I'm with DK-Prof and Miss_Magnum on this.

I married a woman that served in a combat unit in the US military, no less.

[b](NOTE: The USAF Security Forces are classified to a de facto "defensive" role, but in times of war they go on combat patrols and perform other OFFENSIVE roles, too. BTW, the first female sniper in the US military is a 19 year-old gal - and she's an USAF-SF. -last time I checked, sniping is an "offensive" combat role...)[/b]

My then-squadmate kept up with all, and out performed many guys in our squadron, too. An eighteen mile forced march in the Nevada desert with 50+lb packs comes to mind...

Yes, she did meet the fitness standard of a male in her age group, too.

ONE physical fitness standard ONLY for all personnel wanting to serve in a combat role.

If they can hack it, then WTF is the problem?

P3[pyro][^][heavy]

Never mind.

Nice sig line, Miss_Magnum.

No one has yet to give any reason as to WHY our military would be improved by allowing women to serve in combat.

We've heard that it would be fair to the individual.

We've learned that second-rate militaries in the EU have done it, and are still second-rate.

We've learned of ancient myths.

The facts still remain:

[b]Allowing women to serve in combat units does not improve their warfighting abilities.
Therefore, allowing women to serve in combat units DEGRADES the unit's warfighting abilities.
[/b]

This is what I meant... what was evident from your posts on the teenage pregnancy thread.  You called young, single mothers "sluts" and now, you're calling me "whacked" because you don't understand/agree with my point.  When did name-calling become lucid debate material?    



True... but few with as much venom as yourself.



So if The_Macallan agrees with you, that makes it right?  I don't need backing from other people to defend my position... I can hold my own.



"If the shoe fits..."  Well.  That was profound.  Of course, I thought it would be more productive to try to address the problem of teenage pregnancy and the factors contributing to it but if you feel it's sufficient to simply cast stones from afar....  



You may not see it or even understand why.. let me try to elaborate.  I may be miffed at a guy or think something that men do is less than desirable but you don't see me calling men "assholes" or "dicks."  That's because I don't harbor ill will towards your gender.

You, on the other hand, feel it is perfectly acceptable to go on tirades and use some of the most derogatory terms possible to describe women.  And with such venom!  I can't believe that there isn't some hatred for women behind that... Oh, and I'm sure you'll chaulk this observation up to me being



You know.. that's exactly what I thought of you when we met... "what an asskisser."    



Hmmmm... according to you, I am a "bastard" with "issues" as well as a "whacko broad" who is "totally effing delusional."  Hmmmm... and you seemed soooo happy to meet me just a few short weeks ago. [rolleyes]



So you're saying you don't know my life history?  Wow.  What a shocker.  I was a Firecontrolman (gun and missile system tech) in the Navy on an aircraft carrier.  I was the 11th female reintroduced into the rate and the first female FC on the Eisenhower and at SIMA, Norfolk.  

As far as actual combat?  We weren't in a war when I was in.  And before you start getting all smug, yes, women in field units DO present different issues from other posts.  But a lot of the dynamic is the same.  

Who jumped in and asserted "checkmate" on that comment?  YOU brought yourself into this, darlin'... I just answered the call.



I can take shit and put a bow on it and call it a peace offering.... but it's still nothing but a piece of shit.  Now stop backpeddling and be honest about what you meant.  You were enjoying his comment and had to add your little pat on his back.  The smiley face is just your "out"... that you can say "I was just joking."  That, to me, is like saying "I hope you don't take this the wrong way...."  Say what you mean and mean what you say and stop trying to sugar coat it so you don't look like such an ass.  



I'm just glad your wife is on the "up on a pedestal" side of your double standard.



Again, [b]I[/b] did not come looking for you.  You walked up to the plate, darlin'....

I strongly disagree.  I am not addressing women in the cockpit, or a SAM battery, or on the destroyer pushing buttons.  I am talking about ground combat.  Your assertion that women can hack it defies logic and the facts.  Virtually all women lack the necessary upper body strength and stamina to withstand the rigors of ground combat.  My argument to those folks like you who argue that women can do the job, is quite simple:  Did YOU ever tote a rifle?  Did YOU ever serve time in the bush...because if you can answer in the affirmative, you have grounds to make a cogent argument for women in the [ground] combat arms.  I will still disagree but at least your perspective isn't skewed.  If, as I suspect, you haven't lived the life of a grunt first hand...then I submit you have no knowledge base upon which to base your ill-thought-out thesis.  

