Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military?

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
I've seen women do that, but as have I seen small men do it.

I doubt it. Either way it's anecdotal and so far your anecdotal evidence has been less than trustworthy.

Boo Radley said:
And I suspect most are strong enough to this, as you don't need to be Samson to do it.

And again as the previous study's from Israel and England show the majority can't, and you are again wrong. Keep ignoring the evidence.

Boo Radley said:
But they could problem solve, as we all have to in any particular situation. But the test for this would be to carry that weight for that long, and not much of what is on a PT test.

:doh

Boo Radley said:
And would bet if given the opportunity, I could find a way to both easier. I've spent a life time doing such things. I even suspect you could as well, if you wanted to and we allowed to.

I give up. :roll:

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
You should know that reading you link, they borrowed from other studies, including this one. But again, you are skipping the point. I ask again, what will it take to get you to actually address the point.

I did address it.

#1 Your post about "women being better" was wrong.
#2 Your article is outdated and flies in the face of more recent study's and articles invalidating your "depends who you ask" reply.

That was my point. I don't care what silly abstract point about "working smarter" etc you were trying to make as that was debunked by me pages ago. You just don't want to accept real world situations and would rather use examples from fantasy land as proof of something.

End of story.

notquiteright · Mar 22, 2012

Dog-
I feel you are the one generalizing and ignoring the true facts. You seem intent on having any female wishing to serve in combat arms qualify for the Deltas or something. The strength requirement isn't that high, you don't carry 70 lbs of body armor and gear at arms length and climb stairs, you strap the crap and trudge. 'Female hygiene' in the field differs little from male hygiene even with the monthly thrown in. The average Valley Girl won't like going two weeks without a shower but these days neither does the average Valley Boy, not that the two weeks without a shower is very routine in the infantry these days.

Again not every woman will want to be a grunt, but those who do deserve a fair shot at the same standard a guy grunt meets. I firmly believe females with the heart and desire WILL hack it and the guys who don't have the drive will recycle to whatever REMF MOS they can manage.

Again brute strength as you keep harping on isn't required to be a grunt, I was 122lbs when I graduated Infantry School at Ft. Puke and Tigerland. I had failed my first PT test in BASIC. It isn't brute strength, it is heart and desire because many of the big guys broke down when pushed past their limits, they had never been in such a situation in the civilian world. Never felt unable to hack it. And there will be that time when the sh** gets to be too much. I'd rather have 4 'weaker' guys or gals with me than 2 big guys who never felt the doom and had to push through it like I did when the DI got in my face as I laid there on the PT course and declared I would NEVER make it through BASIC.

Funny thing I recall at Ft. Puke, we lost more big guys to bad ankles and backs after we started the long road marches compared to us littler guys. Seems lugging all that upper body strength around was too much for their ankles and backs. Grunts do a lot more than bench press each other, we hump ALICE or MOLLIE... :mrgreen:

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

notquiteright said:
Dog-
I feel you are the one generalizing and ignoring the true facts. You seem intent on having any female wishing to serve in combat arms qualify for the Deltas or something. The strength requirement isn't that high, you don't carry 70 lbs of body armor and gear at arms length and climb stairs, you strap the crap and trudge. 'Female hygiene' in the field differs little from male hygiene even with the monthly thrown in. The average Valley Girl won't like going two weeks without a shower but these days neither does the average Valley Boy, not that the two weeks without a shower is very routine in the infantry these days.

Again not every woman will want to be a grunt, but those who do deserve a fair shot at the same standard a guy grunt meets. I firmly believe females with the heart and desire WILL hack it and the guys who don't have the drive will recycle to whatever REMF MOS they can manage.

Again brute strength as you keep harping on isn't required to be a grunt, I was 122lbs when I graduated Infantry School at Ft. Puke and Tigerland. I had failed my first PT test in BASIC. It isn't brute strength, it is heart and desire because many of the big guys broke down when pushed past their limits, they had never been in such a situation in the civilian world. Never felt unable to hack it. And there will be that time when the sh** gets to be too much. I'd rather have 4 'weaker' guys or gals with me than 2 big guys who never felt the doom and had to push through it like I did when the DI got in my face as I laid there on the PT course and declared I would NEVER make it through BASIC.

Funny thing I recall at Ft. Puke, we lost more big guys to bad ankles and backs after we started the long road marches compared to us littler guys. Seems lugging all that upper body strength around was too much for their ankles and backs. Grunts do a lot more than bench press each other, we hump ALICE or MOLLIE... :mrgreen:

Your anecdotal evidence flies in the face of fact...

