Should women serve in combat?

[mnealtx 0]

Women tend to be easier to train in shooting skills, as they don't have all the Rambo preconceptions that guys do. They also LISTEN to instruction rather than spacing it off with an "I know all that" attitude.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

To tell the truth I never did meet any HSLD types that were Rambo wannabees.

Women should not serve in direct combat.

Most of the reasons have already been stated.

[labrys 0]

Quote

This is because women naturally have a lighter trigger pull, when they have all the training they're great, but on average actually they don't naturally have that ability. Also, who cares how much shooting ability you have if you can't use it, even the best shots lose everything when they are under pressure.

Hi Dan. My reading comprehension skills have been challenged several time recently on these forums so I'll admit that I might simply be misunderstanding your point.

What I intended to challenge in the quote was the idea that it doesn't matter if women are better marksmen (markswomen, markspeople... heh), but the notion that it doesn't matter because they're more likely to "lose everything when they are under pressure."

Perhaps I missed your point.

Owned by Remi #?

[GQ_jumper 4]

What I intended to challenge in the quote was the idea that it doesn't matter if women are better marksmen (markswomen, markspeople... heh), but the notion that it doesn't matter because they're more likely to "lose everything when they are under pressure."

Quote

No, looking back I can see how I could've stated that a bit better, it wasn't intended specifically towards women, that statement applies to bother sexes equally. It doesn't matter how good anyone is, if you don't take the extra second under fire to take a deep breath and settle yourself your shooting skills are crap

take care

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[billvon 2,691]

>Would they degrade the fighting effectivness of infantry unit? Without a doubt.

I don't understand this. Why would a woman's infantry unit be less effective than a men's infantry unit?

[kbordson 8]

Quote

>Would they degrade the fighting effectivness of infantry unit? Without a doubt.

I don't understand this. Why would a woman's infantry unit be less effective than a men's infantry unit?

I took his comment to mean that the unit would be combined male/female. Not that there would be seperate units for the male front lines and female front lines.

[GQ_jumper 4]

I don't understand this. Why would a woman's infantry unit be less effective than a men's infantry unit?

Quote

IMO Bill, even if they were trained to the level of any other infantry unit sometimes an excessive amount of testosterone in the ranks is what you need, honestly. One of our teams rolled up an insurgent who was formerly an Iraqi national wrestling champ, he was unarmed but got froggy and the guy that got tied up with him had a bit of trouble handling him, and he's a pretty good size operator. I also did a hit in Sadr city and I honestly believe the only reason I'm alive is because of how much I stunned this guys bodyguards when I came in the room slammed a guy into the wall as he was making a break for the door and started grabbing guys one handed and tossing them into the ground while they were reaching for weapons, the room was so small, not to mention my teammates were on the other side of the wall I would have been shooting towards, if I had shot instead of using brute force to dominate the room a lot of people would have died, myself included. Tossing guys over walls when you're trying to get into a house without being heard also takes quite a bit of strength, especially with all the gear on, Ijust don't think you would be able to find enough women out there to outfit an entire unit, like I said before there are those select few out there who are probably stronger than a lot of guys out there, but they are few and far between. When you are up close and personal there is a lot of intimidation factor involved with clearing buildings, and big barrel chested freedom fighters just have a little bit more of that. Just my take on the whole thing

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually I am against it. At least in front line units like the Infantry. Women simply aren't built for it. Can they shoot? Yes no doubt there are some fantastic female shooters, can they kill? Without a doubt. Would they degrade the fighting effectivness of infantry unit? Without a doubt. If it came to hand to hand fighting they wouldn't stand a chance either.

As I'm sure you are aware there is alot more to being a sniper than just shooting. Aslo when you look at the area of operations of a Sniper team and the chances of them being caught again I don't think its a good idea. (Police sniper is a different situation altogether then I'd say yes)

You are mostly right on all counts, but let me add that the Army has proven that statistically, women are much better at shooting than men, they are uncannily accurate with a rifle. This would make them great as snipers. As a matter of fact, some countries habitually use women snipers, real bitches with rifles.

