JeepForum.com

JeepForum.com (http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/)
-   Military Jeepers (http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f304/)
-   -   Calling all grunts....This is going to piss some people off! (http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f304/calling-all-grunts-going-piss-some-people-off-1358550/)

Maximus856 04-18-2012 09:50 PM

Calling all grunts....This is going to piss some people off!
 
Ahh, my EAS couldn't of come at a better time. I respect women in the military, but to put them in the Infantry MOS is just plain stupid. There are just too many factors that come into play here. I think the brass REALLY needs to ask a few questions. 1) How in any way will adding females to combat MOS's enhance the capabilities of the warfighters? 2) Will having females be a force multiplier? 3) Do the positives of adding them to the rank outweigh the negatives?

I get why we have female engagement teams. I agree with them. I also think their training is neccesary. I do not know the training outline for them, but it seems to of worked so far for its intended purpose.

Have at it!

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/mobi...amos-041812%2F

PS. I know the typical comments of "keep them in the kitchen" etc. are all fun and what not, but try to keep this legit. I want to hear from both sides if possible.

5-90 04-19-2012 01:37 AM

Some of the most combat-effective VC were women. Women can, in general, tolerate more discomfort, tolerate more pain, can have more endurance, can tolerate more trauma, can tolerate more blood loss, can be more patient, and can actually be more ruthless.

There would be some significant psychological adjustment on the part of the men, although fielding all-female small units may help with that adjustment process.

I do not, however, believe in the idea of "gender norming" or allowing relaxed physical fitness standard for women - PFTs should be unisex. PFTs should be unisex for PD and FD personnel as well - and don't we already have female cops and firefighters?

I see no reason why a fighting force can't be co-ed. It's pretty much the last step toward integration in the Armed Forces - which was already about the most colour-blind place I've ever seen (everyone in the Army is green, everyone in the Air Force is blue, ...)

There are women I'd trust in a fight long before plenty of men, when you come down to it...

WindsorRenegade 04-19-2012 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5-90 (Post 13434741)
Some of the most combat-effective VC were women. Women can, in general, tolerate more discomfort, tolerate more pain, can have more endurance, can tolerate more trauma, can tolerate more blood loss, can be more patient, and can actually be more ruthless.

There would be some significant psychological adjustment on the part of the men, although fielding all-female small units may help with that adjustment process.

I do not, however, believe in the idea of "gender norming" or allowing relaxed physical fitness standard for women - PFTs should be unisex. PFTs should be unisex for PD and FD personnel as well - and don't we already have female cops and firefighters?

I see no reason why a fighting force can't be co-ed. It's pretty much the last step toward integration in the Armed Forces - which was already about the most colour-blind place I've ever seen (everyone in the Army is green, everyone in the Air Force is blue, ...)

There are women I'd trust in a fight long before plenty of men, when you come down to it...


Great post, 5-90. The first paragraph is especially true. Women are some resilient creatures.

Maximus856 04-19-2012 04:56 AM

I just had a super long post written up and it's not showing.

I dont want to discredit either of you, as I'm not trying to turn this into grunts/support MOS's. But, I am curious as to your jobs in the military.

One of my big points in my long lost post was almost every infantryman I've talked to (including my platoon) does NOT want them in the ranks. Not because they are sexist but for very valid reasons. 1) What happens when a female leader gets pregnant right before a deployment? Do we just change up SOPs like that? 2)Sexual tension. Majority of infantry is comprised of 18-25 year olds. We all know that there is one thing for sure at that age. Hell, even the older senior guys were franternizing and taking time for extracurricular activities when I was in my unit (0311 in an Intel unit). 3)Can they actually perform the same. Combat is not like the PFT or CFT where you find someone of your own size and weight to carry. I'd say fully loaded, there have been maybe 5 female Marines that I met that would be capable of carrying me out of the line of fire. That brings me to my next point. Yes, capable females DO exist. But, when you pit the average male infantryman vs. the average female Marine, what will be the outcome? You may take the best female and she may outperform the average guy, but how does she stand up to the best infantryman?