BRITISH STUDY FINDS FEMALE SOLDIERS “TOO WEAK” FOR LAND COMBAT
1/14/2002 12:58:35 PM

...Negative findings in the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study are even more significant in view of the fact that test exercises reportedly had been so diluted and watered down that they amounted to little more than "aggressive camping." (Electronic Telegraph, Mar. 26, 2001) According to Brig. Seymour Monro, the Army’s Director of Infantry, tasks that women soldiers were not physically capable of performing had been made easier or dropped from the trials... - Center for Military Readiness | International Policies

It was reviewed and tried again in 2010...

BRITISH CONCLUDE STUDY OF WOMEN IN COMBAT: NO CHANGES
Tuesday, November 30, 2010

...The Ministry of Defence has completed a review into the policy that excludes female members of the Armed Forces from carrying out ground close combat roles, and decided that it should remain unchanged... - CENTEX UNFILTERED NEWS: BRITISH CONCLUDE STUDY OF WOMEN IN COMBAT: NO CHANGES

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” - Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

Israeli women won’t see combat
October 20, 2003

"JERUSALEM -- Young women who are drafted into the Israeli military will be barred from most combat duties because of a medical study that has determined they are, after all, the weaker sex..." - Israeli women won't see combat - Washington Times

Any questions? Or do I have to post this again?

So far no one has come up with anything at all that is credible that refutes the findings, period.

Boo Radley · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
I did address it.

#1 Your post about "women being better" was wrong.
#2 Your article is outdated and flies in the face of more recent study's and articles invalidating your "depends who you ask" reply.

That was my point. I don't care what silly abstract point about "working smarter" etc you were trying to make as that was debunked by me pages ago. You just don't want to accept real world situations and would rather use examples from fantasy land as proof of something.

End of story.

Yes, I missed one post, but answered it when I saw it. As for this one:

1) no, Not really. However, it didn't really matter. I'm merely trying to get you and Jerry (actually more Jerry than you) to actually consider possibilities.

2) 2007 isn't decades ago, and your study actually looked at it and older ones to reach it's conslusion (it was a study of studies).

And no, it has not be debunked. You merely accept physical strength as the only or major critiera. Others don't.

Boo Radley · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
I doubt it. Either way it's anecdotal and so far your anecdotal evidence has been less than trustworthy.

Regardless, it isn't required to my point.

And again as the previous study's from Israel and England show the majority can't, and you are again wrong. Keep ignoring the evidence.

Meaningless as it means nothing to my point.

I give up. :roll:

You never really engaged.

Wake · Mar 22, 2012

Is it fair to say physical strength is more or less an important military criteria?

If so, it'd be increasingly important for soldiers in more intensive missions to have it.

Say Seal team 6, or some other special military unit.

DaveFagan · Mar 22, 2012

What's complicated about this. If you join the military, one of the real possibilites is that you will fight in a war. If women are excepted, then they are discriminated against. If women only serve rear guard and supply, then men are discriminated againgst by increasing their odds of being in an action zone. If people are not in the military to fight, then they should not be in the military. Some women are not women. Some are lotsa woman. Just like Freddie and his husband, Ralph. Discrimination is illegal.

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

BRITISH STUDY FINDS FEMALE SOLDIERS “TOO WEAK” FOR LAND COMBAT
1/14/2002 12:58:35 PM

...Negative findings in the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study are even more significant in view of the fact that test exercises reportedly had been so diluted and watered down that they amounted to little more than "aggressive camping." (Electronic Telegraph, Mar. 26, 2001) According to Brig. Seymour Monro, the Army’s Director of Infantry, tasks that women soldiers were not physically capable of performing had been made easier or dropped from the trials... - Center for Military Readiness | International Policies

It was reviewed and tried again in 2010...

BRITISH CONCLUDE STUDY OF WOMEN IN COMBAT: NO CHANGES
Tuesday, November 30, 2010

...The Ministry of Defence has completed a review into the policy that excludes female members of the Armed Forces from carrying out ground close combat roles, and decided that it should remain unchanged... - CENTEX UNFILTERED NEWS: BRITISH CONCLUDE STUDY OF WOMEN IN COMBAT: NO CHANGES

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” - Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

Israeli women won’t see combat
October 20, 2003

"JERUSALEM -- Young women who are drafted into the Israeli military will be barred from most combat duties because of a medical study that has determined they are, after all, the weaker sex..." - Israeli women won't see combat - Washington Times[/quote]

Any questions? Or do I have to post this again?

So far no one has come up with anything at all that is credible that refutes the findings, period.

