever did, and contributed little to NOTHING to the over all success of any given task.

Of course, the tax payer paid them the same though...

I served exclusively in male only organizations until the end of my career, where I finally served in an organization that had female support troops. We NEVER had the ridiculous issues integrated organizations did, and it used to make me sick talking to my peers who had to deal with that garbage because it is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. The pregnancies before and during deployments, prostitution in the barracks or CHU's, "equal opportunity" complaints, office "drama", just straight up nonsense that is not appropriate for a military organization, and completely absent in male only units.

Females contribute absolutely nothing to the fight that a male doesn't already bring. The only thing they do is detract and inhibit the force as a whole. However, instead of facing the facts and adjusting personnel policy accordingly, the military will continue to focus on making the life of around 90% of the force miserable in order to accommodate the 10% that insists on playing Soldier.

And now they have the gay baggage to deal with as well.

My sympathies and condolences to all the assaulters out there...