Those where some of the big factors. The biggest being that the guys who ARE the combat MOS's do not want them there. Again, not a sexist thing but I think some instances should be a bit more acceptable to listen to the actual warfighters.

nwiTJdave 04-19-2012 07:03 AM

Jessica Lynch ring a bell?

Maximus856 04-19-2012 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwiTJdave (Post 13435242)
Jessica Lynch ring a bell?

I didnt want to be the first to say it...

I was thinking about it more today. If women are so capable of such physical pain and exertion, then why are they not leading some of the sports that require such? Ie. Motocross, mixed martial arts, boxing, etc. etc. Saying they arent given the oppurtunity is nothing short of just another excuse. That thought led me to my next conclusion. If people are so willing to accept women in combat arms, why are they not willing to accept a woman getting hit by a man? If all things are to be equal in a battlefield as far as being politically correct, then why is it wrong for a man to hit a woman? People tend to think that a man will think no differently if he sees a woman injured in combat over another man. But why would that same man *most likely* cheer on two guys fighting, vs. stepping in if a woman were to be getting hit by a man? Again, I am speeking of your average 20-24 year old infantryman. I used that age in this reference, because that is the average age of the US forces killed today. The media that pushes for equal opportunity amongst the ranks is the same media that will toss out names of a squad when "women and children" were killed before any sort of military proceedings occur.

Going off that last statistic I used, people say "woman face combat every day" and use that as a reason to allow them into combat arms. Then why is it that of the 6,397 dead in these two wars, only 139 women have died? I'm no mathematician, but that is only 2%. 2% doesnt even begin to TOUCH on the percentage that was considered "acceptable losses" in the beginning of the war.

AmbuGrl 04-19-2012 03:44 PM

1. because women arent interested in the things that you listed as much as men are, so there are fewer doing them. Seriously, boxing - a couple of good women fighters.

How is it an excuse that we arent given the opportunity? Show me where we were given it and failed.

Dont confuse a physical altercation/domestic abuse with combat and the war.

'ONLY 2%' (139 ) of the 6,740 that died were women. Roughly 10% of deployed troops were women. Think about where your math is coming from.

There is NO ONLY when it comes to death and the war. Period

Also I do not recommend that you ever classify Ms Lynch in the same breath as the rest of us female service members.

tanksoldier 04-19-2012 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwiTJdave (Post 13435242)
Jessica Lynch ring a bell?

I served with plenty of male Soldiers who were just as useless. She just ended up on the news.

The FACT is that a useless male can sign up for infantry and will be given his chance to succeed or fail... but a capable female will not be given the chance.

I can't speak for infantry directly, but I knew several female MPs who I wouldn't have minded having as tankers... and more than a few male tankers who I'd just as soon never signed up at all.

It's true we have to be wary of lowing standards, and that statistically fewer females probably can succeed in combat arms MOSs, but those that can should be given the chance.

Quote:

Then why is it that of the 6,397 dead in these two wars, only 139 women have died?
That's... incredibly stupid. Only about 10% of deployed Soldiers are female, and most of them don't serve in MOSs that put them in combat regularly. Those who HAVE faced combat have served admirably.

Here's a challenge for you, Sparky. Look at A1C Jacobson here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Jacobson.jpg

...and tell me her service wasn't admirable or worthwhile, that she was incapable of performing the mission and should have stayed on the FOB.

She volunteered for the AF, for SF and when the time came volunteered to augment convoy security. She didn't have to go, but she did.

There are PLENTY of male service members not fit to shine her boots, but all we hear about is keeping women out. I wonder if you're just worried they'll show you up?

nwiTJdave 04-19-2012 06:50 PM

I agree that there are lots of incompetent military members whom are male that i would never trust in combat. Our radio operator was one of them. First fire fight we had he was in the humvee crying... He never left the wire again.

Sandlapper3396 04-20-2012 12:00 AM

Quote:

1) How in any way will adding females to combat MOS's enhance the capabilities of the warfighters? 2) Will having females be a force multiplier? 3) Do the positives of adding them to the rank outweigh the negatives?
<1% of the current American population is in the military. A person with a will to perform, no matter size, shape, color is going to be a bazillion times more effective for doing the task at hand than someone who is forced to be there. This is a fact. There is a reason why prior service members who enter the civilian field repeatedly acknowledge that the some of the best workers they have ever met were in the service.