Still waiting? Anyone? Got any real evidence other than just a weak opinion backed up by hot air?

Boo Radley · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
BRITISH STUDY FINDS FEMALE SOLDIERS “TOO WEAK” FOR LAND COMBAT
1/14/2002 12:58:35 PM

...Negative findings in the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study are even more significant in view of the fact that test exercises reportedly had been so diluted and watered down that they amounted to little more than "aggressive camping." (Electronic Telegraph, Mar. 26, 2001) According to Brig. Seymour Monro, the Army’s Director of Infantry, tasks that women soldiers were not physically capable of performing had been made easier or dropped from the trials... - Center for Military Readiness | International Policies

It was reviewed and tried again in 2010...

BRITISH CONCLUDE STUDY OF WOMEN IN COMBAT: NO CHANGES
Tuesday, November 30, 2010

...The Ministry of Defence has completed a review into the policy that excludes female members of the Armed Forces from carrying out ground close combat roles, and decided that it should remain unchanged... - CENTEX UNFILTERED NEWS: BRITISH CONCLUDE STUDY OF WOMEN IN COMBAT: NO CHANGES

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” - Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

Israeli women won’t see combat
October 20, 2003

"JERUSALEM -- Young women who are drafted into the Israeli military will be barred from most combat duties because of a medical study that has determined they are, after all, the weaker sex..." - Israeli women won't see combat - Washington Times

Any questions? Or do I have to post this again?

So far no one has come up with anything at all that is credible that refutes the findings, period.

Still waiting? Anyone? Got any real evidence other than just a weak opinion backed up by hot air?[/QUOTE]

You can post it a million times, but it doesn't address what I'm saying, and it is likely they too suffer from group think. This debunks nothing. Answer me in no real way.

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

Boo Radley said:
You can post it a million times, but it doesn't address what I'm saying, and it is likely they too suffer from group think. This debunks nothing. Answer me in no real way.

I gave up on you as your question is based on nothing, and this has nothing to do with your fantasy land question, capisce?

You can call it "group think" all day, but it does not change the facts of the study, period.

Aunt Spiker · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
I gave up on you as your question is based on nothing, and this has nothing to do with your fantasy land question, capisce?

You can call it "group think" all day, but it does not change the facts of the study, period.

Ok there Uncle Joey. Whatever you think makes you happy. :roll:

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

Aunt Spiker said:
Ok there Uncle Joey. Whatever you think makes you happy. :roll:

It is to bad people don't want to accept the reality of a situation and throw ad hominems rather than evidence to support a position.

Aderleth · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
BRITISH STUDY FINDS FEMALE SOLDIERS “TOO WEAK” FOR LAND COMBAT
1/14/2002 12:58:35 PM

...Negative findings in the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study are even more significant in view of the fact that test exercises reportedly had been so diluted and watered down that they amounted to little more than "aggressive camping." (Electronic Telegraph, Mar. 26, 2001) According to Brig. Seymour Monro, the Army’s Director of Infantry, tasks that women soldiers were not physically capable of performing had been made easier or dropped from the trials... - Center for Military Readiness | International Policies

It was reviewed and tried again in 2010...

BRITISH CONCLUDE STUDY OF WOMEN IN COMBAT: NO CHANGES
Tuesday, November 30, 2010

...The Ministry of Defence has completed a review into the policy that excludes female members of the Armed Forces from carrying out ground close combat roles, and decided that it should remain unchanged... - CENTEX UNFILTERED NEWS: BRITISH CONCLUDE STUDY OF WOMEN IN COMBAT: NO CHANGES

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” - Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

Israeli women won’t see combat
October 20, 2003

"JERUSALEM -- Young women who are drafted into the Israeli military will be barred from most combat duties because of a medical study that has determined they are, after all, the weaker sex..." - Israeli women won't see combat - Washington Times

Blackdog said:
Any questions? Or do I have to post this again?

So far no one has come up with anything at all that is credible that refutes the findings, period.

Still waiting? Anyone? Got any real evidence other than just a weak opinion backed up by hot air?

I haven't really been following this thread for a couple of days, but is your argument that women should be entirely barred from combat duty because several studies have concluded that they're statistically incapable of doing so?

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

Aderleth said:
I haven't really been following this thread for a couple of days, but is your argument that women should be entirely barred from combat duty because several studies have concluded that they're statistically incapable of doing so?

The studies do not say they are unfit for or barred from duty in combat zones etc. They state women should not be in ground combat units like infantry, armor and artillery. I agree they should not be in ground combat units. Here is an excerpt...