I had a girlfriend once, who never fired a gun in her life, and I took her trap shooting. I was demonstrating how to fire a shotgun and hit a clay pigeon, routinely missed a few and hit a few. when I handed her the gun, she smacks the very first one and every one after that. Embarrassing! Then she starts giving me pointers. Last time I ever took her shooting.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Amazon 7]

Quote

No separate qualifications for men / women - they either pass the test or they don't. If they don't, then they aren't put in a line unit.

Bingo

We agree on something for once

Set a standard and stick to it for both genders....

[billvon 2,691]

>I took his comment to mean that the unit would be combined male/female.

Ah, I see.

To me, the converse of the all-men's infantry unit is the all-women's infantry unit. Presumably this would be a pretty straightforward organizational issue. The issue of mixed units is a slightly different one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

No separate qualifications for men / women - they either pass the test or they don't. If they don't, then they aren't put in a line unit.

Bingo

Set a standard and stick to it for both genders....

it's funny how hard it is for this type of common sense to prevail.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,691]

To look at it in a more practical sense, this is not a good time to be eliminating groups of people from possible service. Women in combat may not be an ideal situation to some people, but having an adequately staffed military would seem to take priority during wartime.

[SkyDekker 1,278]

What is the issue with mixed units?

Set the same standard for both sexes and off we go.

[billvon 2,691]

>What is the issue with mixed units?

I don't know. I don't have an issue with it, but apparently some people do.

[labrys 0]

Quote

What is the issue with mixed units?

Set the same standard for both sexes and off we go.

The problem seems to be that mixing men and women will "adversely effect unit cohesion."

Sound familiar?

Owned by Remi #?

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No separate qualifications for men / women - they either pass the test or they don't. If they don't, then they aren't put in a line unit.

Bingo

Set a standard and stick to it for both genders....

it's funny how hard it is for this type of common sense to prevail.

Yep you would think it would be a no brainer

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[GQ_jumper 4]

Yep you would think it would be a no brainier

Quote

would be nice to see equal standards across the board, but it would mean they would either have to lower the standards for men, which is BS because they are already too low, or raise the standards for women, and there would be countless people who suddenly failed to meet the standard and complain that it's too high. I'm only speeking of fitness standards here, but you get my point. IMO the fitness standards need to be raised for both sexes regardless.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[SkyDekker 1,278]

Should just be equal standards, set at the right level for the job that is needed.

The rest of the argument seems to come down mostly on male ego (no woman can do a better job then a man can do) and the supposed inability for men to keep their peckers in their pants.

[GQ_jumper 4]

Should just be equal standards, set at the right level for the job that is needed.

Quote

ok then, let's have equal standards, and let's make them higher, they are far too low for any part of military service, they have been lowered to make out of shape dirtbags wearing the uniform feel better about themselves, and then we'll see how many people, male or female, are fit to be soldiers, let alone serve in combat positions.

and as for the male ego part, look at some of my posts on here last night, it's not a male ego thing, show me a group of women who can use brute force to kick down a steel door then run inside and start tossing big guys on the ground that are unarmed but still putting up a fight, there are some out there but they are few and far between, and also like I mentioned before when you are up close and personal there is an intimidation factor that comes into play, and if a male insurgent is standing in a room armed and so nervous he is on the verge of throwing down his weapon who do you think is going to inspire him to throw that weapon down, a 215 pound man screaming at him, or a female far smaller than himself? There are countless reasons as to why women should not be in direct combat roles, and none of them have to do with my ego, they perform excellently in the jobs they hold I take nothing away from them, but there is no place for them on the front line.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Should just be equal standards, set at the right level for the job that is needed.

Quote

ok then, let's have equal standards, and let's make them higher, they are far too low for any part of military service, they have been lowered to make out of shape dirtbags wearing the uniform feel better about themselves, and then we'll see how many people, male or female, are fit to be soldiers, let alone serve in combat positions.

and as for the male ego part, look at some of my posts on here last night, it's not a male ego thing, show me a group of women who can use brute force to kick down a steel door then run inside and start tossing big guys on the ground that are unarmed but still putting up a fight, there are some out there but they are few and far between, and also like I mentioned before when you are up close and personal there is an intimidation factor that comes into play, and if a male insurgent is standing in a room armed and so nervous he is on the verge of throwing down his weapon who do you think is going to inspire him to throw that weapon down, a 215 pound man screaming at him, or a female far smaller than himself? There are countless reasons as to why women should not be in direct combat roles, and none of them have to do with my ego, they perform excellently in the jobs they hold I take nothing away from them, but there is no place for them on the front line.

