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

Catz Part Deux said:

Your assumption is that women are inherently less physically suited to combat conditions than men. But combat involves more than carrying gear, and those kinds of responsibilities are assigned to those who are best suited for it. Even among males, guys can vary greatly in how much gear they can carry.

Beyond that, the NAVY Seals routinely recruit men of small physical stature, which suggests that women, with their smaller, more dexterous hands which leads to greater skilll in weapons firing, could fill these jobs.

Again, it's only for women who WANT to do the job. And the vast majority DON'T. But, women, for instance, could serve as snipers, and do the job well. The Russian army used women as snipers in WWII.

Here's a corresponding situation - women in SWAT:

L.A. SWAT Unit on Verge of Accepting First Woman : NPR

Women In SWAT, What Does It Take? - cbs13.com

Click to expand...

My assumption is that yes in a general way when you're talking optimum fitness women aren't as strong as men.

My assumption is also that sexual relationships on the battlefield would serve as a distraction. Women getting pregnant serves as an even bigger one. Should the military put much resources into a woman preparing her for combat only to send her home when she's knocked up by someone in her unit. :roll: And then there is definitely the matter of men getting caught up in petty b.s. - which is their fault I'll grant you that - when dealing with sexual tensions.

Men and women are different. Women IMO are not made for battle. These differences are clear when it comes to size, shape, etc. Then there's the sexual manipulations and games. How many men do you know have legs as their avatar? There's just no room for that stuff on the battlefield. It wreaks havoc both on deployment and on the home front and the negatives out weight the positives.

Catz Part Deux said:

Wrong. That's out of several hundred thousand cops who serve, some of them in podunk little two-horse communities. The vast majority of cops work in small towns and rural communities. But, if you look at a per capita basis of injury ONLY in those areas with significant crime problems (and thus, equivalent to combat), the job is just as dangerous as combat.

Click to expand...

nonsense. take even detroit, say last year, compare it both injury and death between soldiers and police officers.

I can tell neither of you knows what you're talking about on this particular subject. YOu're just letting your prejudices do the talking.

Click to expand...

What am I prejudiced about here? we are simply comparing cops to soldiers right now, not even getting into the standards for women and men argument.



Are you a police officer or did you serve? I am curious, because you seem to be infering such. no biggie if you don't want to answer.

Catz Part Deux said:

I said being a cop in an urban area. I'm thinking Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Houston, where the conditions in some areas are akin to combat conditions, and police are routinely fired on during shifts.

Click to expand...

Still not the same as being deployed in a unit with a mission to engage in battle on foreign lands. There are degrees, you know. It's just not the same.

talloulou said:

But strength becomes a factor if you are going to be on combat ready ground missions where you are expected to carry heavy equipment in relentless environments.

Are you saying that strength isn't a factor? And if it is a factor and men are notably stronger after finishing their training then should that be ignored? Should we put a woman on a mission if she's less strong then the men in the group and thus has the potential to becomes a liability? And this furthers the potential to encourage chivalrous acts with men arguing over whose job it is to look out for her? How can we justify that? Add to that the problem that she may also be pregnant and you're essentially sending a woman and child to battle.

Click to expand...

I was in the navy, so have limited personal experiences with combat. But I can speak of women on the flight deck, which is supposedly about as close as you can get to a combat environment outside of a battlefield.

To work on the flight deck, you are going to be wearing long pants, a turtle neck(yes, turtle neck, in 100 degree heat) float coat(inflatable vest), cranial with hearing protection("mickey mouse" ears) and goggles. Add in 1 to 3 tool pouches weighing up to 25 pounds. To minimally do the job, you are going to have to be able to lug around very heavy gear, or push carts, or any of a number of other physically demanding jobs. You are going to move around at a run alot, frequently going from bow to fantail carrying heavy gear at a full run, dodging taxiing aircraft.

All this, women can and do do, and frequently better than their male counterparts. Not every woman can work the flight deck, but many can. If women can handle this emotionally, mentally and physically draining job, I firmly believe they can handle any military job, up to and including front line infantry.

talloulou said:

My assumption is that yes in a general way when you're talking optimum fitness women aren't as strong as men.

Click to expand...

That isn't the issue. The issue is: can women meet the minimum mandatory level that is required of men? If yes, they should be allowed to serve.

My assumption is also that sexual relationships on the battlefield would serve as a distraction.

Click to expand...

Women learn to work it out. I've seen it face to face for the past 15 years. I worked with a unit of 15 guys, and while I'm attractive (those are my legs, fyi), sex wasn't an issue. We were PEERS. It was much more important to me to be one of the guys than to be the sexual plaything of the group. The vast majority of women who go into these kinds of roles are going to "get it." Those who don't, there are plenty of rules to deal with sexual misconduct and other forms of interpersonal issues.

Women getting pregnant serves as an even bigger one. Should the military put much resources into a woman preparing her for combat only to send her home when she's knocked up by someone in her unit. :roll: And then there is definitely the matter of men getting caught up in petty b.s. - which is their fault I'll grant you that - when dealing with sexual tensions.

Click to expand...