In compiling the study for review by the Chiefs of Staff, British Army officials gathered information from several other countries with gender-integrated armed forces, and carried out tests of physical capabilities in Wales. According to the London Sunday Times, June 24, 2001, the women performed comparatively poorly in physical tasks:
· In a test requiring soldiers to carry 90 lbs. of artillery shells over measured distances, the male failure rate was 20%. The female failure rate was 70%.
· In a 12.5-mile route march carrying 60 lbs. of equipment, followed by target practice simulating conditions under fire, men failed in 17% of cases. Women failed in 48%.
· Females were generally slower in simulated combat exercises involving lengthy "fire and move" situations, in which participants had to sprint from one position to another in full battle dress.
· In close-quarter battle tests, including hand-to-hand combat, women suffered much higher injury rates.

Negative findings in the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study are even more significant in view of the fact that test exercises reportedly had been so diluted and watered down that they amounted to little more than "aggressive camping."

So no, no problem with being in combat zones.

PS If people would actually read the findings I would not have to repeat myself.

Aderleth · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
The studies do not say they are unfit for or barred from duty in combat zones etc. They state women should not be in ground combat units like infantry, armor and artillery. I agree they should not be in ground combat units. Here is an excerpt...

In compiling the study for review by the Chiefs of Staff, British Army officials gathered information from several other countries with gender-integrated armed forces, and carried out tests of physical capabilities in Wales. According to the London Sunday Times, June 24, 2001, the women performed comparatively poorly in physical tasks:
· In a test requiring soldiers to carry 90 lbs. of artillery shells over measured distances, the male failure rate was 20%. The female failure rate was 70%.
· In a 12.5-mile route march carrying 60 lbs. of equipment, followed by target practice simulating conditions under fire, men failed in 17% of cases. Women failed in 48%.
· Females were generally slower in simulated combat exercises involving lengthy "fire and move" situations, in which participants had to sprint from one position to another in full battle dress.
· In close-quarter battle tests, including hand-to-hand combat, women suffered much higher injury rates.

Negative findings in the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study are even more significant in view of the fact that test exercises reportedly had been so diluted and watered down that they amounted to little more than "aggressive camping."

So no, no problem with being in combat zones.

So... statistically speaking, most women can't hack it in ground combat units. Right? That's your argument?

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

Aderleth said:
So... statistically speaking, most women can't hack it in ground combat units. Right? That's your argument?

Read the ****ing articles and stop playing your stupid obtuse game. :roll:

Just say what you are going to say and I will refute it.

PS: No most can't.

Aderleth · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
Read the ****ing articles and stop playing your stupid obtuse game. :roll:

Just say what you are going to say and I will refute it.

PS: No most can't.

If most can't than some can. Correct? Why not let those that can hack it, do so?

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

Aderleth said:
If most can't than some can. Correct? Why not let those that can hack it, do so?

Well read the information I posted. That is what it is there for. This way I don't have to worry about posting paragraph after paragraph of info. It is all there in black and white.

Aderleth · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
Well read the information I posted. That is what it is there for. This way I don't have to worry about posting paragraph after paragraph of info. It is all there in black and white.

Does any of your information say that all women can't hack it in ground combat units?

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

Aderleth said:
Does any of your information say that all women can't hack it in ground combat units?

No and that's not the point. The information says more than that, but that would require actual reading. Do that and all your questions will be answered. Reading the thread mite also help. So I don't have to have the same debate all over again after already doing it what? 4 times now?

So I figure you are trying very hard to set me up in some kind of lawyers double speak trap, hence the being so obtuse. Or you genuinely want to know. Either way the pages await your viewing pleasure.

Aderleth · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
No and that's not the point.

It's my point. If most women can't hack it, then some women can. So I'll ask you again. Why not let them?

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

Aderleth said:
It's my point. If most women can't hack it, then some women can. So I'll ask you again. Why not let them?

And I will reply again read the info, that's what it is there for.

If you can't do that, than I don't really care what your point is as it does not in any way refute (because you did not bother to read it) the information in any way, period.

Have a good read.

Goshin · Mar 22, 2012

Moderator's Warning:

Please call members by their correct User name.

Aderleth · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
And I will reply again read the info, that's what it is there for.

If you can't do that, than I don't really care what your point is as it does not in any way refute (because you did not bother to read it) the information in any way, period.

Have a good read.

I'm not asking your sources. I'm asking you. If you would like to address me to a particular source of yours, I'd be happy to read it.

Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military?

Should women be allowed in combat roles in military?

Yes

No

IDK/other

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Iconoclast

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Cheese

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Burned Out Ex-Mod