Stand a post...tote a rifle...a radio...water...ammo...chow...shelter half...helmet...grenades...MG ammo...and whatever else the unit TOE says you have to share...then hump all that shit 25 klicks...get in a firefight...and then hump your 185 pound wounded buddy out over your shoulder.

One of the Marines on this site said it best...if I may paraphrase (Hope I get this right!):

"The woman hasn't been born yet that I can't whip in personal combat...after I've completed a 25 mile forced march with a full kit."

And therein lies the rub.  Without the PC bullshit of which you allude to...women can never measure up to the standards required to serve in a grunt unit.  In fact...take away the PC bullshit...and they are forced out of the services in droves.

Womenz in combat?  Don't think so.

[soapbox]

Now that I have that out of the way.... [:D]

There are a few major arguments against women in combat positions... many have already been addressed here.

1) Physical standards.... make them equal.  I know that I was able to meet the standards of my male shipmates and never shirked carrying ammo cans, etc because they were "too heavy."  You learn in the military that "two man carry" doesn't apply when it comes to ladders.  [:D]

2) Hygiene.... if women are going into the field (where hygiene is a HUGE issue) they can be put on the Depo shot which effectively resolves two issues: no monthly menses and no pregnancies.

The biggest problem that I had was the male-female dynamic.  I had men falling over themselves to try to "help me" until I finally told them to get out of my way and let me do my freakin' job.  

I had female shipmates who wanted to fight me because they thought I was "looking at their man."  

I had wives of the men that I work with cutting their eyes at me thinking I wanted to get with their husbands.  

I had an LPO say he wanted to screw me who then gave me such bad marks because I laughed at him (about wanting to sleep with me) that he was called before our DivO to defend them.  They were [i]significantly[/i] better when I signed my eval. (BTW, I was not the one who questioned the marks.  Another CPO in my shop saw them and intervened.)

The funny thing about all of this was that I was married during most of my time in and I would never think of cheating.  Anyone who's been in knows that your new command usually gets a heads up about your character from your old command.  My reputation was "she's a good tech and she doesn't screw around."  

I loved working on my gun.  I loved wearing coveralls and being exhausted and more covered in grime and gun lube than my ex-husband (an FT in the Coast Guard) at the end of the day.  I loved serving my country.  

What made it difficult was the BS that had nothing to do with my job.  

I will admit that there were problems on both sides... men and women.  I had to be that much better to overcome the preconceptions that people had about me being a female squid.  It was assumed that I would be easily offended or call sexual harrassment...I never did.. in fact, I was more bawdy than a lot of guys I worked with.  It was assumed that I would end up pregnant... I've never been pregnant.  It was assumed I would cheat... never did, never would consider it.

Was I a "perfect" sailor?  No.  But I know I was a valuable member of the workshop.  

It was asked what women would bring to enhance the military... what would be the advantage of having us in combat situations.  Here are two... women are better at multitasking as well as the fact that we have a higher tolerance for pain.  

I think women would have a lot to offer... but not all women.  Very few women.  And even those would have to deal with the problems that normally occur between men and women.

Soooooo.... FWIW, the longer I was in, the more I felt women shouldn't be in combat roles.... simply because it's bad for morale.  Sad but true.

MM, what percentage of female sailors were physically able to "man the pumps", or haul hoses up a ladder well?

If a sailor is incapable of helping fight fire aboard ship, they shouldn't be at sea.

Every sailor went through DC (damage control) training in boot camp.  Everyone had to pass.  That should answer your question.  

I have already stated that I advocate one set of standards for all servicemembers.  And that I would have met it.

In addition, I don't know if you are confused about what a Firecontrolman does.  We don't fight fires.  We start them.  FCs are gun and missile system techs.  DCs are Damage Controlman... firefighters.  

Of course, fighting fires is everyone's business on a ship but that job description primarily applies to DCs.

When women were first allowed aboard combat vessels, If I recall, less than 10% could pass the physical tests required (the pumps, the ladder wells).  They were allowed aboard, anyhow. The argument was that they could handle the day to day tasks of running the ship, just as long as the ship wasn't hit with any ordnance, causing it to burn (you know, as in combat).

