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

Redress said:

Logic is probably not your strong suit. Women serve on most if not all combat ships currently. Women have been serving on noncombat ships for quite some time, and doing very well.

Click to expand...

The only exception would be the subs, but I suspect they just don't want to dilute their seamen.

Catz Part Deux said:

Well, that explains your mad skillz wit da wimmenz.

My boyfriend has done 14 years in the Navy, 7 of them as a nuke. Somehow, thankfully, he avoided turning into a complete misogynist. Maybe it was that he wasn't rejected by both men AND women.

Click to expand...

Remind me not to piss you off.

Redress said:

Remind me not to piss you off.

Click to expand...

I can just see Scarecrow recording me in his book o' bitches who done did him wrong.

Redress said:

Logic is probably not your strong suit. Women serve on most if not all combat ships currently. Women have been serving on noncombat ships for quite some time, and doing very well.

Women have served in combat zones since I think at least Korea in some capacities. Just because women where not on the sub with you does not invalidate what you quoted.

Click to expand...

Sure it does.

Women haven't served in combat roles. Frankly, I've been in the Navy, and naval battles aren't similar to infantry battles at all. If a woman can stand her watch during drills, she's not any more likely to flub it than a man. I mean, it wasn't a woman that ran the USS La Jolla into the USS Permit nor did a woman run the USS San Francisco into the mountain.

This thread is about "specialize in infantry". My examples from my own experience illustrate one thing....the legal and political climate of this nation give the female unfair unearned advantage in any dispute or conflict, not to mention the extra advantage the female has in currying favorable evals and promotions.

Also, I've stressed the fact that it's been necessary to lower physical qualification standards to staff the various services, and the police, and the fire departments, with their "proper" quota of women. Do think what that entails for national and civillian security issues.

Catz Part Deux said:

I can just see Scarecrow recording me in his book o' bitches who done did him wrong.

Click to expand...

You feel like confessing or sumpthin'? Have you done something wrong along the lines of what I've been describing and taken unfair advantage of your vagina to harm a fellow officer or his career or promoted your own career?

I wanna have Scarecrow's baby. :rofl

Go Navy!

Catz Part Deux said:

The only exception would be the subs, but I suspect they just don't want to dilute their seamen.

Click to expand...

(Old joke, that....:roll

Actually the issue is more prosaic.

Submariners are packed in like sardines....of the 110 enlisted on a Los Angeles class submarine, a dozen are senior enlisted, the chiefs, with their own seperate bunkroom and head and shower, in what's called "The Goat Locker". There's bunk space for 21 men on the lower deck, with a single head and shower across the passageway adjacent to the Auxilliary Machinery Room, and of the rest of the enlisted, a small handful might be sleeping with the torpedos (rare) and the rest are in the two Middle Level bunkrooms (this is about 70-80 men) sharing a common head with 1 urinal, three toilets, two showers, and three sinks.

There just isn't room to segregate the babes out.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

This thread is about "specialize in infantry". My examples from my own experience illustrate one thing....the legal and political climate of this nation give the female unfair unearned advantage in any dispute or conflict, not to mention the extra advantage the female has in currying favorable evals and promotions.

Click to expand...

This argument you've presented us with is known as a red herring. None of your examples involved combat. Furthermore, you are inappropriately generalizing from an insufficient number of examples. Sorry that your interactions with women seem generally to have a high suck value, but that doesn't warrant setting policy based upon you.

Also, I've stressed the fact that it's been necessary to lower physical qualification standards to staff the various services, and the police, and the fire departments, with their "proper" quota of women. Do think what that entails for national and civillian security issues.

Click to expand...

Departments aren't required to hire a QUOTA of officers who are female. That's a common misunderstanding of EEO requirements. Instead, they are required to make sufficient EFFORTS to hire women and minorities, and this is gauged on recruitment: distributing job descriptions & hiring notices, etc.

While it is true that there are differing physical standards in the military between men and women, it is also true that there are differing physical standards in the military between men and men, and between different branches of the military service. The physical requirements are different between the Navy and the army, for instance. There are different standards for men and older men, as well as different standards for enlisted men, NCOs and officers.

