Some of you men out there still don't get it. When you tell a woman her options, or tell her what she can and can not do...YOU ARE SCREWED! She is going to do whatever she wants and probably be the opposite of what you told her, whether she wants to or not. We don't like control!!!!Especially from a man that has his head up his butt thinking he is perfect![Be aware-I know not all of you are that way!}
I am sorry if I offend anyone, ok I'm not!, But I am fron the old-school. I respect the women on this board--ARLADY- I really admire you....But it isn't for me!
I feel a woman needs to be soft,gentle and sweet-smelling. That is where her inner stregnth comes from. That is why down through history, there has never been a truely successful man without some sort of support from a woman!
When women start reaching inside them selves and find that carrying a life is a blessing and puts us far above men in ways that God intended, [men this is nothing against you!]they will know that no matter what men say or do, or how they control or how they don't, that they are special. They are gifted.
I have known many a women who can hold a baby in one hand, and a gun in the other out in farm country.
We do fight for our country...each and every day. By raising responsible people into society that carry our gifts of strength to others. Be it through the military, through everyday life, or to other children.
It is sad, in my opinion, that mothers have to work, that they don't have the time to teach their children the loyality ad strength they need to make through life.
When women want to work, I respect that and know it is difficult. But the most difficult job in the world, and it might as well be called a war, is teaching a child to love, respect and honor the world around him/her. How can we fight a war when our children have a big one of their own? They need all we can offer. How can we as women and mothers walk out the door every day and know that someone else is teaching our children their belief system, thier morals, and their version of gun control?
Women in the military> Fine, but no mothers allowed and no battle lines for any of us. We have a war to win at home.
Joyce

No, the issue is: "will women in the armed forces degrade combat performance".

At least, that's the issue for those interested in the performance of our military. Those who are concearned with "fairness" (defined as equal oppertunity for advancment for women in the military) may indeed feel that the issue is something else.

I know that some have argued that it is OK if women degrade our combat effectiveness, because our tech makes us so much more effective than anyone else. I don't buy the tech argument (wasn't tech supposed to make us sooo much more effective than those backwards North Koreans and Chinese?), but even if I did buy the tech argument, I'd rather reduce the military budget and pass the savings to the taxpayer rather than have a larger, less efficient military for the benifit of a few women.

When was Tuzla being shelled every day?  The city may have received some fire, but does that mean that an armor unit within that city saw more effects of that fire than the inhabitants?  Why would you take Leopards out to deal with indirect fire, shouldn't you use fire finder WLW, and fire counterfires?  Tanks would just be targets, and not provide the ideal counter to indirect fire.  That is one of the complaints that US has right now, warfighting and peace keeping are too different things and the requirements are not the same.

You were an infantrymen right, were you mech or light?  Most light infantrymen don't understand the incredible amount of heavy lifting required within a tank.  I never appreciated it until I was a FO for tanks, moving, flipping and loading 120 mm rounds requires a lot of upper body strength.  Nothing sucks more than having to break and work on track, if you are on a tank crew, whether you are an officer or enlisted you end up doing heavy work.

He doesn't have to have served in the IDF to know what their experice with women soldiers was. It's well documented. And it's real combat experience, not just the experience of UN or NATO peacekeepers.

And, unlike the Danish army, the IDF is [i]needed[/i] for the survival of its county.

Simple economics......

100 American males apply for military service, of these about 70 are suitable for training. Factors initially eliminating applicants will be physical state, criminal history and education.

Of these 70 that enter approx. 90% will graduate from basic training, leaving us with 63 new soldiers.

The present tooth to tail ratio is about 1:9. 1 fighter and 9 support. By my math, this yields 6 combat soldiers  from the initial 100 who applied.
Money initially invested is approx. 15K per soldier for each of the 63 who made it through basic for a total of $94,500. This $100K invested yielded 6 combat soldiers.

Apply a SOF template and the numbers go out the bottom. It is said that members of SMUs are in the one tenth of one percent of the US population (1 out 1000 American Males would make the grade). Cost to train an operator is well into 6 figures, approaching 7 digits.