By one set of standards, do you mean the set of standards that used to apply to men, or a new set lowered, to accomodate women?





Guess what percentage of women in the Gulf War became pregnant, and therefore had to be sent home, degrading their unit's readiness?

Well having done week long patrols into Cambodia..river assaults and air assaults.Im telling you that women would be the worst idea ever concieved.
Im not saying a few here or there might hack the physical elements of ground combat ..but that exception proves that generalized stocking of female personnel in ground combat units is foolish...
Especially when they have an ax to grind to prove themselves equal to men.
To have to accomadate females into combat for their various proclivites so that a few can prove themselves is a waste of resources..Even the toughest women in the world did not excell in ground combat units in Vietnam...those were Vietnamese women...
We came accross several VC women..they worked in the tunnel hospitals and served as "courtesans"...they sawed bombs apart to make giant claymores..never saw any in actual combat...and the VC didnt much care who they used...though they make great suicide bombers and disease spreaders.
Passing a PT test is one thing...and actual fighting in a Inf platoon is quite another..and do have to do it with women who are there to prove that they are as good as any man...sheesh...I couldnt even imagine what a cluster fuck that would be...and if you dont think that women wont be fought over in the platoon...the officers and NCOs would have to babysit 24/7 not to mention the little games being played as one trooper gets played off against the other...cause that is human nature...and no matter how many rules you try write you will never change and spend all the units time and energy and resources trying to inforce...even the IDF gave up on this years ago...Women in combat units simply doesnt work...hell I wouldnt have wanted most of the men Ive associated/worked with in our platoon..
Women in combat...sheesh...I cant believe anybody with half a brain could even conceive of it...of course if you plan is to lose the war then it makes sense.. The old marines and soldiers from WWII brake dancing in their graves

I was referring to the same standards as men.  Have you even read what I wrote or are you just arguing to be difficult?



I don't need to guess.  I know the numbers.  Again, please use your READING skills and see the above post regarding resolution of that exact issue.  Put women on the Depo shot and you eliminate monthly menses AND pregnancy.

I read what you wrote.

Wouldn't the "Depo shot" be seen as a violation of rights?

Isn't the pregnancy problem really a question of discipline?


[size=4]Do you truly believe that allowing women to serve in combat units, will improve the units' warfighting abilities?[/size=4]

If you do, you're wrong.

Thank you for that well thought-out and well-stated response and personal experience. And thank you for your service to our nation.

In the end, I agree with your final assessment (but for different reasons).

However, [b]IF[/b] we are going to have women in combat (ugh) then I agree with your two points:
"Equal-standards" and "mandatory depo shots".

BUT... just TRY to get those two mandated across the military.

HA!

The phrase "equal standards" scares me a bit.
It opens the door to what's already been done throughout the military, lowered standards.

I prefer "Highest Standards".

People seem to forget what the word "standards" means.
The whole point of standards is that they remain standard.

To Lwilde:

To answer your question, yes, I have done most of those things.  I haven't been a full-time ground pounder.  But, I flew a Phantom, wound up on the ground in the jungle (the only two times I voluntarily jumped out of an airplane, mainly because it was no longer "perfectly good"), made my way through it, got picked up by MArines, etc.  And then, there were a few other "missions" in places where "we weren't."  So, I know a little bit about operations,giving and taking fire, and the rest of the mess.

Note, that I did not say in my original statement that any woman could serve in any position.  The right woman means one suited by qualification and ability for the job.  Your point about physical power is well taken.  Though some women are quite up there in that, too.  I think one who could take the strains in a fighter could do well.  OTOH, I wouldn't advocate women in some of the older transports because an hydraulic failure would be like a car that lost power steering, you have the mechanical backup but it requires that you put your back into it.

Nevertheless, there are some who probably could do anything, many who can't do it all, but could do something quite well  based on their skill.  Don't write them off on a generalization. The PC crap has to go, though.  Otherwise, the military will consist mostly of wimps based on politics.

One last thing, just as friendly advice.  Not good form to beat your chest about doing all those things.  MAke your point on its merits.  Unless you're around my age, or have been a true SOF, I've seen much more action than you have. My comments barely scratched the surface. ot a flame, just putting things into perspective.

