Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

1069 said:

Perhaps, rather than penalize women by forbidding them jobs they're qualified for and want to do, men could be held to a certain standard of behavior, and made accountable for gross violations of said standard.

Click to expand...

Do you know what the fog of war is? It's both figurative and literal, at least, in my opinion. The literal aspect refers to the unknown elements of warfare; the uncertainty, the ambiguity, whereas the figurative aspect (and this is my opinion) refers to the madness that results from war. Things happen strangely in war zones and not everything is what it seems. I know it's easy to box it in and classify every situation or eventuality with some kind of criteria, but that's never how it works in reality. Not justifying anything, but that's how things are sometimes.

In my humble, humble opinion, it boils down to a simple risk vs. reward scenario.

Reward: The numerical insignificance of females potentially capable of infantry service severely limits the reward inherent to such a policy.

Risk: Introducing the added element of human sexuality into combat units.

The choice is obvious.


"The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently — like the effect of a fog or moonshine — gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance."
-- Carl von Clausewitz

After all, there are plenty of women in war zones.
If men's behavior is too "un-nice" to allow female soldiers to share the battlefield with them, then is it really appropriate to allow them around female civilians and their children and elderly?

Click to expand...

Children and the elderly die all the time in wars. That's why we should try to avoid wars as much as possible.

Realist1 said:

Look,,,I think Women do an outstanding job as Pilots. I'm reasonably certain that they aready Serve in Combat right now. I've no qualms with that. I'm not sure just what their role is limited to in the Army. Possibly,,,they'd make great Tankers. What I don't want is the women being utilized in Infantry.

That's due to my personal feelings on what would happen to them in Hand to Hand Combat. And Men like me would pay more attention to them (worried over their Safety) more than myself.

I'm pretty sure most the Men would feel the same way.

Click to expand...

Well, that makes a little more sense.
At least you're no longer laughing.
But still, you surely recognize that this is a problem with men, not with women... and that we ultimately will not be able to forbid women opportunities that men have- opportunities that some women, however small a number, want and are qualified for- solely on the grounds that men might not be able to remain professional with females around.

These same arguments were made when women wanted to be firefighters, police officers, every job. Up until the 60s, women were largely constrained to being nurses, teachers, and secretaries, because it was believed that men might not be able to handle them being anything else.
But today women work in nearly every field, and men now appear to be handling it just fine.
it only took some getting used to.

1069 said:

Well, that makes a little more sense.
At least you're no longer laughing.
But still, you surely recognize that this is a problem with men, not with women... and that we ultimately will not be able to forbid women opportunities that men have- opportunities that some women, however small a number, want and are qualified for- because men might not be able to remain professional with females around.

These same arguments were made when women wanted to be firefighters, police officers, every job. Up until the 60s, women were largely constrained to being nurses, teachers, and secretaries, because it was believed that men might not be able to handle them being anything else.
But today women work in nearly every field, and men now appear to be handling it just fine.
it only took some getting used to.

Click to expand...

Actually, with the military, fairness is not guaranteed, and if the problem with men is not overcomable, then women should be banned from infantry. However, history has shown that outdated attitudes held by people in the military can and will be overcome.

Redress said:

Actually, with the military, fairness is not guaranteed, and if the problem with men is not overcomable, then women should be banned from infantry. However, history has shown that outdated attitudes held by people in the military can and will be overcome.

Click to expand...

Nothing outdated about it, friend. Just because we live in modern times doesn't mean you can make warfare "modern". It will always turn people into animals...that's why war is terrible.

1069 said:

Well, that makes a little more sense.
At least you're no longer laughing.
But still, you surely recognize that this is a problem with men, not with women... and that we ultimately will not be able to forbid women opportunities that men have- opportunities that some women, however small a number, want and are qualified for- because men might not be able to remain professional with females around.

These same arguments were made when women wanted to be firefighters, police officers, every job. Up until the 60s, women were largely constrained to being nurses, teachers, and secretaries, because it was believed that men might not be able to handle them being anything else.
But today women work in nearly every field, and men now appear to be handling it just fine.
it only took some getting used to.

Click to expand...

Of course the problem is with the Men in this case...We DON'T want Women in Hand to Hand Combat Situations...YES! it's OUR FAULT that we're worried over them. That's Human Nature.

More Men AND Women would be killed because of it. A Combat Zone IS NOT a 9-5 "Job",,,so you can drop all the hyperbole.:roll:

Peace.

