• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Real Commandos Say No to Women in Spec Ops

notquiteright said:
You never served in the Infantry did you?

The Military can be extremely biased, hidebound and ultra resistant to change. Take the conversion from steel pots to Kevlar- NOW Kevlar is beloved, at the time of conversion old school soldiers hated the 'tupperware' helmets.
Click to expand...

This is a horrible analogy.

The 'months' and months'??? Really- I'd say until females are in squad/platoon leadership roles the tests are not accurate.
Click to expand...
They were put in charge of the squads and platoons.

Now again because you keep dodging the question-
Click to expand...
not dodging anything.

Do you think there are all male rifle squads in the Infantry that score lower than the 'average' squad? Does the military wash them out? re they 'mission capable'?
Click to expand...
we are not talking regular infantry we are talking special ops. If they do score lower they are not assigned the same missions
as other more capable squads.

That in a few tests at the beginning of the process where the newly integrated women are not at the top of the heap doesn't mean as much as this-

Are the rifle squads with women in them Mission Capable?
Click to expand...
according to the marines no they are not.

Marine Corps study says units with women fall short on combat skills - LA Times
 
notquiteright said:
Actually you don't.... again the standard is combat effective, anything else is puffery... :peace
Click to expand...

puffery much like your posts are. deny reality for PC will hurt our troops.
but we have known for a long time time that liberals do not like our troops they have made
this evident. this is just another way to weaken them.
 
ludin said:
puffery much like your posts are. deny reality for PC will hurt our troops.
but we have known for a long time time that liberals do not like our troops they have made
this evident. this is just another way to weaken them.
Click to expand...

I am a wounded vet, you are??? Don't for a split second think I don't like our troops, I helped train DMs in the NG and AF back when the military was scrambling to get properly trained troops overseas back in the BushII days.

But again because it doesn't seem to sink in, the STANDARD is combat effective. Not every rifle squad is above the average, the marines have a strong bias that has been wrong- dead wrong before...

Guadalcanal 1942... Marines go ashore armed with WWI bolt guns- NOT because there weren't enough M1 Garands to go around but because the Corps considered the semi rifle 'wasteful' and 'marksmanship' trumped rate of fire. The Corps was offered part of the production run back in 1937 so there was plenty of time to get the M1 into Jarhead hands.

Massed Japanese attacks soon showed the error of that line of thinking- Marines paid a blood price for that hidebound mindset...

I would never weaken the Infantry, I turned blue and am still true blue.

you are???? :confused:
 
cpwill said:
THOSE ARE THE ACTUAL OPTIONS, glare. The military has already been warned that, should its standards prove too tough for women, it will have to defend not making them easier. There is a about an equal chance of Barack Obama endorsing Ted Cruz as there is that we will raise standards to make it harder during the course of this change. The physical standards for women are already lower, and will remain so. In the world of actual policy, that binary choice is about what we got.

Furthermore, the women who do pass the standards continue to have all the problems I have talked about. You can't solve things like lower bone density and different hip structure with "training".
Click to expand...

I'm already against differential standards and i've already condemned those who would endorse such a policy in the name of "equality" that is really "engineered inequality to favor a privileged group." It perverts what should be another noble step toward equality into a PR stunt and it sucks that they're doing it.

The big problem, in my mind, is the forced implementation of unequal standards to artificially inflate female presence in the infantry. It is not that gender equality is wrong, it is that inequality is wrong. That's simply how i view the problem.
 
notquiteright said:
I am a wounded vet, you are??? Don't for a split second think I don't like our troops, I helped train DMs in the NG and AF back when the military was scrambling to get properly trained troops overseas back in the BushII days.

But again because it doesn't seem to sink in, the STANDARD is combat effective. Not every rifle squad is above the average, the marines have a strong bias that has been wrong- dead wrong before...
Click to expand...

They aren't combat effective did you not read the report?
high injury rates, slower progression. they can't lift the required weight.
all of that contributes to high unit risk. there is nothing bias about it.