You give up a lot of rights when you are in the service... heck, you even have an extra set of laws to abide by.  I don't think it would be out of the question to make it a stipulation that if a woman wanted to serve in a [i]combat unit[/i] that she do so with the understanding that she be on the Depo shot and agree not to get pregnant.  If she wanted to start a family at a later date, have her apply for a transfer and get it approved.



Yes and no.  Yes, because a disciplined woman and man will take responsibility for effectively using birth control.  No, because abstinence is the only thing that is 100% effective and no troop on the face of the planet is 100% abstinant.



Again... I refer you back to one of my previous posts.  I don't think women should be in combat units... but not for some of the reasons put forth here.  Physical standards and a number of the other issues can be addressed and remedied.  

The biggest problem I dealt with, saw and have NO SOLUTION for is the male/female dynamic.  And that is a basic morale issue and I don't see anyway to get around it.

[:D]

You still miss the point, Miss Magnum.

Even if you could "solve" any of the problems that you refer to, thereby allowing women to serve...

...the question remains:

Why?

Their presence in a combat unit would not improve the unit's warfighting abilities.

The time and energy expended to accomodate them would degrade the units abilities.

The question of women in combat is not a problem in search of a solution.
There's just no reason for it.

 And how long does that shot last? One month, three months...long enough to NOT become pregnant as a POW?  (woman to captors) "May I please have my depo shot---it's in the Geneva Convention")


 Yes, and as long as men have sex with women, this won't change.  


Please...you are twisting complicated scientific information to suit your agenda (or quoting someone else who is ignorant).  Simply put, your false assertions rest on the fact that a pregnant woman's body can release certain endorphins which help her ease the intense pain of childbirth.  Notice that I said PREGNANT women...and remember that they can't get pregnant, since you want them on Depo Provera.  I love blowing bullshit like this out of the water...

About the multi-tasking issue...NONSENSE!  Multitasking requires training, organization, and discipline, and is NOT a fuction of race, sex, or genetics.  Bullshit meter pegged!



 It's NOT sad, but it sure as hell is true.  You have reached the correct conclusion, but for the wrong reasons.  Putting women in combat would do MUCH more than lower morale...it WOULD weaken our Nation and increase the amount of soldiers, sailors, and Marines KIA.  

-Like I said...

Look, goddammit, no one's saying that all women can do the job as best as men (- NEITHER CAN ALL MEN -) but some [size=4]CAN[/size=4]. -And if they CAN "hack" it, why discriminate against them by refusing them from serving where they want to?

Tell me, sirs, how would such women degrade a fighting units capabilities???

P3[pyro][^][heavy]

BTW, no comments on the US military's 1rst woman sniper?

Nonsensical?
Are you sure you were in the military?

A combat unit returns from a deployment, troops go on leave, some retire, some get tranferred, some move on.
The unit then receives new troops from many sources; basic training, other units, schools, etc..
The next phase for the combat unit is to build up, and prepare to deploy again.  Individual skills, fireteam tactics, squad tactics, working as a platoon, as a company, and as a battalion.
Throw in marksmanship, physical training, amphibious training, helo training, fighting from vehicles, raids, reconaissance, calling for fire, on and on.

When the unit is finally ready to deploy, you never feel as though you had enough time to get it all in.

There is no time or energy that can be spent elsewhere.  Your car analogy is pointless.

What part of the training schedule should we eliminate to have sexual harrassment classes?
I've seen it happen.

EU militaries just don't deploy as we do.  
EU militaries can peacekeep and police, but without us, they can't truly fight a major war.
Let alone two.

The proper car analoy is this:

You have a car that doesn't run.
You have a limited time to get it running, and prepared for a long trip.
Should you spent some of that time giving it a custom paint job, or should you be more concerned with it running?

Improve or maintain?  DK=Prof offered up a very good point.... simply because something does not improve performance it does not automatically degrades it.  Maintaining status quo while widening your number of potential soldiers would be a good thing.



No "extra time" was expended to accomodate me when I was in... in fact, I used to compete with the best male tech in the shop to see who could overhaul a gun (to exact specs) faster.  I finished a few minutes behind him... and he had years of experience on me.  



If that's your opinion, so be it.  The reasons why it would be advantageous are there... you just refuse to see them.