Mindful of the above replace male with female. The Canadian army found (test conducted over 5 years in the mid seventies) that of 100 females that apply only 2 would make it through basic. You can do the rest of the math.

My point is that there are women out there who can do the job, it just will cost this nation millions of dollars to find each of them.

All of this to satisfy a feminist agenda that cares nothing of the defense of this nation.

Not on my watch.

HAHAHAHAHAHA, your kidding, HAHAHAHAHAH, that's it?! You were shelled while there were women around?! So friggin what. Thats a M*A*S*H episode "half-wit" and does NOTHING to refute the findings of the IDF which you have YET to address.


I'm sorry, maybe I missed it, how does this IN ANY WAY refute the findings of the IDF that women in combat units resulted in MORE casualties then in all male units?
Remember, as DonS pointed out, the IDF is actually in their own land fighting for their very existence so I doubt they just make this stuff up, unlike some.


Oh. Forgive me. In that case, everyone ignore all the IDF findings that women in combat resulted in more casualties because DK-Prof was "in the Danish Army".



Good, since you have shown you don't have the faintest clue as to what you are talking about.


And how many studies done by governments who actually sent women into the front lines have you read?
Hmmm, let me guess 0.0

So to recap, you can't refute that the IDF used women in combat and it was a disaster. You can't refute the study by the IDF that women in combat roles resulted in more casualties. So the only thing that you can attest to is that there were women nearby when you were shelled "daily". Like I said, a M*A*S*H episode.

For the rest here please do not infer from my post that I in any way wish to take anything away from the many women have served with utmost bravery and distinction and have even laid down their lives for freedom and liberty. The point, the only point, is that all the evidence shows that women on the front lines results in more deaths. Period. Diane Feinstein and Barbra Boxer can take their notions of what is best for the United States military and go F themselves. And by the way "DK-Prof" since you did not serve in the United States armed forces please allow us Americans to banter amongst ourselves this important issue of how we think best to defend our shores and our interests. Tell you what, why not make women 50% of the mighty "Danish Army" combat units and go and attack somebody, ANYBODY, and see if you don't get your Danish ass kicked.

Hey what the big deal. Men need something under them to protect them from the cold wet ground!

well, after some careful thought and an argument with the significant other, i'd like to amend and/or clarify some of my previous statements.

first, i'm not a big fan of women in combat for ALL of the reasons you guys, especially those having served with them, have mentioned.

second, the issue in the military where the decisions are made [i]is[/i] about whether the presence of females will screw things up.  the issue on this board is that too many of its male members have their heads up their asses when it comes to what women [b]can[/b] do.

the way i see it, if there are females that are going to be doing all of those horrible things you guys described, they're not fit for the military.  but not because they're female.  because they don't have the right attitude, mindset, personality, whatever.  true, way fewer women will have the necessary mental and physical attributes.  but by several of your arguments, a man that did the same exact things would still be okay because he was a man.  but in all actuality he's no more a good candidate than a 6 y/o if he doesn't have the "military" mindset.

once again, i was getting upset at the double standard, not that there was a group of people opposed to females in combat.

finally, sort of a two-headed monster here, i really think that when you keep women from serving period, you're losing a valuable resource.  there [b]are[/b] women out there who want and can serve faithfully, respectfully, and damn well.  just because some of you have run into my sex's worst examples doesn't mean that the rest of us are like that.

by the way, doesn't anyone else find it absolutely hilarious that even though you find common ground about an issue, you still have to find a way to piss on someone else's opinions?

AR Lady, I cant beleve that you bothered to respond to this thread.  These guys are just wallowing in testasterone and hairy chest beating.  All you did by stepping in was offer a new target for their wit.

And DK Prof, dont try to bring up what foreign armies do, it means nothing to them.  In their eyes the European armies are little more than  troops of Girl Scouts.  They will never beleve that the Mighty United States Armed Forces could ever learn anything from those queers.  The fact that our military budget is about twice that of all of Europe COMBINED, and that we posses the best technology is meaningless.  It is the superiority of American Manhood that is behind US Military success, and it must never bee diluted or our power will dwindle, and our proud forces will become feeble and effeminent.