A GAO study of this issue found that:

"There is a widespread perception that the existence of lower physical fitness standards for women amounts to a "double standard." However, the physical fitness program is actually intended only to maintain the general fitness and health of military members and fitness testing is not aimed at assessing the ability to perform specific missions or military jobs. Consequently, DOD officials and experts agree that it is appropriate to adjust the standards for physiological differences among service members by age and gender." http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96153.pdf

Click to expand...

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Submariners are packed in like sardines....of the 110 enlisted on a Los Angeles class submarine, a dozen are senior enlisted, the chiefs, with their own seperate bunkroom and head and shower, in what's called "The Goat Locker". There's bunk space for 21 men on the lower deck, with a single head and shower across the passageway adjacent to the Auxilliary Machinery Room, and of the rest of the enlisted, a small handful might be sleeping with the torpedos (rare) and the rest are in the two Middle Level bunkrooms (this is about 70-80 men) sharing a common head with 1 urinal, three toilets, two showers, and three sinks.

There just isn't room to segregate the babes out.

Click to expand...

I get that. My bro served on the Los Angeles (10 years - he decommissioned it in Pearl Harbor). My boyfriend was on the Norfolk for 7.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Sure it does.

Women haven't served in combat roles. Frankly, I've been in the Navy, and naval battles aren't similar to infantry battles at all. If a woman can stand her watch during drills, she's not any more likely to flub it than a man. I mean, it wasn't a woman that ran the USS La Jolla into the USS Permit nor did a woman run the USS San Francisco into the mountain.

This thread is about "specialize in infantry". My examples from my own experience illustrate one thing....the legal and political climate of this nation give the female unfair unearned advantage in any dispute or conflict, not to mention the extra advantage the female has in currying favorable evals and promotions.

Also, I've stressed the fact that it's been necessary to lower physical qualification standards to staff the various services, and the police, and the fire departments, with their "proper" quota of women. Do think what that entails for national and civillian security issues.

Click to expand...

So, maybe I missed it. What does women not serving in subs with you, that you brought up, have to do with women serving beside men in the service? Are you somehow trying to deny that women have served with men in some capacities since at least Korea? or are you making some claim that just is not clear?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

You feel like confessing or sumpthin'? Have you done something wrong along the lines of what I've been describing and taken unfair advantage of your vagina to harm a fellow officer or his career or promoted your own career?

Click to expand...

Nope. Just been a straight up bad ass all my days. If I had a problem with one of my guys, I talked TO HIM.

One year, the sergeant in my unit copied his naked ass on a christmas card and left it on my desk. The guys in the unit sat around like school girls waiting for Christmas morning. I saw it when I came in, and put it down, moving on to different work. That wasn't the reaction he wanted, so he came over to my desk, and said, "Are you going to sue me for sexual harassment?"

I said, "No, Arb. I'm going to sue you for harassment, your ass is too damn ugly to be sexual."

To me, the only way to deal with these kinds of situations is with humor.

There is no doubt that women have performed courageously and admirably in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The disappearance of the "front line" has made the battlefield equally dangerous for any type of unit, and thus, females in those "non-combat" units.

First, I don't like the analogy that some have made of pilots (in comparison to Infantry), because I don't think you can really compare the two. I believe a woman should be allowed to pilot any aircraft, because at the end of the day, she doesn't lay her head down with 100 grunts.

To me, this debate is not about ability. Many women have the capability of doing anything a man can do if not out-do. The real issue is about women living with an infantry company in combat on a day to day basis. I will use my own experiences to make this judgment.

In 2007, I was in an infantry company in Iraq, living on a remote outpost (not a FOB). For the first 5 months of combat, we had no females at our outpost. I would regard the company as one of the more disciplined I've served in. After five months, we required additional support to move our troops out to missions. 3 five-ton trucks with female drivers were attached to us. Even though we afforded them their own living space (which wasnt mandatory), problems began almost immediately. All three females started to linger around the platoon bays nightly. They began relationships with NCOs, subverting the chain of command, and were engaged in sexual activity with other lower enlisted Soldiers, as well. This caused more than one fist fight. Sex was happening in the outhouses, in the platoon bays and in the vehicles. Adultery was committed on a number of occasions. The staunch discipline we enjoyed prior to their arrival was starting to erode. My commander chose to have them sent back to their support units and "swapped" for male truck drivers. All detrimental effects reversed immediately. We found out later that one of the females became pregnant, and was sent home.