There is a finite amount of time, money and energy that can prepare a unit for battle.  All of it must go towards improving warfighting skills.

Example:

My Battalion had two months before we deployed.

We were an infantry battalion, and had no women.
One day we had to spend the entire valuable training day in a theater receiving "sexual harrassment" training.

That day would have been better spent training in first aid, calling for fire, or marksmanship.
Any of these things would help to keep my men alive, and help us to achieve victory.

"sexual harrassment training" did neither.

Therefore we deployed less able, then we could have been.

This is not an opinion, it's just plain old logic.
To integrate women into combat units would require ten times the "sensitivity classes".

Its obvious that your have never served as a grunt. This is one of those "if you don't already know, I can't explain it to you" type things. Lets just say that a Army LRSD is a volunteer unit...keeping that in mind, I would bet a spaghetti MRE that the rate would drop drastically if females were allowed to be part of the team.
As a former LRP, I can tell you that a team is so close, for so long, that while 6-8 men are hunkered down in a hide site and one farts, all know who did it _without asking._
[b]Would you have a problem picking ticks off the underside of my scrotum? Remember, we've been in the bush for 3 weeks and you have to get close to see them.[/b] Nuff said...

The shot lasts three months.  As far as what happens if a woman becomes a POW... all bets are off.  Your snide comment is just your inability to find something to dispute.


 Yes, and as long as men have sex with women, this won't change.  



Endorphins are released any time a body is overly stressed.  The hypothalumus is actually what regulates the levels of hormones in the body.  Pregnancy, alone, is not a trigger.



Hmmmm.... I wouldn't call what you just did "blowing it out of the water."  



Is that a portable bullshit meter?  Can it be customized to the opinions of the operator?  

Men and women THINK differently.  Men are more goal oriented and women are more spatial thinkers.  In fact, women would be well suited to be stragedists as they tend to think from different angles.

Please, don't tell me you've never had a woman play you like a well-tuned instrument....

True mm, but women are also less likely to act as bold leaders.  They tend to act better in groups, and with consensus. Men are naturally more suited to lead.

Be careful when you attempt to pick and choose supposedly inherant gender-traits.

So use those traits to your advantage.... a male in a leadership role leading women who are willing to follow and act in unison.  I'd rather see that than a group of men all posturing for the alpha male role... questioning the person in charge instead of getting on with the business of the day.  

It's not about tearing the genders apart... it's about using inherent traits to their best advantage.

Please expound on the use of the term "Sniper."
1.  Which accredited "sniper" school is she a graduate of?  Army?  Marines?
2.  Just because she is placed inside an AF perimeter with a rifle doesn't necessarily make her a "sniper", just another Airman with a rifle.
3.  Combat patrols?  And I'm not talking about perimeter defensive partrols, either.  I'm talking about OFFENSIVE ENGAGEMENTS.

Sorry... ::chuckle::... but I would have to say that that wouldn't be a problem....

Yeah, that'll work...

Men leading, and women only in support roles, because it emphasizes their strengths..

I'm sure that that'll go over really well.

You miss the point.
Those who champion women in combat do so in the name of "opportunity" for individuals, not victory for the unit, or nation.
They want women in combat, so that these women can have the "opportunity" to hold the higher command positions.

Do I sound THAT young...geez...I need to change my writing style.  USN '64 to '92...seven ships and one rifle toter unit.

Point taken...but I would suggest you re-read your admonition and take it to heart as well.  We ought not to be comparing bios.  One-upsmanship serves no purpose.

Cheers.

I'm not missing the point.... it's just a different point than yours.  Read on.



Hmmm... funny.  I joined to serve my country.  I would support women in combat roles if it would be for the betterment of the service.  If that meant following a man into war because I was more confident in his abilities as a leader, I wouldn't quibble over EO.  

Not all women (even women in the military) are out there trying to subvert men.  Some of us just want to do our part.... whereever that would be most suited.

Like I said, those who "champion" this issue are politicians and activists, not servicemembers. If it comes to be, it will be because of THEM. It will be arbitrary, and have nothing to do with the good of the service.

Wow.