Dont try to tell them that history isnt on their side either.  That Russia, China, Vietnam, and North Korea all have used or still use women in ground combat roles.  They are all stinking Communists!  The Communists lost the Cold War and the United States won!  Obviously there is nothing the Great and Powerful United States can learn from a bunch of loosers...

That "IDF experiment" is about as real as someone testing handgun rounds aganst goats in a old Magenot line fort in Strasbourg.  The IDF forced all its women out of combat roles in the period 48-50, as soon as they could be replaced.  Why?  Because the American and British Jews who were fincancing Isreal then were AGAST that women were actually fighting in ground combat. Their performance had nothing to do with it, many had fought the Nazis for years in Europe before coming to Palestine, only to be told "now now, nice ladies dont fight. How are you going to attract a husband that way?"[;D]

Rant off, I am out of here, the arrogance and egotism in this thread are making me want to hurl my ice cream...

I have yet to see anyone argue that women would not disrupt unit integrity.

ArmdLbrl
Well you are not far off, many that have worked with our allies, would say that not all of them are that impressive in their abilities.  Of all our European allies (I have never worked with the Danes, so it may not apply to them) the UK was the only military that was anywhere near the standards of the US, the German have the potential, but there is something of the current German ethos holding them back right now.  

The communist and former communist nations mentioned at one time used women, as war time emergencies, but not as a preference but only because they couldn't get enough men.  When the war was over or the particular crisis was over they stopped.  No one has ever shown that their use was more effective, but many have shown that they were less effective.

OK  OK - I have a compromise -

Women will be allowed in combat, but they have to fight topless, so as to distract the enemy.

[}:D]

[b]This[/b] is how you respond to my lengthy post referencing almost all of your previous points? Lovely. For your information, this is not how a debate is conducted; it's an insult. I won't respond in kind. I just want you to know that it's a pathetic way to weasel out of an argument. I've never had a beef with you before, and I think it's great that the women on the board take an interest in practicing and protecting the Second Amendment. But here you are stamping your foot when you can't refute the arguments presented to you, and impugning us all for the opinions, for the most part [b]based on experience[/b], that we have.

Walk a mile in my jungle boots, and then we can debate theory. Until then, I want to talk about reality.

Jarhead out.

A parallel issue is:

How is it "morally superior" for some women to refuse to admit that women CANNOT do certain things, as compared to some men who refuse to admit that a woman CAN do some things??

Womens myopia is "morally superior" because it is Politically Correct. Why do "some women" let themselvs get sucked up by the PC attitudes of the day???


Hmmmmm.......

Don't throw a hissy fit, honey. If you can't add something of substance, don't bother showing up. We don't need cheerleaders in the debate.



Hey, don't look now, but you're making an argument. Sure, it's done in a completely sarcastic and insulting manner, but you're taking a valiant swing at it nonetheless.

The only ones in this thread to mention technology did it to buttress the weak argument that the 40% of upper body strength women lack as opposed to men is meaningless. Sure it is, until you've had to hump your bodyweight in gear for 20 miles overnight.

And the notion that, since the Danish Army made it work, so we can assumes that we're operating under the same rules of engagement. News Flash: We're not. The American political system, the people who brought you section 8 housing, affirmative action and welfare have rigged the system so that women only have to meet a lowered standard compared to the one the men are held to. This breeds contempt and distrust, especially when women routinely fail to meet those lowered standards, yet their command is forced to turn a blind eye on that fact or commanders will have their careers ruined because they didn't foster an atmosphere of nurturing and understanding.

Cont'd.



Seen how Russia has been doing lately? They're getting their asses handed to them in Chechnya, just like they did in Afghanistan. Sure, when Russian farm women were conscripted to save the Motherland from the Nazis at Stalingrad, they comported themselves well, but they weren't NOW-ed up, spoiled American women who had been told all their lives what they [b]deserved[/b], they were hardcore Communist fighters used to having the crap kicked out of them everyday and fighting to stay alive in a dictatorship. The same applies to the Chinese and the Koreans. The Vietnamese used women in the VC, but they were a guerilla force. And what do all the countries you named have in common?