-Later, living on another remote outpost in Iraq during 08-09, the unit i was under had a combat support company attached to it. There were about ten females in this company. We weren't there for a month and the drama began. One female became pregnant. Another committed adultery. Fights between male soldiers erupted over girlfriends. Females were hopping on convoys to other FOBs to have "conjugal visits" with their boyfriends in other units. Then another female became pregnant. Then a female NCO began a relationship with a soldier that worked for her. Eventually, there were sexual assault accusations, he said, she said. And on, and on, and on. It was a mess.

Now this may sound like I am blaming females, I am not. I am blaming the fact that they were living with a predominantly male unit many times on FOB's. There would have been no issues if they weren't there. Of course, there are many answers to this. Some could blame male soldiers for lack of discipline. I know I do. Others would say that both males and females are to blame. Others would blame the chain of command for turning a blind eye and not wanting to do anything about the issues. But one must understand how difficult it is for a male commander to do the finger pointing.

The best environment for female soldiers is to be around other female soldiers. For one, they will have female leadership that can address the issues specifically. If combat MOSs and AFSC's were opened up to females, their numbers in the infantry battalions and combat units would be low, causing situations similar to the ones that I have outlined.

I have served in units that were all male, and others that were mixed. Just based off what I've seen, a female presence in an all-male infantry unit will cause a disruption in discipline, and thus, cause a disruption to combat operations. This is not a matter of females being qualified or unfit to serve; this is a matter of human nature.

As for females in SOF, I would vehemently disagree. The physical requirements are so difficult than in all likelihood, most women would not be able to make it through SOF selection. If and when they did, it would be likely that there would only be a few females in the SOF force and the same problems I've outlined above would occur. Not to mention, the primary mission of SOF is to work with foreign armies and militias. In most cultures that we fight wars in, a female wouldn't be considered a legitimate counterpart by HNF or militia leadership. This is why the army doesn't allow females to be advisors for MiTT teams in Iraq or Afghanistan. A good call, in my opinion.

I re-iterate, this isn't about the ability of females or the fact that they just cant cut it in combat-i know they can. This is about the potential disruption that they will cause in infantry and other all-male units. They (females) may not intend for these disruptions, but it will happen. I've seen it to many times to be naive.

Redress said:

So, maybe I missed it. What does women not serving in subs with you, that you brought up, have to do with women serving beside men in the service? Are you somehow trying to deny that women have served with men in some capacities since at least Korea? or are you making some claim that just is not clear?

Click to expand...

Some submariners seem to just have a strong antipathy to sharing their seamen.

God, that is just the gift that never stops giving.

Benzin388 said:

Even though we afforded them their own living space (which wasnt mandatory), problems began almost immediately. All three females started to linger around the platoon bays nightly. They began relationships with NCOs, subverting the chain of command, and were engaged in sexual activity with other lower enlisted Soldiers, as well. This caused more than one fist fight. Sex was happening in the outhouses, in the platoon bays and in the vehicles.

Click to expand...

Let me just note that the kind of women who might try for infantry positions, including having to complete tough physical training, would be very different career-wise, from the kind who want to drive trucks for a living.

Just my perception.

Benzin388 said:

In 2007, I was in an infantry company in Iraq, living on a remote outpost (not a FOB). For the first 5 months of combat, we had no females at our outpost. I would regard the company as one of the more disciplined I've served in. After five months, we required additional support to move our troops out to missions. 3 five-ton trucks with female drivers were attached to us. Even though we afforded them their own living space (which wasnt mandatory), problems began almost immediately. All three females started to linger around the platoon bays nightly. They began relationships with NCOs, subverting the chain of command, and were engaged in sexual activity with other lower enlisted Soldiers, as well. This caused more than one fist fight. Sex was happening in the outhouses, in the platoon bays and in the vehicles. Adultery was committed on a number of occasions. The staunch discipline we enjoyed prior to their arrival was starting to erode. My commander chose to have them sent back to their support units and "swapped" for male truck drivers. All detrimental effects reversed immediately. We found out later that one of the females became pregnant, and was sent home.