People, male and female, find ways to leave combat. Pregnancy is no different than any other self-imposed disability and should not be treated differently. Women who get pregnant while TDY to a foreign combat zone should receive a dishonorable discharge. That would quickly resolve that issue.

Women IMO are not made for battle. These differences are clear when it comes to size, shape, etc.

Click to expand...

Women are able to fulfill many combat roles, and seem to manage just fine as snipers, police officers, and other roles. But you aren't really interested in hearing a different opinion, are you, Talloulou. You just want to be reaffirmed in your basic biases.

Then there's the sexual manipulations and games. How many men do you know have legs as their avatar? There's just no room for that stuff on the battlefield. It wreaks havoc both on deployment and on the home front and the negatives out weight the positives.

Click to expand...

I wore those legs every day working in a metro gang unit, and the guys I worked with seemed to be capable of keeping their eyes in their heads and functioning. I'm sure it was HARD for them, but hey, they were big boys, and not complete neanderthals. They even managed to take me seriously, in spite of the fact that I have breasts.

Similarly, the guys I worked with were all hardbodies who frequently stripped down after serving high hazard warrants to their spandex in front of me all the time. I managed to overcome my base desires and still treat them like professionals. I miss the eye candy these days, but I would never have had sex with one of my guys in my unit.

It was like a family. That's what some of y'all don't understand. When you do a dangerous job day in and day out with other people, you don't see them as sex objects. You see them as family. Having sex with them would be UGH...like kissing your brother.

talloulou said:

Still not the same as being deployed in a unit with a mission to engage in battle on foreign lands. There are degrees, you know. It's just not the same.

Click to expand...

It's similar enough to warrant allowing women to TRY. And you know, this same argument was made to keep women out of roles as police, firefighters, and medics. Somehow, women have managed to do these jobs, with distinction, in spite of having the handicap of a functioning uterus.

talloulou said:

My assumption is that yes in a general way when you're talking optimum fitness women aren't as strong as men.

My assumption is also that sexual relationships on the battlefield would serve as a distraction. Women getting pregnant serves as an even bigger one. Should the military put much resources into a woman preparing her for combat only to send her home when she's knocked up by someone in her unit. :roll: And then there is definitely the matter of men getting caught up in petty b.s. - which is their fault I'll grant you that - when dealing with sexual tensions.

Men and women are different. Women IMO are not made for battle. These differences are clear when it comes to size, shape, etc. Then there's the sexual manipulations and games. How many men do you know have legs as their avatar? There's just no room for that stuff on the battlefield. It wreaks havoc both on deployment and on the home front and the negatives out weight the positives.

Click to expand...

I think you have a mistaken idea of what people are thinking about in combat. Sex would be a priority somewhat below having clean dry socks for tomorrow. Way way below things like staying alive, and getting some sleep.

Redress said:

I think you have a mistaken idea of what people are thinking about in combat. Sex would be a priority somewhat below having clean dry socks for tomorrow. Way way below things like staying alive, and getting some sleep.

Click to expand...

It's kind of like being shot at (and I have been)...the last thing you're thinking about is how hot the guy in the car with you is...You just want to go home safe and sound from your shift.

Redress said:

I think you have a mistaken idea of what people are thinking about in combat. Sex would be a priority somewhat below having clean dry socks for tomorrow. Way way below things like staying alive, and getting some sleep.

Click to expand...

I think it would happen and I think being engaged in battle while worrying about your sex partner would be disastrous for the unit as a whole. But I get that I'm old fashion. Luckily for now the military agrees with me.

Catz Part Deux said:

But you aren't really interested in hearing a different opinion, are you, Talloulou. You just want to be reaffirmed in your basic biases.

Click to expand...

I think that's a perspective we share.

By the way, a lot of times, the WIVES of police officers are the ones who really resent women doing the job...just like the wives of military guys don't want to see women in combat.

They assume that we are all like them.

The last thing I wanted a guy thinking about, on the job, was my vagina.

Men are huge gossips...if one knows something, they all do. They're like a bunch of sorority girls. So, if you sleep with a guy on the force, EVERY OTHER GUY ON THE FORCE is going to know about it within an hour. Any woman who gets that far is generally not going to compromise her professional dignity like that.

At least, none of the women I've worked with ever did...or wanted to.

talloulou said:

I think it would happen and I think being engaged in battle while worrying about your sex partner would be disastrous for the unit as a whole. But I get that I'm old fashion. Luckily for now the military agrees with me.

Click to expand...

You do not need women on the battlefield for sex and relationships to affect people. I remember what people are like when they get the dreaded "letter from home". I guess now it is more likely a phone call...wish we had had cell phones when I served.

Catz Part Deux said:

Similarly, the guys I worked with were all hardbodies who frequently stripped down after serving high hazard warrants to their spandex in front of me all the time. I managed to overcome my base desires and still treat them like professionals. I miss the eye candy these days, but I would never have had sex with one of my guys in my unit.