[b]Life is cheap there![/b]



I have no knowledge of the IDF's experience with women in combat, or the conditions under which it occurred, so I won't speak to that, except to say that, surrounded as they are by countries sworn to their annihilation, if they had any indication that women in combat roles would increase their readiness and effectiveness, they'd be there. The Israelis are some pragmatic sons of bitches when it comes to their survival.



Well, we wouldn't want that.

you just did!

your opinion of yourself is too high.  i wasn't responding to [i]your[/i] post.  it was a general response to all.  step down off your pedestal and you might have realized that.

as for conduct in debates...do you know why i never took debate class in high school or college?  because they have rules!  seriously, you're yelling at me for not countering your points one by one, saying i'm not playing by the rules, and you don't even mention the childish name calling and severe chauvisitic behavior displayed by others.  you're one to talk.

i wasn't trying to weasel out the argument.  something you need to understand about women, particulary this one.  the more you push to change my mind, the harder i'll fight to stay there.  so tossing insults my way isn't going to get me to come around.  an intelligent discourse might.

my backtracking was more an effort to reverse my knee-jerk reaction to the anti-female point of view(s) on this board.  after careful consideration of the points made in civil manner (didn't even bother with emotional B.S. about women), i agree for the most part with you guys.  i agree 100% with the current situation that females don't do anything to garner respect among the males.  a few bad apples....

however, i still believe that there are some women who can be a valuable asset in combat.  and until the [b]men[/b] accept that, women will always be seen as pariahs.  the point i'm trying to make is that a woman can be just as good if not better than a man, and it won't matter one bit, because the male leadership will refuse to see her as a soldier and will always be focusing on her sex.  this is not her fault, much as so many here have tried to state.  will it ever be different?  i seriously doubt it.  but i'm tired of women getting blamed for something they have no control over: mainly the chauvinistic attitude against them.

i most certainly am not advocating letting any female into combat just because she wants too.  even i, whose mentality and personality is probably better suited to combat than others, would not say that i would make a good soldier.  first, i'd just as soon take out a few friendlies for stupidity as shoot at the enemy.  (just kidding.  sort of.)  second, i know i don't have the physical capabilities to do what's required.

i think that most of you men would find more women supporting your viewpoint if you didn't become so damn nasty and condescending when you talk to them.  those females in your examples deserve your ire.  "give 'em hell."  but you must understand that when i say women in combat is a possibility, i am not supporting [i]them[/i] and/or their disgusting behavior.  i think a few of you made that mistake.

i personally don't think it's morally superior.  i think it's garbage.  and the motivation behind both is probably the same.  i'll be the first to admit that there are certain things i can't do.  but i try them first.  then decide i can't do them.  (the nice thing about boot camp is that a woman can figure this out before anyone's life is put in danger.)

want another parallel?  why is it okay for men to decide for us up front what we can and cannot do?  is that not just as worse than a woman refusing to admit she can't?  that's where my beef is.  granted, the combat/physical strength thing is pretty much decided.  yet, there will always be women who CAN do it that won't be allowed because somebody has already decided that the majority of women CAN'T.  see my point?

ARlady: I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. I did not insult you. If you feel hurt by some of my opinions, that's different. That's not a personal attack. I never said you had your head up your ass or anything else for believing what you believe. I attempted to refute, point by point, in a logical fashion, your statements. You don't conduct a debate that way? Fine. I wish I had known that before I wasted the bandwidth trying to address you civilly.

Namecalling and chauvinistic behavior on the part of others isn't my responsiblity to police. I'm responding to your arguments, that's all. If someone started calling you names or cursing you out, I'd certainly try to tone things down, but I'm not a moderator here.



I shouldn't have to understand anything about women to have a debate on any topic. Logic is logic and facts are facts. If you don't choose to address the logic and facts I present, and keep returning again and again to a broad, emotion driven lecture, it's not a debate. I don't know what you call it, but it's not a debate. Take another look at the title to this thread.