Realist1 said:

Of course the problem is with the Men in this case...We DON'T want Women in Hand to Hand Combat Situations...YES! it's OUR FAULT that we're worried over them. That's Human Nature.

More Men AND Women would be killed because of it. A Combat Zone IS NOT a 9-5 "Job",,,so you can drop all the hyperbole.

Click to expand...

This is an aspect I didn't touch on. While there are the very real exceptions among the female gender that could stand the toughness of being an 0300, the natural aggression and strength to endure hand-to-hand combat is another matter.

One argument can suggest that hand-to-hand combat is not as prevailent in today's armed conflicts as they once were like in Vietnam, Korea, or the World Wars. But another argument will attest that in 2003, An-Nazariya and in 2004 Fallujah, saw the worst bit of hand-to-hand combat for Marines since Vietnam.

I think people very easily lose sight of what they are asking for or arguing about. This isn't a game. We are in a club unlike all others. "Fairness" is rarely a goal. If it were, then the handicapped, the obese, the weak, and the elderly would all have representation. Either we have the fairest military or we have the strongest military. This is not to suggest that it should be an all male club. On the contrary, there are the few women that could do this. But we are talking about a screening process, not an open door.

Realist1 said:

Peace.

Click to expand...

Peace?! I'm about job security myself. Someone somewhere needs killin'.

Ethereal said:

Nothing outdated about it, friend. Just because we live in modern times doesn't mean you can make warfare "modern". It will always turn people into animals...that's why war is terrible.

Click to expand...

I always get a kick out of people that think the nature of warfare changes. Even our government had spent the years following the Cold War up to and into Iraq insisting that the RMA was boiling with wisdom.

Ethereal said:

Nothing outdated about it, friend. Just because we live in modern times doesn't mean you can make warfare "modern". It will always turn people into animals...that's why war is terrible.

Click to expand...

True enough. If I never get shot at again,,,it'll be too soon.

Korimyr said:

You both seem to be under the assumption that the reason women require extra protection is because they are weak, or somehow less capable of defending themselves. The reason that women require more protection from society is not because they are weaker, but because they are more essential to our survival as a nation. A society that loses a generation of its young men is hurt, but it will muddle through; a society that loses a generation of its young women is walking dead.

Click to expand...

GySgt said:

This is an aspect I didn't touch on. While there are the very real exceptions among the female gender that could stand the toughness of being an 0300, the natural aggression and strength to endure hand-to-hand combat is another matter.

One argument can suggest that hand-to-hand combat is not as prevailent in today's armed conflicts as they once were like in Vietnam, Korea, or the World Wars. But another argument will attest that in 2003, An-Nazariya and in 2004 Fallujah, saw the worst bit of hand-to-hand combat for Marines since Vietnam.

I think people very easily lose sight of what they are asking for or arguing about. This isn't a game. We are in a club unlike all others. "Fairness" is rarely a goal. If it were, then the handicapped, the obese, the weak, and the elderly would all have representation. Either we have the fairest military or we have the strongest military. This is not to suggest that it should be an all male club. On the contrary, there are the few women that could do this. But we are talking about a screening process, not an open door.





Peace?! I'm about job security myself. Someone somewhere needs killin'.

Click to expand...

No, this isn't a "game".
I find it somewhat laughable that Korimyr and others have suggested that females are simply "too important" to risk on the battlefield.
The very idea that my life is worth more than the lives of my children makes me laugh (in a sort of hostile and annoyed way).
The idea that my son- the one currently in basic- is capable of and suited for doing something that is "too dangerous" for me to do. Ha. I repeat: HA.
He's still a minor. I could still go to jail for child abuse for smacking him. Yet a war-zone is okay for him, and too dangerous for me?
(this is hypothetical, by the way; his MOS is a support MOS, not infantry. But it could be infantry if that's what he'd chosen. He is male, and he is physically fit, and he scored high enough on the ASVAB to take his pick of MOSs).

Korimyr is not the final arbiter of whose life is worth more, of who is more "essential" because of what's between their legs.
My sons' lives are not worth less because they are male. I'd rather see 50,000 women gunned down in cold blood than lose one of my babies, or my husband or my dad for that matter. Everybody I care about is male, don't tell me their lives are worth less than mine or any other woman's, just because they're male.