It was like a family. That's what some of y'all don't understand. When you do a dangerous job day in and day out with other people, you don't see them as sex objects. You see them as family. Having sex with them would be UGH...like kissing your brother.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. It happens. If you're a cop they can easily separate you from your love interest. If you're deployed out in the desert it gets a bit harder to keep an eye on how it's affecting your work, separating the involved parties, and extracting pregnant women from the field.

talloulou said:

I think that's a perspective we share.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I used to believe that women couldn't serve these roles until I started working with female cops and gang members. I've known plenty of women who could perform a combat role without problems.

talloulou said:

Doesn't matter. It happens. If you're a cop they can easily separate you from your love interest. If you're deployed out in the desert it gets a bit harder to keep an eye on how it's affecting your work, separating the involved parties, and extracting pregnant women from the field.

Click to expand...

It's not different. Police departments are structured on military protocols. If you have a love interest in your unit, and it violates protocols, they ALREADY KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE YOU in the military.

You think this is hard, like rocket science. It's not.

OMG! Boys and Girls shooting at people together! Hellfire and damnation raining down from above! Dogs and cats fornicating!!! It's armageddon!

Catz Part Deux said:

It's not different. Police departments are structured on military protocols. If you have a love interest in your unit, and it violates protocols, they ALREADY KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE YOU in the military.

You think this is hard, like rocket science. It's not.

OMG! Boys and Girls shooting at people together! Hellfire and damnation raining down from above! Dogs and cats fornicating!!! It's armageddon!

Click to expand...

I think it is much harder to deal with protocol and issues that arise on the battlefield in foreign lands vs a police unit even in LA.

After serving in an infantry unit i voted NO [probably for no better reason than i,m a bit old fashioned in that respect]. But i agree with them having further intensive training.
I feel women already participate in a positive way.

Paul

talloulou said:

I think it is much harder to deal with protocol and issues that arise on the battlefield in foreign lands vs a police unit even in LA.

Click to expand...

The military is already dealing with protocols for women serving in combat areas. I don't think that it is inconceivable that they'd work it out.

Catz Part Deux said:

It's not different. Police departments are structured on military protocols. If you have a love interest in your unit, and it violates protocols, they ALREADY KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE YOU in the military.

You think this is hard, like rocket science. It's not.

OMG! Boys and Girls shooting at people together! Hellfire and damnation raining down from above! Dogs and cats fornicating!!! It's armageddon!

Click to expand...

The real issues are that the military isn't cop-land.

Cops go home every night, soldiers spend days weeks months in the field.

That's an important difference right there.

The safety of the nation isn't compromised when they reduced the physical standards for females, only the safety of the individual citizen and the female cop's partner. In the army, the squad lugging around the fifty-cal is at a disadvantage if there's too many women in it, because that kind of crap gets heavy, and we all know that yes, they reduced the physical requirements for women because women aren't as strong as men, and damn it, it's sexist to not have enough women in the army.

Catz Part Deux said:

It's similar enough to warrant allowing women to TRY.

Click to expand...

No. The safety of the nation isn't something that it's wise to experiment with.

Catz Part Deux said:

And you know, this same argument was made to keep women out of roles as police, firefighters, and medics.

Click to expand...

Don't know about medics, but it's a fact that the physical requirements for police and firemen were compromised (ie, reduced) to enable more females to be on the force. Ergo, the argument was correct.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Don't know about medics, but it's a fact that the physical requirements for police and firemen were compromised (ie, reduced) to enable more females to be on the force. Ergo, the argument was correct.

Click to expand...

So, since your argument seems to be based on physical ability, is it safe to assume that if both men and women had to achieve the same standard(the ones currently required for men in the infantry), you would support women in combat?

Redress said:

If I am not missing anything, it is 102 British women pregnant out of 5600 women deployed, or 1.8 %. I don't consider that a significant problem.

Click to expand...

How many men got pregnant in that time in those units?

Catz Part Deux said:

Then set fitness standards that are commensurate with the physical demands of the job, not based on possession of a penis.

Click to expand...

Not as many women can meet those standards, so those standards are sexist. Didn't you know this? Haven't you paid any attention to the nonsense that's happening throughout American society as the myth of female "equality" steamrolls over all challenges, no matter how much sense they make?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

How many men got pregnant in that time in those units?

Click to expand...

That would be relevant how?

Redress said:

Best post in the thread so far. No so much for content, but for humor. I found the story hilarious.

Click to expand...

Nothing funny about it. It's a simple illustration of the typical sexual harassment BS that pervades the military.

When I was at recruit training in Great Lakes, one of the bitch petty officer cooks started writing recruits up for using the time honored phrase "make a hole" when trying to move carts of food or dishes or whatever through the lines of men waiting to be fed.

Suddenly, because this ugly over-sensitive broad got a bug up her ass, it became a crime to use that phrase, and orders came out to use some other phrase, I forget what, to avoid insulting the dried up hag.

The bitches intrude on the men's culture, then insist the men have to change their ways because they find the work environment "uncomfortable". Well, the reality is that no one asked them in, they don't have to be in that field if they really don't like it, and there's no valid reason anyone should change to make them comfy. What the women do when they intrude is plain wrong, and their as bad and offensive as the Mexicans who demand we "Dial 1 For English".