And I never insulted you. I don't do that. I may not give your ideas and opinions the respect you feel they're due, but that's different than saying you have your head up your ass, isn't it? I don't tell you that you're stupid for believing what you believe. I just tell you that I disagree with you, and why.

no, i'm not incorrect.

i did not say you insulted me.  and i do not feel insulted by your responses.  i don't feel hurt.  if you weren't so darn insistent that i was trying to turn this into an "incorrect" debate, you might understand that i didn't refute your "point-by-point" discourse because, again after consideration (did you even read my previous post?), i think that the majority of you guys are right.  why would i debate something if i agree with it?  duh!

however, i think you need to practice what you preach.  if it's not your responsibility to police namecalling and chauvinstic behavior, then it's not your responsibility to tell me how to debate by [b]your[/b] rules either. you can't have it both ways.  if others can debate by their own rules (=no rules?), then so can i.  so can you for that matter.  just don't get upset when someone doesn't play the same way you do.  the only rules we're bound by are the forum conduct rules.  otherwise, it's our own personal standards that guide our behavior.  and if mine don't correspond with yours, tough shit.

and i stand by my emotionally-driven [b][size=5]fact[/size=5][/b] that men are just as much a part of the problem as women inasmuch as they refuse to see the woman as the soldier, regardless of her abilities.

as far as the system that rewards women at the expense of men.  i'm ashamed of it.  it totally discredits my sex, and several of the viewpoints on this board are prime examples.  but women in general are not to blame.  ignorant feminists, yes.  all women, no.  i'm not supporting or defending the system.  i'm saying that there's a lot of women getting a bad rad because the actions of others (women) have ruined men's opinion of women.

Anyone who has read the "Art of War" by the chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, would know that everything has it's usefullness and drawbacks. I feel there is a place for woman in the military! It is just a matter of where their strengths lie and how they can be best utilized most efficiently.
[uzi][frag]

Damn, Sir, I missed that the first time. Well said.

I'm getting a bit tired of the men pointing out what is wrong with women in the military, and women cackling about how mean and silly their arguments are.  We all agree that the way the US military is doing this is wrong.  I am confident enough in my position that I believe a simple set of consistently applied rules will prove my point.  I don’t suppose that anyone else has some additional fair and reasonable steps that can be taken to resolve the issue?

Women aren't as strong as men. If a soldier is required to need to do 42 pushups at a certain age wouldn't that be all soldiers not just those with testicals? So why not change the standards down to the female standard? Because the army couldn't funtion if all the memebers were panty wastes but can if only 18% are. So we have a social experiment risking our very live as a free country on the outcome.

How many women in a unit get knocked up and taken out of duty just prior to a field deployment? Women make up less than 20% of the military but represent 80% of the sick call cases.

Very simple.
Increasing relative cost
due to factor suitability.

ARlady, I never said it was an "incorrect" debate. The only place I said incorrect for you to quote me on it is when I told you that you were incorrect in thinking I had insulted you like you insulted me. In point of fact, if I address your points, but you won't address mine, there is no debate taking place, incorrect or not. I never took debating in high school either, but I know that much.

I don't care about rules for the debate, as long as there actually is a debate happening, and here there obviously is not.

Men refuse to see the woman as a soldier, regardless of her abilities? Why do you think that is? Perhaps because of past experience? Over and over, you have heard from members here who have seen the results of our nation's policy on women in the military, and yet you continue to argue that the failure of women in the military is the fault of men. I wouldn't say that you have your head up your ass, as you have accused me and the other men here who disagree with you, but you may well have it in the sand.

Is the system broken? Yes. Has it been created to foster a sense of entitlement in women that if they can't succeed on their own, the system will cradle them and rig the scores in their favor? Yes it has. Would I like to see it changed to that, like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, men and women have the same, high, objective standards to meet, and if they can't meet them, they're out on their asses? Yes I would. Does this country have the political will to make those changes possible? Not a chance. Will blaming a bunch of former enlisted men who suffered under the existing system fix that? No it won't.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
will probably never
have to define personal hygiene
as changing your underwear every
now and then and burying the old pair
in the desert.