All this is merely excuses anyway.
When women wanted to be firefighters, pilots, police, CEO's, it was the same thing: "Women are too delicate for such harsh and ugly work. It's men's job to shelter them from it, and to protect them from getting their pretty little hands dirty."

Of course, when some women persisted, men's resistance turned uglier and more insulting: "Real women have no desire to do such unfeminine work. Women who demand opportunities to do it are unnatural. They're not real women."

But finally... what? Women got the opportunity to do the same work men did, and the opportunity to prove they could handle it, even excel at it.
Today, all arguments against women working in traditionally male fields sound ridiculously outmoded and pathetically lame.

I can't believe I'm hearing them now, in reference to the US military.

1069 said:

All this is merely excuses anyway.
When women wanted to be firefighters, pilots, police, CEO's, it was the same thing: "Women are too delicate for such harsh and ugly work. It's men's job to shelter them from it, and to protect them from getting their pretty little hands dirty."

Click to expand...

None of these things are even remotely comparable to sustained combat operations. It's important that you understand that.

GySgt said:

This is an aspect I didn't touch on. While there are the very real exceptions among the female gender that could stand the toughness of being an 0300, the natural aggression and strength to endure hand-to-hand combat is another matter.

Click to expand...

No one is suggesting that every woman, or even most women, are capable of being infantry. Nor is every, or even most men. However, those who can should be allowed.

I think people very easily lose sight of what they are asking for or arguing about. This isn't a game. We are in a club unlike all others. "Fairness" is rarely a goal. If it were, then the handicapped, the obese, the weak, and the elderly would all have representation. Either we have the fairest military or we have the strongest military. This is not to suggest that it should be an all male club. On the contrary, there are the few women that could do this. But we are talking about a screening process, not an open door.

Click to expand...

This same argument has been used for the last 100 years at least, to argue against most every change to the military. It was used to explain why women should not serve in the military, why gays should not, why blacks should not. It was used to explain why women should be limited to certain roles. Every single time, it turned out to be false.

Redress said:

No one is suggesting that every woman, or even most women, are capable of being infantry. Nor is every, or even most men. However, those who can should be allowed.



This same argument has been used for the last 100 years at least, to argue against most every change to the military. It was used to explain why women should not serve in the military, why gays should not, why blacks should not. It was used to explain why women should be limited to certain roles. Every single time, it turned out to be false.

Click to expand...

Except this time. Really, they're serious this time. Trust them.

"Should females be allowed too...."

We're still saying that in this day and age?

The contradictory nature of the arguments against women serving in the infantry should make it obvious to all that the arguments aren't valid:

"Women aren't strong enough to serve in the infantry, they're inferior."

"No, women are too essential to serve in the infantry. They're more vital to society than males, we can't risk them!"

When a group of people is simultaneously considered too good and too bad to do something, chances are there's no valid reason not to let them go for it; just a lot of invalid excuses.

1069 said:

The contradictory nature of the arguments against women serving in the infantry should make it obvious to all that the arguments aren't valid:

"Women aren't strong enough to serve in the infantry, they're inferior."

"No, women are too essential to serve in the infantry. They're more vital to society than males, we can't risk them!"

When a group of people is simultaneously considered too good and too bad to do something, chances are there's no valid reason not to let them go for it; just a lot of invalid excuses.

Click to expand...

I've already expressed my reasons. They're valid, and real. Women in Hand to Hand Combat with Men will end up in Body-Bags. If,,,they're Lucky.

That's Reality. If that offends some of you, tough.

Take care all.

Blackdog said:

Actually the biggest thing holding them back is that the majority of females are not physically up to the rigors of front line combat. Some are, but in truth the vast majority are not.

Click to expand...

I agree with Redress. The only thing I have heard over and over again on this forum is that women can't physically carry 80 pounds on their backs for long distances and I don't think you can get around that fact but women have faught in the Israel army in combat positons for years. In fact we had a woman who was recently on this forum explain what she did in combat and proof she was perfectly capable of killing when called on.

During WW2 women were called from their homes and children to work in amunition factories because not enough men to do the job because they were all away fighting the war. As soon as the men came back the women had to go back home to be homemakers again.

Israel is no different when they didn't have enough men to protect thier country then women were called into combat positions.

Right now our guys in the infantry and other front line positions are being used over and over again with a high cost to their families and their mental health. If the men in this country won't step forward them maybe the women will.

1069 said:

Today, all arguments against women working in traditionally male fields sound ridiculously outmoded and pathetically lame.