Guadalcanal 1942... Marines go ashore armed with WWI bolt guns- NOT because there weren't enough M1 Garands to go around but because the Corps considered the semi rifle 'wasteful' and 'marksmanship' trumped rate of fire. The Corps was offered part of the production run back in 1937 so there was plenty of time to get the M1 into Jarhead hands.
Click to expand...

has 0 to do with the topic.

Massed Japanese attacks soon showed the error of that line of thinking- Marines paid a blood price for that hidebound mindset...
Click to expand...

Again 0 to do with the subject.

I would never weaken the Infantry, I turned blue and am still true blue.

you are???? :confused:
Click to expand...

then you wouldn't support not only putting more troops at risk but not putting women at risk either.
however you seemed to be more concerned with PC than what the right thing is.
 
Absentglare said:
I'm already against differential standards and i've already condemned those who would endorse such a policy in the name of "equality" that is really "engineered inequality to favor a privileged group." It perverts what should be another noble step toward equality into a PR stunt and it sucks that they're doing it.

The big problem, in my mind, is the forced implementation of unequal standards to artificially inflate female presence in the infantry. It is not that gender equality is wrong, it is that inequality is wrong. That's simply how i view the problem.
Click to expand...

since people aren't equal you have a major issue that you need to deal with.
 
ludin said:
They aren't combat effective did you not read the report? high injury rates, slower progression. they can't lift the required weight. all of that contributes to high unit risk. there is nothing bias about it. has 0 to do with the topic. Again 0 to do with the subject. then you wouldn't support not only putting more troops at risk but not putting women at risk either. however you seemed to be more concerned with PC than what the right thing is.
Click to expand...

Again, I lived that life. YOU didn't. If you'd run those courses many of the tasks would be a no-go. Fact is no one passes the tests 100%. Lifting weight??? seriously, not a fair test, I was never tested on what I could lift. Hump yes, lift no. Now tell me as I never read the mixed units were classified 'combat ineffective', can you link that please...

Nothing innovative goes well at first in the military- imagine if the early tanks had caused armies to not develop them further? How about early signal equipment, or aircraft...

Now I love the subjective, slower higher injury rates. Again the Corps is hidebound. They have blood on their hands from 'tradition', the M1 garand is an EXCELLENT example of tradition over progress.

You can accuse me of many things, being more concerned about 'pc' over those who pay for piss ignorant old guy politicians' debacles with life and limb- I carry scars from my turn being a policy statement- ain't one of them Cherry.

This reminds me of the 'gays' being open and serving in combat units... oh the breakdown in discipline, the refusal to buddy up with a homo, their lack of upper body strength, shaving more than their faces... :roll:

Women will work into combat units, the Crotch may screen heavily against them, I could give a rat's rump about what the Crotch does. But back in the day I was a freshly minted NCO in the largest combat Bde in Usareur- 1st Bde, 3AD. 7 combat bns- a maintenance detachment. All that sausage and a total of 3 women. (The number of females in the 3AD grew leaps and bounds, and the 3AD went on to kick Saddam's ass in gulf war I) But I recall those old NCO's knocking back highballs, smoking like a chimney, adamant females in uniform would wreck our fighting capabilities.

Now the SNCO's ip lite beer and there is no smoking on base... :shock:

Soldiers curse everything from MREs to their socks.... never beens should take all of that with a grain of salt and just keep buying the beer... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Actually you don't.... again the standard is combat effective, anything else is puffery... :peace
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like when countries put mixed gender units into combat and then discovered that they were less combat effective?

Or do you mean when countries put mixed gender units into combat environments to test, and discovered that they were less combat effective?