Well, not wanting to stand in a all this testosterone for long, (it stains the boots) I'll point out a couple of things.  1) What is this obsession with charging into machine gun fire scenarios? Male or female, I would never expect my troops to do that. Ever hear of Combined Arms? 2) I'm the Plt SGT for a reinforced Military Police platoon. (Divisional) 53 soldiers currently.  14 of whom are women. for those unfamiliar with this setup, our mission is security behind the Forward Edge of the Battle Area, traffic control, and recon. For this, the troops are split up 4 to a hummer, operate pretty much independently, and are armed with a number of weapons. MK 19's, SAW's and M16/203's. Everyone has a Beretta as well. The females have no problem operating the Mk 19's. Two of my SAW gunners are female, as are 3 of my M203 gunners. The same weapons the men don't want to carry because they're "too heavy". One of my squad leaders and two of my asst squad leaders are female.  None are pregnant, none engage in prostitution, all pull their weight.  As for malingering,  the men do it worse than the women. I have never seen any of the women come to formation in a poorly maintained uniform, drunk from partying the night before, or fail to work as part of the unit. All my disclipline problems are currently men. Half of those women have seen duty in Bosnia, One was in Desert Storm. As for combat ability,  granted, it's just a reserve unit, but I'll take those 14 women, led by that female squad leader, over  all the armchair commandos on this board in a live fire scenario any day.  Why?  because they can shoot, move, communicate, and work as a team.  All the guys on this thread seem to be adept at is firing with a keyboard from a covered position. BTW:  DK, when were you in that Danish unit?  I was deployed in Tuzla during that time. The Danes were great folks. (For those that don't equate receiving artillery fire as being in REAL combat,  Get a grip!  At least the Danes were allowed to shoot back)

Johninaustin -

few would argue that women can do the job in peace time (with the occasional need for a male to do the "heavy lifting.")

That's not the point, making the majority of your post irrelevant.

Were talking about when the fighting and killing are going on. Please give us some examples of how your soldier chicks have faired there.

Lastly, have you ever considered that the poor behavior of your male soldiers is in part due to the social engineering and social experimentation going on in the military , part of which is the FORCED insertion of women WHERE THEY DON"T BELONG, such that the "warriors" (to use Garand Shooter's phraseology - he's ALSO military) have gotten the heck out of either the military entirely or out of units where women are. Basically, all you've probably got left are slobs who don't really want to be soldiers anyhow, partly due to the "warriors" having exited when the females entered. Have ya ever thoguth of that???

who's backtracking now?

seriously, i fully believe that the system is flawed.  and i fully believe that a lot of the women in the system have done a lot, if not irreparable, harm.

failure of each individual woman in the military is the fault of none other than each woman.  susie fails, susie's fault.  however, the failure of women in general in the military is a combination of women who don't belong there in the first place, a system that rewards differences when none should exist, and a general antipathy towards females by male soldiers made worse by the presence of the first two things i mentioned.

and i never said that the failure of women in the military was solely the fault of men.  quit putting words in my mouth.  i'm not refusing to believe that a lot of women have bear a large responsibility for the current situation.  i'm refusing to let [b]all[/b] of the blame be laid on all females.



do you really want me to answer that?  i understand you point, but i think you missed mine.  illustration:  three women in military fail miserably, whine, cry, complain, and otherwise make life hell for male soldiers.  they're gone (evidently got pregnant to get out of the horrible situation they were in).  fourth female comes along, passes all the standards [b]for males[/b], acts like a soldier, thinks like a soldier, is a soldier (as opposed to just a female in the military)and not once uses her sex for any personal advancement.  because of the other three women, not a single man in the military (gross generalization for argument's sake) will give her credit for the very things they demand because they've been so blinded by their contempt for the other three women.

do they have every right to be suspicious?  absolutely.  is this the fourth woman's fault?  absolutely not.  and yet no one believes she can do anything because she's female and the three before her couldn't/wouldn't do things right.  what a crock!  judge each according to his or her own merits.

another example, i'm sure there are a few males that are guilty of some of the same things mentioned about:  whining, crying, weak (though fixable).  yet, he's judged as a individual.  the whole sex isn't scorned.  why?  

i don't have a problem with men not wanting females in the military.  i understand it.  i do have a problem with men blaming women for [b]all[/b] of the problems that arise from them being in the military.