They all have to do with your ego if you accept that your ego development is a product of your socialization. Some people can learn and grow on their own, others (most) just slide by on what they've been fed.

The traditional roles of men and women in our society exist for the benefit of some and the control of others. What it comes down to is this: You were socialized to believe and act in certain ways concerning gender difference and (sincerely, I believe) don't want a system familiar and comfortable to you to change.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

• Quote

[SkyDekker 1,278]

Quote

ok then, let's have equal standards, and let's make them higher, they are far too low for any part of military service, they have been lowered to make out of shape dirtbags wearing the uniform feel better about themselves, and then we'll see how many people, male or female, are fit to be soldiers, let alone serve in combat positions.

The standards are lower because the US is having a hard time keeping their armed forces populated at this time.

Quote

and as for the male ego part, look at some of my posts on here last night, it's not a male ego thing, show me a group of women who can use brute force to kick down a steel door then run inside and start tossing big guys on the ground that are unarmed but still putting up a fight, there are some out there but they are few and far between, and also like I mentioned before when you are up close and personal there is an intimidation factor that comes into play, and if a male insurgent is standing in a room armed and so nervous he is on the verge of throwing down his weapon who do you think is going to inspire him to throw that weapon down, a 215 pound man screaming at him, or a female far smaller than himself? There are countless reasons as to why women should not be in direct combat roles, and none of them have to do with my ego, they perform excellently in the jobs they hold I take nothing away from them, but there is no place for them on the front line.

That there is male ego. If the standards are the same than any person passing the standard should be able to do what you describe.

The size and intimidation factor I don't think is even valid. The toughest man I know is about the third my size and if I didn't know him I would abolsutely doubt he could do anything to harm me.....many have made that same mistake.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

They all have to do with your ego

I think if you read his post, it's not about the US men's ego, it's about the presumed egos of the potential enemy combatants and how they'd react to one of our soldiers.

This is likely true in most cultures, but less so, today, in the US culture more than anywhere else.

That said, I'd agree that the "standard for direct combat" should be higher and have zero gender specific components to it. Man or woman, if you pass it, you are qualified.

As far as other cultures responding to our mixed gender forces, we could easily turn that into a psychological advantage, not a detriment as GQ notes would be the short term response.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GQ_jumper 4]

The traditional roles of men and women in our society exist for the benefit of some and the control of others. What it comes down to is this: You were socialized to believe and act in certain ways concerning gender difference and (sincerely, I believe) don't want a system familiar and comfortable to you to change.

Quote

So no matter what justification there is for not wanting the change it's all because ego? I feel I did a good job of explaining who does or doesn't belong in certain roles, if I were to resist a 130 pound woman being put on my team would that only be because of how I was raised and that I simply accept what people tell me? Or would the fact that I weigh around 180-185 and I'm the second smallest guy on the team in terms of bodyweight play into it a bit? Just because the woman did enough pushups, situps, and runs fast enough to meet the fitness standards can she really throw me over my shoulder when I'm sometimes upwards of 230 with my kit on? That is my bigest reason, I have countless others which are all justified, and none of those reasons are along the lines of "well she just can't because she's a girl".

If I somehow misunderstood your post I apologize, this was how I read it though.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[shropshire 0]

Anyone who wants to serve, should be allowed to serve. The task that they should be assigned to, should be termined by their ability... Unfit? Then Cook, Clerk, Tankie... all they way up the scale....

Should sex be a determining factor for appropriate task? If I could I'd plead your 5th on that one.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I don't know. I don't have an issue with it, but apparently some people do.

I always took it as LITTLE HEAD thinking

The guys need to get on the game plan that the women who are there are there to serve their country as well... not be eye candy or a quickie.


Make ANY kind of fraterization grounds for getting shipped immediately to the crappiest place on earth.