I can't believe I'm hearing them now, in reference to the US military.

Click to expand...

That's because you are secretly Scary Spice and full of girl power.

There are two sides of this argument that are extreme and completely avoid truths. You are seeing argument that demands to place women on a pedestal and define them as too delicate and important to risk to combat. However, you are arguing that girl power demands that she lace her boots up and charge the beachhead.

The fact is that most women simply could not handle being an American 0300. It is dangerous to them and to the men. Eventually I believe we will see a screening process that will allow the exceptions into the field. But an open door into the infantry for any woman like it is for any man will weaken our infantry, especially in the Marine Corps.

The military is not a corporation downtown. It is not a political party. It is not the Boy Scouts. This is not a case where "tradition" keeps the chicks out.

That's because you are secretly Scary Spice and full of girl power.

There are two sides of this argument that are extreme and completely avoid truths. You are seeing argument that demands to place women on a pedestal and define them as too delicate and important to risk to combat. However, you are arguing that girl power demands that she lace her boots up and charge the beachhead.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're getting at.

The fact is that most women simply could not handle being an American 0300.

Click to expand...

If teenage boys can handle it, so can grown women.

It is dangerous to them and to the men.

Click to expand...

Oh, like it's not dangerous as long as women stay away. Right. :roll:

This is not a case where "tradition" keeps the chicks out.

Click to expand...

Not for much longer anyway, one would devoutly hope.
Not with Obama at the helm.

Redress said:

This same argument has been used for the last 100 years at least, to argue against most every change to the military. It was used to explain why women should not serve in the military, why gays should not, why blacks should not. It was used to explain why women should be limited to certain roles. Every single time, it turned out to be false.

Click to expand...

Allow me to quote what I stated....

"This is not to suggest that it should be an all male club. On the contrary, there are the few women that could do this. But we are talking about a screening process, not an open door."

Girl power and equality for the "little woman that can" has no place in this topic. In 17 years, I have seen 1 woman possibly capable of being an 0300. (And I believe she was a lesbian, but that's not the point). She would define the exception from the group.

But what I find ironic is that no woman in uniform actively wishes to be a grunt. The only ones that seem to complain about it are female politicians, who would never lower themselves to military service in the first place, and civilians.

smartaleck said:

I agree with Redress. The only thing I have heard over and over again on this forum is that women can't physically carry 80 pounds on their backs for long distances and I don't think you can get around that fact but women have faught in the Israel army in combat positons for years. In fact we had a woman who was recently on this forum explain what she did in combat and proof she was perfectly capable of killing when called on.

Click to expand...

Yes she was on patrol in a vheicle, most combat is not done this way.

The ability to kill has little or nothing to do with my argument.

It is the fact roughly 90% of females cannot meet the minimum standards needed for the modern combat arms solider, period.

smartaleck said:

During WW2 women were called from their homes and children to work in amunition factories because not enough men to do the job because they were all away fighting the war. As soon as the men came back the women had to go back home to be homemakers again.

Click to expand...

Fallacy. Has nothing at all to do with my argument or anyone else's for that matter.

smartaleck said:

Israel is no different when they didn't have enough men to protect thier country then women were called into combat positions.

Click to expand...

And they learned there lesson as to this day females are not allowed into infantry, armor or artillery units.

smartaleck said:

Right now our guys in the infantry and other front line positions are being used over and over again with a high cost to their families and their mental health. If the men in this country won't step forward them maybe the women will.

Click to expand...

Females make up 20% of the total combined military. since females outnumber males in this country by about 1.9% according to the 2000 census. It does not look like much "stepping up" is going on now does it?

1069 said:

If teenage boys can handle it, so can grown women.

Click to expand...

You're saying an average grown woman is a physical match for a fit 19 year-old man?

I'm sure some are. But you're saying this as though it's axiomatic.

1069 said:

If teenage boys can handle it, so can grown women.

Click to expand...

Um...no they cannot. Most women can barely negotiate the Marine Corps Obstacle Course....once through. Some not at all. They do not possess the strength for some of it and are instructed to just go around. Some cry. The Marine Corps had great difficulty with combat training when it mixed women in with the men. If they couldn't keep up with the standard that men do, then how are they supposed to be 0300s?

And I'll tell right now...every single man negotiates the Marine Corps Obstacle Course.

1069 said:

Oh, like it's not dangerous as long as women stay away. Right.

Click to expand...