Click to expand...

First, thank you for your service. We do not say that nearly enough.

Now that the nice part is over, I want to comment on what I quoted above. This is exactly why NJP was invented. A CO who takes the problem seriously, and along with senior NCO's who do not turn a blind eye, and these problems do go away. Find some one in the service in the 60's, especially the navy. Ask them what things where like between black and white sailors. It was ugly. What it took was a basic zero tolerance rule, and any one who caused problems could expect 1 warning that only cost him alot of money and extra duty. Second time gone. It took time, but now issues between white and black sailors are very rare.

Catz,


A couple of questions.


In your dept, are the physical requirments the same for men and women?


If they are differnt, do you think that is fair/right/safe?



I also see you really haven't addressed my position that you are incorrect in your assumption that, being a police officer is as dangerous or life threatening as being in combat.


thanks.,

I say no. I served in an infantry unit during my active duty time. Given the nature of the situations, the long deployments, and the stress...women would simply complicate the issue. Relationships would develop, morale would be adversely affected, and the unit's ability to focus on it's mission would be compromised severely at the troop level.

I do think there are some women out there who can keep up with the males in regard to humping (no not that kind of humping) a ruck and fighting. I've seen some very small, very timid males get through infantry training and actually go on to become good soldiers. So don't think because a woman is physically smaller in stature that this disqualifies her for making a good combat specialist.

My point of view is only along the lines of integrating females into male dominated infantry units. I would make the same case for armor and artillery.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Catz,
A couple of questions.
In your dept, are the physical requirments the same for men and women?
If they are differnt, do you think that is fair/right/safe?

Click to expand...

I'm not a cop. Let me spell that out first. Secondly, i don't believe they are the same, but they are, like in the military, requirements for basic fitness, not necessarily requirements to be able to perform the duty.

And yes, I believe that is fair, given the above. I've never worked with a woman on the streets who wasn't in equal or better physical condition to her male peers. I've worked with more than a few men who've had a few too many doughnuts.

I also see you really haven't addressed my position that you are incorrect in your assumption that, being a police officer is as dangerous or life threatening as being in combat.

Click to expand...

I see that you haven't addressed my response that I was specifically discussing law enforcement in urban, high crime areas, where officers are likely to be fired upon during any shift.

Lerxst said:

I say no. I served in an infantry unit during my active duty time. Given the nature of the situations, the long deployments, and the stress...women would simply complicate the issue. Relationships would develop, morale would be adversely affected, and the unit's ability to focus on it's mission would be compromised severely at the troop level.
.

Click to expand...

YOu realize that this same argument was made 50 years ago about racially integrated units.

Catz Part Deux said:

I'm not a cop. Let me spell that out first. Secondly, i don't believe they are the same, but they are, like in the military, requirements for basic fitness, not necessarily requirements to be able to perform the duty.

Click to expand...

I am confused. YOu sound like you were saying "my dept" and that you were a cop. My bad. Perhaps you can clarify? if not, no biggie. I am just trying to see where you base your information on.

And yes, I believe that is fair, given the above. I've never worked with a woman on the streets who wasn't in equal or better physical condition to her male peers. I've worked with more than a few men who've had a few too many doughnuts.

Click to expand...

I think there should be one set of qualification standards, and that they need to requal yearly. Cops who are out of shape or who can not say for example like they do in many FD's lift a "185 lb" dummy, and drag it to "safety" should not be accepted or be suspended if already on the force. male/female is irrellevant here.


If you can't qual at that level, you have no business being in the law enforcement game, or firefighting for sure.


I have no problem with women cops who can meet these standards. I have a huge problem with dumbing down standards to get unqualified personel into the carreer.