I didn't realize that the US Readiness Command (I'm dating myself, huh?), the US Special Operations Command, and the US Central Command weren't front line "combat" commands... Gee, I guess all those trips my future wife and I took to the Middleast and Central America during the 1980s were just military-sponsored vacations! [;D]

Do not dare to look down your nose at me, sir, for you know not with whom you speak. Spare us  your assumptions, presumptions and arrogance: with your honorable background they don't suit you, and make you look very silly. Read twice, post once.



FYI&FWIW, BTDT, got the scars & T-shirts. Furthermore. I "DT" before most guys on this board didn't know that their dicks were something other than just piss hoses.



Awww, you ASSumed I'm female! Wrong, Tickboy.

I served with women who were cakeaters and those few who were comeasurate operators. -Don't shut out people just because they don't have a dick.

P3[pyro][soapbox][heavy]

"Tell me, sirs, how would such women degrade a fighting units capabilities???"

I did ASSume you were a female. I did so because only a female who has no idea what a ground unit does would ask such a question...unless you were being sarcastic, in which case I missed it.
So, what about that offer on the ticks? [:)]

LOL

Same definition and duties as any other sniper in the US military.



Army. SrA Jennifer Donaldson of Illinois completed the school in 2000, if memory serves me. I'd have to check the USAF news service for the particulars.



I'd bet that there are more than a few USAF SPs/SFs veterans that may disagree with you. Besides me.



Yes, as was I. USAF SFs train to actively patrol outside the AB perimeter, taking the fight to the enemy, just as any other front line infantry unit would.

P3[pyro][^][heavy]

Actually he's right.
Going to Ranger School doesn't make one a Ranger, going to Jump School doesn't make one a Paratrooper, just as going to "sniper school" doesn't make one a sniper, .

You have to serve in the unit, in a "sniper" billet, in order to be considered a sniper, by the US Military.
[img]http://www.capnhq.gov/nhq/capnews/01-05/sniper4Web.JPG[/img]

Going to Air National Guard Sniper School doesn't make you a sniper.

drop your shorts, lift & spread; I'll get the tweezers. [:P]

P4(ParaPyroPickingPig)[pyro][:D][heavy]

Para,
Your a real pal for helping a guy out but MM said she wouldn't have problem doing it for me...and she has softer hands!

In all your years of field experience, I'm sure you can answer a quesion I have....

Do they make OD green tactical kotex for females to use in the field? If so, then I have no argument and I must submit to your obvious expertise in this discussion. [:)/]

Hmmm.. that was a hypothetical question posed to deter a female from being in the field.  Considering my hands have been in worse places, it wouldn't be a big deal given the circumstances.

But seeing as how we aren't in that situation and I'm not particularly motivated to do you any favors the most my hands would be doing is pointing at you and then holding my sides as I laughed. [:D]

You'd laugh at a guy with ticks on his balls?
Cold hearted is an understatement....

You've never been touched by my hands, soldier. [:I]



Dunno. Lemmee go ask the wife - she's in the other room nursing our 13 week old son.
.
.
.
She says doesn't know - she was exercising so much that she stopped having her period for a long while... Sorry[;D]

P3[pyro][^][heavy]

We were talking about ticks on [i]your[/i] balls, [b]Ryan[/b].  

I think there'd be a healthy gathering of women laughing at that sight.  [}:D]

"Uh... are you REALLY saying that pulling 3, 4, 5 or more G's in an F16, enduring redout and blackout periods and quickly recovering consciousness and strength requires only average physical ability or recuperability?"

Actually my understanding is that women are better able to handle g-forces.  Due to their body structure they are generally able to tolerate significantly more g-force without black out.  Heard that bit of trivia from a pilot buddy.

If a woman has the guts to subject herself to the risk of capture (cringe) and can meet the physical requirements necassary (real standards, the same for everyone) then I don't think it's a problem.  Most women I know wouldn't be able to hack, but I know many women who are plenty physically sturdy and tough.  As for being distracted in combat, the last thing I'm thinking about in a dangerous situation is getting laid and besides how hot do you think that woman in the next foxhole is if she is capable of carrying a 100 pound pack around.  If they got rid of the lame double standard, things would be fine.  Women aren't causing the problem, it's the damn military for not imposing standards.

Sheesh...enough with the ball-zac posts.

If women make such good fighter pilots....


....why are they ALL such crappy drivers? [:)]