Because we've had both.
 
notquiteright said:
ludin said:
They aren't combat effective did you not read the report? high injury rates, slower progression. they can't lift the required weight. all of that contributes to high unit risk. there is nothing bias about it. has 0 to do with the topic. Again 0 to do with the subject. then you wouldn't support not only putting more troops at risk but not putting women at risk either. however you seemed to be more concerned with PC than what the right thing is.
Click to expand...
Again, I lived that life. YOU didn't. If you'd run those courses many of the tasks would be a no-go. Fact is no one passes the tests 100%. Lifting weight??? seriously, not a fair test, I was never tested on what I could lift. Hump yes, lift no. Now tell me as I never read the mixed units were classified 'combat ineffective', can you link that please...

Nothing innovative goes well at first in the military- imagine if the early tanks had caused armies to not develop them further? How about early signal equipment, or aircraft...

Now I love the subjective, slower higher injury rates. Again the Corps is hidebound. They have blood on their hands from 'tradition', the M1 garand is an EXCELLENT example of tradition over progress.

You can accuse me of many things, being more concerned about 'pc' over those who pay for piss ignorant old guy politicians' debacles with life and limb- I carry scars from my turn being a policy statement- ain't one of them Cherry.

This reminds me of the 'gays' being open and serving in combat units... oh the breakdown in discipline, the refusal to buddy up with a homo, their lack of upper body strength, shaving more than their faces... :roll:

Women will work into combat units, the Crotch may screen heavily against them, I could give a rat's rump about what the Crotch does. But back in the day I was a freshly minted NCO in the largest combat Bde in Usareur- 1st Bde, 3AD. 7 combat bns- a maintenance detachment. All that sausage and a total of 3 women. (The number of females in the 3AD grew leaps and bounds, and the 3AD went on to kick Saddam's ass in gulf war I) But I recall those old NCO's knocking back highballs, smoking like a chimney, adamant females in uniform would wreck our fighting capabilities.

Now the SNCO's ip lite beer and there is no smoking on base... :shock:

Soldiers curse everything from MREs to their socks.... never beens should take all of that with a grain of salt and just keep buying the beer... :peace
Click to expand...

You didn't answer any of his points. Women do have higher injury rates, slower progression, strength issues, and gender integration continues to come with cohesion issues that we can afford elsewhere, but not here.
 
Absentglare said:
I'm already against differential standards and i've already condemned those who would endorse such a policy in the name of "equality" that is really "engineered inequality to favor a privileged group." It perverts what should be another noble step toward equality into a PR stunt and it sucks that they're doing it.

The big problem, in my mind, is the forced implementation of unequal standards to artificially inflate female presence in the infantry. It is not that gender equality is wrong, it is that inequality is wrong. That's simply how i view the problem.
Click to expand...

So if it was demonstrated that integrating women under the current standards caused infantry units to become less combat effective, then you would oppose doing so?

Because that's the question at hand. Whether or not our new policy of integrating women under the current standards is worth the price we will pay for it in units of young people's lives. It's not "Oh well let's do this and then I'll state that I would rather that they force females to take the male PFT's (which would result in the mass exodus of females from the Marine Corps, at least, and definitely result in mass accusations of sexism). It's "do we keep the system of standards that we have in-place, but also put females in the infantry".



More broadly, I concur with you that "inequality is bad", generically, when it comes to thinks like opportunity for advancement (I think that you will always have it, and that it is fine that some people are stronger, faster, smarter, better looking, more creative, harder working, more studied, more likely to study, better at dealing with people, or even luckier than others - I simply agree that we shouldn't design systems to artificially create those distinctions). However, I do not value that over the lives of the people that we send forward. The historical experience confirms the testing, which confirms the theory that integrating women including women who meet the same physical standards will reduce the combat effectiveness of our combat arms, in particular the infantry. Understanding that it isn't fair, I'm still not willing to reduce combat efficiency in pursuit of fairness.
 
ludin said:
since people aren't equal you have a major issue that you need to deal with.
Click to expand...

No, that has nothing to do with what i'm talking about. I'm in favor of high standards for strenuous military positions.
 