Well, John, I think I know a little thing or two about artillery, my screen name, STLRN= STEEL RAIN, my old call sigh as a cannon battalion Fire Direction Officer.  As a much younger man, I have been the recipient of counter battery fire, and yes I understand why artillery is considered the king of battle.

Yes, men are bigger discipline problems than women, but most discipline problems can fight, most of those with physical problems cannot.  I would rather have a man that can do the job that some who shows up in a pressed uniform.  Why would HUMVEE mounted troops complain about the weight of the weapons?  They aren't carrying it other than mounting it on the pintle. Or is that the men you are referring to in your unit just the worthless type that are only there to supplement their pay check.

please tell me you're not seriously suggesting that men would be perfect soldiers if women weren't present.  that they wouldn't be drinking/getting drunk, that they wouldn't be complaining about things, or anything else.  as if only reall soldiers would join the military if women weren't allowed.  newsflash:  the military takes all types, slobs and perfectionists.  they would exist side by side with or without women present.

IMO, you've created a hypothetical WHICH DOES NOT EXIST in reality. If so, it would be foolish to spend time debating it.

But say I'm wrong.

That doesn't change the fact that is is bad policy and just plain silly to structure the military such that they have to cull thru 75% of their female enlistees (your three out of four example - its probably more like 95% to meet the standardds YOU set above) to find the one female recruit that can hack it JUST TO SOOTHE SOME WOUNDED FEMALE EGOS.

what I'm saying is that MANY MANY "warriors' left the military BECAUSE of the FORCED integration of women, and how they both knew in advance, and then saw in reality how unit cohesiveness and readiness would suffer, and now the military is overburdened with losers who don't have the warrior spirit. But do exhibit the bad conduct and discipline mentioned above.

agreed, the current policy/logistics concerning women in military is very flawed.  all of the changes made in allowing women should never have been made.  multiple standards, quotas, blah, blah, blah.  the only change should have been in letting women in.  period.  everything else should have stayed the same.  i agree with that 100%.  and doing it because of some feminist ego/NOW lobbying effort was just as foolhardy.  doing it because there are women who want to serve, who have enough patriotism to put their life on the line, who are willing to lay down their life for another is the right reason.  that's where you can start in pointing out the problems with women in the military.

but it's not a hypothetical.  it happens. if it didn't, you'd be telling me that every single woman in the military is a slack-off, whining, crying, gettin' pregnant piece who should be doing something else.  i just don't buy that.   johninaustin just illustrated that.  there are women who screw up and there are women who make great soldiers.  plus, every man on this board telling me that women cause problems are guilty of the very thing i described.  the bad female soldiers are the only things they're talking about.  and they're all telling me that they think that way about every other female in the military because of those bad female soldiers they've served with.  it is NOT hypothetical.

You have a good experience with women in the military to relate? Outstanding. "Armchair commandos?" "Firing with a keyboard from a covered position?" How does that help get your point across when most of us, though not all, are stating the facts as we experienced them in our own military service?

Women that can hack it get respect because they set an example for others to follow, like the ones you're talking about, and the [b]one[/b] I dealt with at my battalion headquarters. Unfortunately, they seem to be in the minority as regards their gender from what I saw, and what others have stated.

When all the male Corporals on the CPX have eagerly taken patrols out in the freezing cold pouring rain and six inch deep mud at NTA in Okinawa, but the one female Corporal in the platoon is hiding in the comm van and won't come out, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth.

When your platoon is gearing up for Operation Team Spirit, wintertime in Korea, and two of the three females in the unit are suddenly pregnant, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth.