Quote:

1) What happens when a female leader gets pregnant right before a deployment? Do we just change up SOPs like that? 2)Sexual tension. Majority of infantry is comprised of 18-25 year olds. We all know that there is one thing for sure at that age. Hell, even the older senior guys were franternizing and taking time for extracurricular activities when I was in my unit (0311 in an Intel unit). 3)Can they actually perform the same.
These aren't valid concerns. This is the normal thought process of immature adolescent males between the age of 18 to 25 :rofl:. I'm going to paraphrase what a crusty sailor like myself hears.

1) "What about me?" Life is unfair. You will grow to become a bitter lonely person if you continue to get yourself worked up over your perception of how much better off someone else has it. I know some women who would gladly allow you to give birth for them while they continue to do the things they love.
2) "You must remove all temptation from me because I lack the ability to exert any self-control." Grow the F-up. This is your problem to learn to overcome not theirs. Geeze, do you hump women on sight? RAWRRrrr!! :teehee:
3) Not paraphrasing this one as I answered it in my first response.

Women were introduced into the nuclear propulsion pipeline about 20 years ago. Had the same discussion among us as to the impact of what would happen. Here is some food for thought, the same reasons you have listed thus far were given then too. Almost word for word, 20 frigging years ago, in a completely opposite line of work. Those same reasons have been used not only in the military but for ages in regards to women performing physical duties. Mull that over for a minute before trying to claim this position as not sexist.

Yucca-man 04-20-2012 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus856 (Post 13437053)
I didnt want to be the first to say it...

Jessica Lynch was only 'famous' for putting a cute face on what was otherwise a ginormous clusterfawk of an operation. Her unit had no business being in the area it was, and for a "maintenance" company, they failed to maintain a) their weapons, and b) themselves. They were lost, wandered into Iraqi territory, and got themselves captured. Marines were pulled out of combat ops (C/1/2, if I recall) and were tasked with recovering the POWs.

Poor communication with USAF ground support (A-10s) led to several Marine deaths as their very distinctively-shaped Amtracs were fired upon. Remember, that area of Nasiriyah was supposed to be Iraqi-held...USMC and especially US Army weren't supposed to be there. Had the maintenance company been properly-trained on basics like map reading and weapon maintenance, the Marines wouldn't have been pulled from their mission to attack north, and it's very likely several of them would have lived rather than dying on a rescue mission for a dingbat.

What does that have to do with the OP's initial question about women in infantry units? Not a thing, other than to remind people that the Jessica Lynch story has a lot more backstory than the press ever mentioned.

Maximus856 04-20-2012 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmbuGrl (Post 13437797)
1. because women arent interested in the things that you listed as much as men are, so there are fewer doing them. Seriously, boxing - a couple of good women fighters.

How is it an excuse that we arent given the opportunity? Show me where we were given it and failed.

Dont confuse a physical altercation/domestic abuse with combat and the war.

'ONLY 2%' (139 ) of the 6,740 that died were women. Roughly 10% of deployed troops were women. Think about where your math is coming from.

There is NO ONLY when it comes to death and the war. Period

Also I do not recommend that you ever classify Ms Lynch in the same breath as the rest of us female service members.

My point was that they ARE given an oppurtunity to do that, and many choose not too. The ones that do and do the best still dont stand up to the guys that do the best. However, with not being able to get the oppurtunity to be part of the infantry the whole "equal oppurtunity" thing is being played out. Theres a few female Marines Ive talked to who said they would because they feel like they have something to prove. To put it in very simple terms its like one kid getting angry because the other got a cookie.

The 2% had nothing to do with the fact that there deaths were negligable. EVERY death no matter race or sex is just as bad as any other. Nor was the 2% posted up in relation to the amount of women deployed. I put that up there because many people try to play it out that women are already directly engaged in combat ALL the time. This simply is not the case. Nobody defines the type of combat and that is a problem, as *much* of the contact that is being used as an example for women in contact is in no way related to their original mission. The mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad is to "locate close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or to repel the enemies assault by fire and close combat." Getting hit with an IED is not at all a part of that mission and does not show the worth of your infantry capabilities. Now, by NO means am I discrediting what they have done, what they have sacrificed, or what SOME people are capable of. But, just as the statistic that only 10% of deployed forces are women shouldnt be twisted, the statistics of women in combat shouldn't be twisted. Is taking IDF or being hit by an IED combat? Yes. But I am speaking of combat where enemy was identified and triggers were pulled. I *think* if only the last part I mentioned was used to define a combat vetern, the amount of female combat veterans would be substantially less. And before anyone says the same would be the case for guys, I think it wouldnt be too different amongst the infantry ranks. To sum it up, if you were to ask many of the females how they got their Combat Action Ribbon, there are not many who would be able to say they did it using infantry style tactics. In my unit where there were many females, only one had her CAR that I know of. She got it because her convoy struck an IED. I dont see how the "evidence" of women in contact is proof of there infantry capabilities. Defending yourself and breaking contact in a combat environment is also much different then squad rushing across a field. Nobody is denying women a rifle, nobody is denying them the oppurtunity to defend themselves, and nobody is denying them the chance to kill the enemy if that oppurtunity presents itself.

About physical abuse/domestic violence/hitting a girl and confusing it with war, how is a persons idea to a woman being hurt any different? There is this perception among many Americans that even if a girl hits you, you're a guy and you do your absolute best to not lay your hands on her. I don't disagree with that at all, for the record. Again, the media frenzy in regards to Jessica Lynch is evidence of this. Can anyone here name any of the other POW's from the Iraq war?

Maximus856 04-20-2012 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandlapper3396 (Post 13440210)
<1% of the current American population is in the military. A person with a will to perform, no matter size, shape, color is going to be a bazillion times more effective for doing the task at hand than someone who is forced to be there. This is a fact. There is a reason why prior service members who enter the civilian field repeatedly acknowledge that the some of the best workers they have ever met were in the service.



These aren't valid concerns. This is the normal thought process of immature adolescent males between the age of 18 to 25 :rofl:. I'm going to paraphrase what a crusty sailor like myself hears.

1) "What about me?" Life is unfair. You will grow to become a bitter lonely person if you continue to get yourself worked up over your perception of how much better off someone else has it. I know some women who would gladly allow you to give birth for them while they continue to do the things they love.
2) "You must remove all temptation from me because I lack the ability to exert any self-control." Grow the F-up. This is your problem to learn to overcome not theirs. Geeze, do you hump women on sight? RAWRRrrr!! :teehee:
3) Not paraphrasing this one as I answered it in my first response.

Women were introduced into the nuclear propulsion pipeline about 20 years ago. Had the same discussion among us as to the impact of what would happen. Here is some food for thought, the same reasons you have listed thus far were given then too. Almost word for word, 20 frigging years ago, in a completely opposite line of work. Those same reasons have been used not only in the military but for ages in regards to women performing physical duties. Mull that over for a minute before trying to claim this position as not sexist.

1)I dont understand how its "what about me." I dont want to start a war here, but maybe being a "crusty sailor" hasn't given you the chance to know what its like to rely on your leaders for something other than approving your leave or telling you to go to chow. There is a very GOOD reason why they say Sgts. are the backbone of the Corps, but more-so the infantry. This is the guy that teaches you how to survive. This is the guy teaches you how to make sure your best friend survives. This is not a joke at all, and is something we hold very near to us. Its the kind of thing where if your squadleader or fireteam leader stubs his bigtoe, everybody is worried. It just adds another variable that is not needed when we are talking about the welfare of the troops.

2)I personally do not lack the self control in terms of knowing time and place. I was around many female Marines, and stayed my course. I can not at all say the same for others. In both deployments we had e4's become e3's, and e8's get sent home for being the other half of that. So no, its not just the thought process of 18-24 year olds. This stuff might not affect a unit fullfilling a supporting role, but it will effect an infantry unit. See number 1.

3)Again, what I have seen from the various females while during my enlistment. There were a couple that could whip my *** in PT. I wont deny them that. How fast you run though is not a standard of how you perform carrying someone in fullgear to a helicopter. How many here have done that? It is not easy.

Comparing nuclear propulsion to what an infantry unit does is apples to oranges. I dont know anything about nuclear propulsion or the tasks neccesary to perform it. Being nuclear, I am sure lives are the line as well. However, I have a strong feeling it is vastly different than the infantry and what it requires.

Maybe its me, but I really HATE the thought of testing out a theory for the thought of "well if they can do it why cant I" when it puts the lives of everyone involved on the line. You said it crusty sailor, "what about me?!" Life may be unfair, but deaths of serviceman for political and personal gain is way more unfair. I get that saying woman will cause deaths is probably a VERY far fetched idea, but that goes back to my question of what will we as infantry gain? If there are problems that arise and they will, if there is nothing to gain other than making someone feel accepted, than how in anyway is that beneficial?

Maximus856 04-20-2012 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanksoldier (Post 13438225)
I served with plenty of male Soldiers who were just as useless. She just ended up on the news.

The FACT is that a useless male can sign up for infantry and will be given his chance to succeed or fail... but a capable female will not be given the chance.

I can't speak for infantry directly, but I knew several female MPs who I wouldn't have minded having as tankers... and more than a few male tankers who I'd just as soon never signed up at all.

It's true we have to be wary of lowing standards, and that statistically fewer females probably can succeed in combat arms MOSs, but those that can should be given the chance.



That's... incredibly stupid. Only about 10% of deployed Soldiers are female, and most of them don't serve in MOSs that put them in combat regularly. Those who HAVE faced combat have served admirably.

Here's a challenge for you, Sparky. Look at A1C Jacobson here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Jacobson.jpg

...and tell me her service wasn't admirable or worthwhile, that she was incapable of performing the mission and should have stayed on the FOB.

She volunteered for the AF, for SF and when the time came volunteered to augment convoy security. She didn't have to go, but she did.

There are PLENTY of male service members not fit to shine her boots, but all we hear about is keeping women out. I wonder if you're just worried they'll show you up?

At what point did I say stay on the fob? You all need to stop confusing what I am saying about the infantry and other combat arms MOS's, and doing your duties as a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine. You're trying to make it seem like I said they shouldn't leave the wire, or they shouldnt even be issued guns. At NO point did I say anything like that. I am very simply stating that integrating them into combat arms would be a nightmare. If you are in a supporting MOS, and someone shoots at you then by all means "get some." But the nightmare that integrating them into a predominantly male unit/MOS is not worth it. There is literally nothing to gain from it. We have FET teams. What they do is great. Im sure we have females providing security on a .50. AWESOME. But they are not in the infantry. And why change it? We are talking about a battalion of men, and men only. If 10% of deployers are female, how many of them given the oppurtunity would be in the infantry? So do you all honestly think that if there were say 10 women in a battalion of anywhere from 800-1000 men, there would be no problems at all?

Am I afraid of a woman showing me up? What a joke dude. I was never worried about any guy showing me up. If they did, and many did it just meant that I had more confidence in their abilities to keep everyone alive and keep straight on the mission. If a girl "showed me up" I'd think she is a bad-*** girl and think "oh *****, I need to step my game up."

In regards to Jessica Lynch, I am curious if there would of been such a media draw to it if it was a guy. That is why I think that even if women where ready and capable of being infantry, that the general public and even top commanders are not.

There are the 1's and 2's of amazing examples of women in combat. And there are 1's and 2's of guys we wouldnt want to even hold a flashlight. But are we going to change the atmosphere of THOUSANDS based on these 1's and 2's? Where is the logic in it?

AmbuGrl 04-20-2012 12:22 PM

We ARE NOT given the opportunity. Take your minority opinion elsewhere. If you notice a majority of these responses are from MEN who believe that WE should at least be given the opportunity.


The time now is 09:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.