Oh the joy of this entire debate. In 50 years, none of this silly debate will matter. Women will be placed more often in the military and old white men will shed tears over the idea.
 
cpwill said:
So if it was demonstrated that integrating women under the current standards caused infantry units to become less combat effective, then you would oppose doing so?

Because that's the question at hand. Whether or not our new policy of integrating women under the current standards is worth the price we will pay for it in units of young people's lives. It's not "Oh well let's do this and then I'll state that I would rather that they force females to take the male PFT's (which would result in the mass exodus of females from the Marine Corps, at least, and definitely result in mass accusations of sexism). It's "do we keep the system of standards that we have in-place, but also put females in the infantry".



More broadly, I concur with you that "inequality is bad", generically, when it comes to thinks like opportunity for advancement (I think that you will always have it, and that it is fine that some people are stronger, faster, smarter, better looking, more creative, harder working, more studied, more likely to study, better at dealing with people, or even luckier than others - I simply agree that we shouldn't design systems to artificially create those distinctions). However, I do not value that over the lives of the people that we send forward. The historical experience confirms the testing, which confirms the theory that integrating women including women who meet the same physical standards will reduce the combat effectiveness of our combat arms, in particular the infantry. Understanding that it isn't fair, I'm still not willing to reduce combat efficiency in pursuit of fairness.
Click to expand...

"So if it was demonstrated that integrating women under the current standards caused infantry units to become less combat effective, then you would oppose doing so?"

Yes, because the statistical tendency for integrated units to have lower performance isn't necessarily the fault of the female gender.

It might be a simple matter of being less likely to have every soldier so far exceed the performance requirements. In that case, the performance requirements could be increased. Expelling women seems to be a lazy way to try to solve the problem that we're training and graduating soldiers who are fundamentally unprepared for duty. Realistically, there could be men who are deficient in those same ways whose poor performance is masked because they're grouped with all other men in this analysis.
 
cpwill said:
Oh, you mean like when countries put mixed gender units into combat and then discovered that they were less combat effective? Or do you mean when countries put mixed gender units into combat environments to test, and discovered that they were less combat effective? Because we've had both.
Click to expand...

During WWII women served in combat units quite effectively. Once the emergency was over however women were sent back to their place. That is the true pattern, men prefer to have the 'dainty' woman at home raising kids, when the need for millions in uniform passed male ego swelled back up.

I'd opine when it comes to a truly objective gender studies the military isn't the place where women will get a fair shake. The military didn't want to combine negro and white Infantry regiments citing the exact same crap those who resist women in combat arms- less combat effective and during the start of a hot spell in the Cold War. President Truman ORDERED the military to co-mingle regiments. That took 3 years and massive losses in white regiments during the retreat in Korea for the military to formally accept.

But once again I have to point out- 'less' combat effective vs not combat effective. I'd say the 'study' conducted by the 'open and progressive' minded Marines could do with a few more repeats. Perhaps in the branch of service who saw the benefits of arming it's infantry with semi auto rifles before combat losses showed them the error of being too hidebound... :peace
 
beerftw said:
Just to piss some people off, i believe the women should meet the standard, but the special ops would benefit from those women who meet the standard. Special ops does everything from tactical to espionage, and alot of what they do overseas is to appear friendly and non violent to the local population.

Over seas the specops often became fat on purpose( though they could still ace any pt test) and grew beards so locals would not view them as soldiers. Maybe women could pull off the same appeal, women in the middle east refuse to talk to men, and just point to the head of the household, while women might be able to get them to cooperate better.
Click to expand...

Intelligence outfits already use women. They used women soldiers in Gitmo to interrogate Al Qaeda prisoners, even having these female soldiers sit on the laps of these prisoners to make these Muslim men, uncomfortable.. Here, all this time the left was complaining about waterboarding and other forms of torture, yet they never knew these prisoners were getting lap dances.
 
notquiteright said:
Again, I lived that life. YOU didn't. If you'd run those courses many of the tasks would be a no-go. Fact is no one passes the tests 100%. Lifting weight??? seriously, not a fair test, I was never tested on what I could lift. Hump yes, lift no. Now tell me as I never read the mixed units were classified 'combat ineffective', can you link that please...