When the one female Sergeant in your unit fails her (already "gender normed") PT test, and the Captain turns in the scores minus hers because he knows that an adverse fitness report on a female will put him on the skyline at battalion, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth.

When every female member of your NCO School class falls out of a 10 mile run within the first mile and the formation has to endlessly keep circling back to try and get them to fall back in, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth.

When you see a man spend six weeks in the brig on pre-trial confinement on a rape charge based only on the lying word of a female who later retracted the charge, saying she was embarrassed to be caught in bed with a man of a different race by her roommate, in can leave a bad taste in your mouth. The fact that she was simply transferred to another unit off-island and not charged with false official statement or anything else after her lies were found out was positively nauseating.

This needs to be repeated....

And you haven't addressed the KEY point of my post - that it is FOOLISH to cull thru four female enlistees JUST to find ONE good one. (YOUR example, not mine)

it wasn't my question, but it doesn't really matter.

i appreciate your decision.  and i even agree with you.  it is your life and as things stand now, you're more at risk with women present than without.  and let me state for the record again that i don't advocate women in combat as things stand now.  my purpose in this "debate" is to bring to light that women are not soley responsible for all the ills of an integrated military as so many have tried to tell me.  i just don't buy it.

i certainly don't want to screw things up.  i'm fine with keeping women out of combat...for now.  maybe someday the kinks can be worked out and only good women soldiers will want to serve.  until then...

but all this shit about women being poor soldiers is buggin' me.  a man doing the same thing is just a poor soldier.  a women doing the same thing is a low-life female forcing her way in.  why isn't she just a poor soldier like the male?  if that attitude were taken, then a lot of the problems would be on their way to a solution.  alas, i don't think it will ever happen.  too bad.

though, this does bring up a question that's been in the back of my mind since this was started.  for those of you who don't believe that women belong in the military and/or combat units, would you hold the same thought in a closer-to-home situation?  for example, a revolution/civil war/SHTF scenario?  just curious.

Apples and pomegranites. [:D]

A SHTF scenario you take whatever you can get. This is a conscious decision to place s sub-standard warrior in a combat position.

And even in the SHTF scenario, ANY woman would be my LAST choice.

actually, i have, but it's been more subtle.  i think you'd cull those very quickly with a single standard and no political B.S. regarding quotas, etc.  women would be less likely to enter the armed forces knowing there isn't a break for them.  it'll take an enlistment class or two, but those that don't make it (shouldn't have been there in the first place) will go back and tell all their friends how tough it was.

since i've never served, i don't know the answer to this.  what does the military do with a male soldier that doesn't belong, for whatever reason makes a very poor soldier?

i knew that, i just wondered what the prevailing opinion was.  wondered if the women-can't-do-shit attitude dominated in the pomegranites as much as in the apple orchard.




so a man who didn't know the first thing about firearms or warfare would be preferable to a woman who did?

Ya see, THIS is what kills me. Absolutely slays me dead. There is a (foolish) presumption sometimes that because people own a firearm, they are conservative. Ain't so apparently.

An "enlistment class or two???"

So, we set up YET ANOTHER gov't program (at how much cost) to "educate" the unwashed masses of women, and see if they are suitable for military life, and can measure up to men who are LEAVING the military because they don't want women in their combat units, for ALL the reasons already stated, reasons you have agreed with(i.e. the physical strength aspects???

Just like the gov't to first create the problem, and then create a "solution" that exacerbates the problem.

What I don't get is why you by into it.

i wasn't gonna chime in again, i think it was a good article, and she raised some interesting points. BUT, since you asked...

a SHTF scenario is WAY different then the weak (men AND women) believing that they are ENTITLED to anything and everything...

women have in the past shown remarkable fortitude when their homes are threatened - and frankly, in a SHTFS, i would fight along-side ANYONE of ANY race, color, creed or sex, simply because at that time, we will all have a common interest.

the point is, a standing army being demoralized by lowered standards and dissent among the ranks is not ideal, and needs to be worked on...SHTF, i'll take whatever i can get.

garandman, are you saying that you would leave an injured woman behind, and only save the men in a SHTFS????