Well, gee 1069. I'm trying to exercise a bit of common sense here with you. Do me the favor and return it. Women that cannot handle the rigors of combat with a true infantry unit on the move would be a hinderance. This would endanger the men who now have to dedicate a certain focus away from the enemy and towards the women. And if that woman had trouble or simply could not negotiate the Marine Corps Obstacle Course in training? I guess as long as female civilians back home get to feel that they are "equal" nothing else matters?

1069 said:

Not for much longer anyway, one would devoutly hope.
Not with Obama at the helm.

Click to expand...

Obama is not stupid. If he does anything it will be focused on what the Marine Corps is already considering........."A screening process for those who stand out from the pack." And keep in mind....being in the infantry and being an 0300 are two different things. If women are allowed to come and go into the infantry like the men, then it will be the males that are burdened because they will have to be the ones repeatedly executing the rigorous demands while the females hold the fort. And in a unit where the numbers are 18, if 6 of those are unable to perform at a man's pace, then it will cause disruption and dissention amongst the ranks. I'll give you an example:

There's a rope in front of us. Somebody has to climb it. The women are automatically counted out because none of them can climb it leaving the dwindled numbers to the samew selct men over and over again. What do you think that will do to the moral of the unit? To the comraderie?

This is not about "women's rights." This is about making the strongest infantry you can.

smartaleck said:

I agree with Redress. The only thing I have heard over and over again on this forum is that women can't physically carry 80 pounds on their backs for long distances and I don't think you can get around that fact but women have faught in the Israel army in combat positons for years. In fact we had a woman who was recently on this forum explain what she did in combat and proof she was perfectly capable of killing when called on.

During WW2 women were called from their homes and children to work in amunition factories because not enough men to do the job because they were all away fighting the war. As soon as the men came back the women had to go back home to be homemakers again.

Israel is no different when they didn't have enough men to protect thier country then women were called into combat positions.

Right now our guys in the infantry and other front line positions are being used over and over again with a high cost to their families and their mental health. If the men in this country won't step forward them maybe the women will.

Click to expand...

You have to recognize that Israel's army is stationary. They are tasked with grand assaults across nations, tasked with hitting beaches, and deployed throughout the world in rigorous environments that are even tough for the men. If our military stayed put and our infantry patrolled our borders and manned positions, then women in our infantry would be a simple thing.

But we do not do this. We hike though the mountains of Afghanistan because our vehicles can not go. We hike up cold mountainous environments to train for altitude and cold weather with these 80 pound packs (for a radio operator, these packs are 120 pounds by the way). In urban terrain we have to climb walls and launch through windows. Only the few women could endure.

There is a reason the Olympics show a seperation between the Men's and Women's events. There is a certain standard for the men. Very few women could compete with them. If this is true for sporting events where a medal is at stake, why on earth do women think that the military should be open and "fair" when lives are the price of substandards?

GySgt said:

Allow me to quote what I stated....

"This is not to suggest that it should be an all male club. On the contrary, there are the few women that could do this. But we are talking about a screening process, not an open door."

Girl power and equality for the "little woman that can" has no place in this topic. In 17 years, I have seen 1 woman possibly capable of being an 0300. (And I believe she was a lesbian, but that's not the point). She would define the exception from the group.

But what I find ironic is that no woman in uniform actively wishes to be a grunt. The only ones that seem to complain about it are female politicians, who would never lower themselves to military service in the first place, and civilians.

Click to expand...

I included that in my quote of you to be sure to not take you out of context, but your initial arguments have been made, time and again, and time and again have proven false.

Speaking of false, this idea that no women in the military would want to be a "grunt" is false as well. I have stated it is probably not common, but to say that none want it is obviously false.

By the way, I am not a politician, and I am a veteran.

Redress said:

I included that in my quote of you to be sure to not take you out of context, but your initial arguments have been made, time and again, and time and again have proven false.

Click to expand...

Please point out what evidence has been put forth to prove him false? I can show you plenty that says the reverse.

Redress said:

Speaking of false, this idea that no women in the military would want to be a "grunt" is false as well. I have stated it is probably not common, but to say that none want it is obviously false.

Click to expand...

That 1/10 of 1% is not worth it to the US military as only 20% overall is female. As I stated before females make up 51.9% of the US population according to the 2000 census. So the numbers speak for themselves.

Redress said:

By the way, I am not a politician, and I am a veteran.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your sevice.

Lets face it. The Navy does not do much in the way of ground combat.