I see that you haven't addressed my response that I was specifically discussing law enforcement in urban, high crime areas, where officers are likely to be fired upon during any shift.

Click to expand...

Sure I have, Let me address it again. In combat you have multiple beligerants who's motivation is to kill you. Even in Camden NJ, the "beligeants" do not want to shoot you, there is rarely more than one, and it happens infrequently with his motivation is to get away from johnny law.


NOTHING at all like combat.


Also to add, Officers go home at the end of thier shift to thier families who live in homes which are not subject to attack, etc. .,

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

I am confused. YOu sound like you were saying "my dept" and that you were a cop. My bad. Perhaps you can clarify? if not, no biggie. I am just trying to see where you base your information on.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should try reading the thread so I don't have to retype.

I think there should be one set of qualification standards, and that they need to requal yearly. Cops who are out of shape or who can not say for example like they do in many FD's lift a "185 lb" dummy, and drag it to "safety" should not be accepted or be suspended if already on the force. male/female is irrellevant here.

Click to expand...

Well, that's an opinion.

If you can't qual at that level, you have no business being in the law enforcement game, or firefighting for sure. I have no problem with women cops who can meet these standards. I have a huge problem with dumbing down standards to get unqualified personel into the carreer.

Click to expand...

It has not been my experience that allowing women as cops has "dumbed down" the field. In my experience, female officers bring different strengths to the job than males do, and they tend to balance each other out.

Sure I have, Let me address it again. In combat you have multiple beligerants who's motivation is to kill you. Even in Camden NJ, the "beligeants" do not want to shoot you, there is rarely more than one, and it happens infrequently with his motivation is to get away from johnny law.

Click to expand...

Have you actually been in combat? Or, shot at?

Also to add, Officers go home at the end of thier shift to thier families who live in homes which are not subject to attack, etc. .,

Click to expand...

I am with you on the going home to families, but women already seem to do okay on extended TDY. At least as well as men do. So, that seems moot to me. We're talking about performance of job duties.

So along this whole line of "let's integrate females into male only units", how do the supporters of this feel about integrating males and females in the barracks, whether it be a squad bay situation like in boot camp, or a situation where they would share a barracks room with someone of the opposite sex?

Catz Part Deux said:

YOu realize that this same argument was made 50 years ago about racially integrated units.

Click to expand...

Not entirely. Unless a bunch of the infantry soldiers were in fact gay and liked dark meat.

Catz Part Deux said:

Maybe you should try reading the thread so I don't have to retype.

Click to expand...

:lol: how about a post number, I just reviewed all your posts and am no less confused as to where you are coming from.

Well, that's an opinion.

Click to expand...

You are in a car crash, and a police officer happens upon you as the car bursts into flames, Would you prefer someone who can't lift 150lbs out of a car or would you prefer one who met the standards that are applied to males.

(I got this weight number from the USAF firemans requirements and is used to demonstrate an example.)

[


It has not been my experience that allowing women as cops has "dumbed down" the field. In my experience, female officers bring different strengths to the job than males do, and they tend to balance each other out.

Click to expand...

Not what I said. Women cops who meet the same physical standards as men I have no problem with,

Male female, who can't pass the same standards test, or in my case, when I applied to the NYPD and scored 98% back when dinkins was mayor, was told that because I was a white male, I was not qualified, women, minorities only had to score 68%. That was the day I decided the last place i wanted to be was on the NYPD... :lol: So excuse my "dumbing down" comment to personal experience.

Have you actually been in combat? Or, shot at?

Click to expand...

Yes. have you?

I am with you on the going home to families, but women already seem to do okay on extended TDY. At least as well as men do. So, that seems moot to me. We're talking about performance of job duties.

Click to expand...

Extended TDY is not the same as being in combat. Going to the panhandle of FL, to do some training, is not the same as marching to bagdhad.... :lol:

Lerxst said:

Not entirely. Unless a bunch of the infantry soldiers were in fact gay and liked dark meat.

Click to expand...

:lol: I left this alone cause she addressed you, but was thinking the exact same thing brother. :lol: