Female Infantry Soldiers?!

Master_Griffin · #1 12-30-2001, 11:19 PM

I was talking with some friends the other day about the Army and I told them I was joining back up. I made a comment about how it will be wierd going through basic with females. (Previously, I was in Infantry Basic Training which is all males.)

Anyway, we got on the topic of females in combat arms positions such as infantry, armour (tanks), artillery, and even things like female fighter pilots, and assault helicopter pilots.

I'd like to hear what everyone here thinks.

So the questions are:

Should women be allowed to be in combat arms positions that they are currently not allowed to join?

- and -

If so, should the physical requirements be the same as men or adjusted to "level the playing field?"

- Tim

kurt_messick · #2 12-31-2001, 12:02 AM

I don't think there should be two standards. I think whatever is done, should be done to the same level. There aren't going to be handicapping points given out on the battlefield.

Question -- why would you do basic training again?

cristina1 · #3 12-31-2001, 12:20 AM

Quote:

I don't think there should be two standards. I think whatever is done, should be done to the same level. There aren't going to be handicapping points given out on the battlefield.

I agree 100%. Women should be allowed any position they wish if they meet the standards.

Master_Griffin · #4 12-31-2001, 12:40 AM

Kurt_Messick -

I'm doing basic training again because in Infantry Basic Training I broke my ankle...so I didn't graduate, the doctor wouldn't let me. They gave me discharge papers and a kick in the butt.

So I've been going to college and now I'm re-enlisting.

- Tim

frazzledspice · #5 12-31-2001, 12:41 AM

Perhaps studying the Israeli military, which has had compulsory military service for men and women for as long as I can remember, would give Americans more insight into whether women should be allowed to hold combat positions.

I have read that many women in the military feel that their inability to hold combat positions has hampered their upward mobility, since many military personnel get promotions after serving in combat areas.

I think that there are both men and women who have the personalities and physical abilities to allow them to serve successfully in combat roles, and men and women whose personalities are better suited to non-combat support. There are probably more men than women in the first category, and more women than men in the second.

I have three children--two sons, one daughter. One (26) is too old to be drafted, and not interested in enlisting. The second (almost 24) is registered with Selective Service, but not interested in enlisting. They are both kids who never fired or even held guns, much more likely to resolve differences through discussion than aggression...they're both creative, with more than a touch of daydreamer.

They would make terrible combat soldiers.

My husband was in Vietnam. He always said he knew which soldiers would die from the day he arrived. They were the ones who (in our enlightened times now) would be considered ADD. His best friend there, from his home town, daydreamed himself into a land mine.

Any soldier who has ever been diagnosed with ADD (and they should all be screened) should not be allowed to go to a combat area without medication. Such a soldier is a danger to himself and everyone around him.

patach · #6 12-31-2001, 01:33 AM

Well, for one thing, I think the fear of setting the standards too high for women are delusional.

People assume that societally, women are weaker than men physically, though I've found that if you pushed one hard enough then she could probably be more powerful physically than two men

Hey, it worked in "Starship Troopers" why not here? Let's give women what they want, at the same rate as men.

Master_Griffin · #7 12-31-2001, 06:59 PM

Quote:

I have three children--two sons, one daughter. One (26) is too old to be drafted, and not interested in enlisting. The second (almost 24) is registered with Selective Service, but not interested in enlisting. They are both kids who never fired or even held guns, much more likely to resolve differences through discussion than aggression...they're both creative, with more than a touch of daydreamer.

I have a problem with someone assuming that because you are or have been in a combat position or have fired/held a weapon means you only/or are more likely to solve differences with aggression.

That just not the case and it's a horrible stereotype. From my experience, and talking with other veterans, that experience generally gives one a more healthy respect for solving problems peacefully. Perhaps that's why the vast majority of presidents, politicians, and bureaucrats are and have been veterans.

In my opinion it's unfortunate that none of your children are interested in serving in the military. But to each their own.

Anyway...Happy New Year's Eve!

- Tim

kurt_messick · #8 12-31-2001, 07:10 PM

Tim --

I think you're reading what Frazz is saying the wrong way. I don't think she's making a generic statement about people with combat experience (I don't think she's making any statement about people with combat experience); I think she's making a statement about her sons, and their tendencies.

I know as you do that armchair generals are more likely to be bloodthirsty than the real combat experienced guys, just as Monday-morning quarterbacks know so much better than every professional coach in the country. You can be as aggressive and militant as you want to be when you and yours won't pay the price.

But, back to the strand.

...

poseidon · #9 12-31-2001, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Griffin
I was talking with some friends the other day about the Army and I told them I was joining back up. I made a comment about how it will be wierd going through basic with females. (Previously, I was in Infantry Basic Training which is all males.)

Anyway, we got on the topic of females in combat arms positions such as infantry, armour (tanks), artillery, and even things like female fighter pilots, and assault helicopter pilots.

I'd like to hear what everyone here thinks.

So the questions are:

Should women be allowed to be in combat arms positions that they are currently not allowed to join?

- and -

If so, should the physical requirements be the same as men or adjusted to "level the playing field?"

- Tim

I've more of a problem with women who are subjected to rape and torture than I do with them in programs they aren't allowed to join. I'm not sure what programs they're allowed to join or not -- but I'd want to expose the women to as few types of dangers as possible.

I am totally against two seperate levels of physical requirements for men and women. There should be one standard -- and it should be the higher of the two standards... and if women can't cut it, then they can't. If men can't cut it, then they can't.

The military isn't social engineering and social testing. The military is there to protect this country and to perform a much-needed service. I want the best possible people on the front lines, and if that means fewer women because they can't meet the physical requirements then so be it.

erik_kosberg · #10 12-31-2001, 07:53 PM

Quote:

The military isn't social engineering and social testing.

In some cases, it is, such as when Truman integrated the military. At the time, it was social engineering on a huge scale.

AdaDavis · #11 12-31-2001, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by poseidon
The military isn't social engineering and social testing. The military is there to protect this country and to perform a much-needed service. I want the best possible people on the front lines, and if that means fewer women because they can't meet the physical requirements then so be it.

As a 20 year veteran, I wholeheartedly agree, Jeff.

The "standards" for women have historically been easier, which is insulting to men AND women. Since the women kept exceeding the standards, the standards kept being raised. Now they are close to being the same, and in my not so humble opinion, SHOULD be the same. In fact - in some physical standards (sit-ups and bench presses, for instance) women typically can do better than men. Men do better in things that require upper body strength. (Of course, these are group averages. Individuals vary greatly in ability.)

As for what jobs are barred to women- these are due to cultural norms in the USA, not ability. If combat jobs were opened to women then not many could meet the physical requirements, but some would (and have.)

Personally, I got thoroughly sick of the "social engineers" who kept trying to push changes in the military. I am all for equal opportunity, but I am more interested in a military where everyone can do the job. I don't care for the idea that my life might be in the hands of someone who got the job because of some "social engineering" experiment, and not inherent ability to do the job.

Added note: And no, military people are not more likely to be aggressive, or be obsessed with guns. I've run firing ranges, and have qualified on weapons most people have never heard of. :p It seems to be all of my non-military "macho" neighbors who can't go anywhere without their "12-guage penises" by their side. They might, after all, run into a snake or an aggressive attack rabbit and have to defend themselves. I have no desire to shoot the neighborhood snakes (which I actually get along better with than the human kind), and will only shoot at something that breaks into my house. That "something" will leave in a body bag.

Ada

poseidon · #12 01-08-2002, 12:58 AM

Quote:

They might, after all, run into a snake or an aggressive attack rabbit and have to defend themselves.

Hey! Obviously you forget (or haven't seen) Monty Python and the Holy Grail. That was a pretty vicious white and fluffy rabbit with big snarly things, and it killed -- KILLED I SAY -- heavily-armed soldiers. It took the Holy Hand Grenade with the rather large instruction booklet (that instructed you to count to three, not two, and certainly not four, for which four would be too long and two would be too short) to destroy that vicious creature.

kurt_messick · #13 01-08-2002, 08:46 AM

Advocating the use of holy hand grenades for the elimination of backyard vermin now, are we?

AdaDavis · #14 01-08-2002, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by poseidon

Hey! Obviously you forget (or haven't seen) Monty Python and the Holy Grail. That was a pretty vicious white and fluffy rabbit with big snarly things, and it killed -- KILLED I SAY -- heavily-armed soldiers.

I am sure it was one of its clan that attacked Jimmie Carter, so some of them must still be around. When I go out for a walk with the dog, I usually take The Mighty Walking Stick, which is certified to defend against attack rabbits. They don't sell Holy Hand Grenades around here, or I'd probably carry one of those. Unlike my neighbors, though, I have managed to live without 43 lethal weapons in my house to handle the hostile wildlife.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #15 01-08-2002, 10:32 AM

Regarding the concern about women being tortured and raped - men are just as suseptible to torture and rape.

mj

AdaDavis · #16 01-08-2002, 07:26 PM

Men are MORE susceptible to rape than women. Girls in our society grow up with the concept that they can be raped; boys pretty much don't. The purpose of raping prisoners is to break their will and spirit, and prove that the captors have complete domination. It's one of the "dirty little secrets" that ex-POWs don't want to talk about. They'll recount in detail the splinters under the nails, and the starvation, beatings. Mention rape and they will often go into a shell or vehemently deny that they were ever sexually assaulted. That's why it is so effective.