Nothing innovative goes well at first in the military- imagine if the early tanks had caused armies to not develop them further? How about early signal equipment, or aircraft...

Now I love the subjective, slower higher injury rates. Again the Corps is hidebound. They have blood on their hands from 'tradition', the M1 garand is an EXCELLENT example of tradition over progress.

You can accuse me of many things, being more concerned about 'pc' over those who pay for piss ignorant old guy politicians' debacles with life and limb- I carry scars from my turn being a policy statement- ain't one of them Cherry.

This reminds me of the 'gays' being open and serving in combat units... oh the breakdown in discipline, the refusal to buddy up with a homo, their lack of upper body strength, shaving more than their faces... :roll:

Women will work into combat units, the Crotch may screen heavily against them, I could give a rat's rump about what the Crotch does. But back in the day I was a freshly minted NCO in the largest combat Bde in Usareur- 1st Bde, 3AD. 7 combat bns- a maintenance detachment. All that sausage and a total of 3 women. (The number of females in the 3AD grew leaps and bounds, and the 3AD went on to kick Saddam's ass in gulf war I) But I recall those old NCO's knocking back highballs, smoking like a chimney, adamant females in uniform would wreck our fighting capabilities.

Now the SNCO's ip lite beer and there is no smoking on base... :shock:

Soldiers curse everything from MREs to their socks.... never beens should take all of that with a grain of salt and just keep buying the beer... :peace
Click to expand...

If you are so all knowing and have so much combat experience, why haven't you registered your branch of the military here on this site, or are you just one, who has seen a lot of war movies, or been in a lot of bar fights?
 
notquiteright said:
During WWII women served in combat units quite effectively
Click to expand...

No, they served less effectively.

I'd opine when it comes to a truly objective gender studies the military isn't the place where women will get a fair shake. The military didn't want to combine negro and white Infantry regiments citing the exact same crap those who resist women in combat arms- less combat effective and during the start of a hot spell in the Cold War. President Truman ORDERED the military to co-mingle regiments. That took 3 years and massive losses in white regiments during the retreat in Korea for the military to formally accept.
Click to expand...

That's a neat circular standard. Studies across several militaries and several decades and experience stretching back a century are all moot and must be biased because they give you the opposite of the answer that you want. But if you could show us that the military argued that black males had lower bone density, differently shaped hips, were more prone to injury, were more prone to breaking over time, were prone to getting pregnant, were prone to losing 1/4 to 1/3 of their physical strength once a month, were weaker, and had been demonstrated in repeated combat trials to be less effective, that would be interesting.

You can't, because you are attempting to use an analogy that is flawed even in how you are using it. The sex drive is incredibly powerful, and is juiced up exactly in the same demographic that we need to serve in the infantry, and is further juiced up by the high stress and dangers prevalent in infantry combat. You aren't going to get rid of a sex drive that spent a million years evolving in three years of personnel rotations. And, again, this isn't a hypothetical - it is what we see with the units that are already gender-integrated when they go downrange.

But once again I have to point out- 'less' combat effective vs not combat effective. I'd say the 'study' conducted by the 'open and progressive' minded Marines could do with a few more repeats. Perhaps in the branch of service who saw the benefits of arming it's infantry with semi auto rifles before combat losses showed them the error of being too hidebound... :peace
Click to expand...

I would concur that we would still be able to win wars with females in the infantry, but that they would be less combat effective. So how many of your children are you willing to kill off in order to achieve "equality", but at the cost of relative combat effectiveness? Think back to your buddies in-country - how many of them who didn't die would you be willing to have died in order to put females out there with you? What percentage of additional friends are you willing to bury?

Furthermore, your depiction of the study is uninformed - I know Marines both male and female who have been involved in this process from start to finish, and you are ignorantly degrading their professionalism and dedication to service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom