A funny thing happened last Friday- I was arguing with a 1970's-style leftist feminazi whacko woman about the fact that women do not belong in combat roles.
 
 She pulled out the most obscure fact imaginable to back her perverse opinion:  (paraphrasing her) "Well, did you know that in the ancient world, an army of women once routed a superior force of male soldiers?"  

 After I finished laughing at her...
What the hell is she referring to?  

I simply cannot imagine to what battle she is referring.

Sounds like an old wives' tale, but she ain't an old wife.

Eric The(Ain'tNoSuchThingAsAmazons)Hun[>]:)]

Lesbo Bitch has been watching too much Xena.

I'll try to get the historical facts...we'll see if she is more receptive to this or not.  

As I said earlier...I'm still laughing three days later!  

This site might help: [url]http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html[/url]

and another [url]http://www.gendergap.com/military/Warriors.HTM[/url] seems like alot of same info.

Mike

The person with whom you were arguing probably was referring to the Greek legend tradition about the Amazon women.  There are a number of other references in history, as pointed to in the above post,  enough so there may be a grain of truth to it.

Actually, I see nothing wrong with women in combat.  Just so as they are not diluted with the same quotas, preferences, and PC manipulations as has been the case in the "regular" forces.  The right woman, motivated and well trained, can perform virtually any of the same tasks as a man.  The only real problem is a psychological/cultural one.  When the first one gets hurt or wounded, then the screaming, crying, gnashing of teeth, recriminations, charges and counter-charges will fly.  Absent that, or some idiot's idea that they have to be protected, they'd do just fine.  Look at Israel.  

I think one of the best places to start would be as fighter pilots, yes, in combat.  The only requirement are skill and, the most important thing, practicepracticepractice.

None of this will work, though, as long as the activist types just want to get in for show, strut around a bit, then expect a promotion.  The real ones would be fine partners, I know.

I [i]love[/i] comments from the Peanut Gallery from people who've never been in that role.

I got my undergrad degree in history...specializing in military history.  With all due respect to your debate adversary, I think she's blowing smoke.  I know of no battle ever in recorded history of mankind, all the way back through antiquity...or even alluded to myth or oral traditions that indicate ANY battle of the sort she is talking about.

Sounds like a lot of hype from the "Women in Loose Shoes" crowd.  [whacko]  Probably a mantra in the NOW gang literature.

Bullshit meter pegged!

Make her provide the source...otherwise forget it.

[soapbox]

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?

Uhhhh... there already are female fighter pilots, at least in the Navy.

What role?  Military service?  15 years in combat arms (Artillery), where I've seen the effects on the "Post-Modern Army."  Degraded standards at Jump School, degraded standards at Officer Basic Courses and degraded standards at Officer Advanced Courses.  No thanks.

I said the right woman.  They have to go through the same selection process to determine their capabilities.    If they can't , they can't.  But, those who do have the physical abilities to pull the G's, among other abilities for other specialties, I see no reason why they can't be in combat.  As for "looking" for them, no way.  They have to want to do whatever it is, motivation is a primary requirement for anything.  Looking for them is along the lines of quotas and all the other PC crap.  They'll come to you, and all they have to do is meet the requirements, as above.  

As an aside, I'd suspect one of the reasons we don't really want to open this issue is the people who want to make a cause out of it will immediately start arguing that the requirements are discriminatory.  As you correctly point out, having to pull the G's is a requirement that is quite legitimate, and the nuts can't be allowed to dilute it.  My statement is that the requirements being a given, there are some women who could do it.  Just as there would be some men who could not.

As pioneered by Karen Hultgren?  Splash one Tomcat.  Not a knock on all women in the services, but the ferver to put them in that role, regardless of fitness FOR the role, led to her demise.

Maybe that was it.  I used to love watching Xena, but her transmogrification into a lesbian icon changed the tone of the show (for the worse).

My response was not that there are no female fighter pilots, but rather that [b]rjroberts[/b] seemed to dismiss the intense physical requirements of being a fighter pilot and implied skill and practice is all that's needed.

I'm sure there are a few women who can handle anything most men can - but those would be VERY few.

"transmogrification"?

I thought only William F. Buckley used words like that! [:D]

the has got to be the most succint, honest, and factual description of women in combat that i've ever read/heard.

thank you.  as it stands now, the psychological/cultural issue is enough to convince me that women have no place in today's armed forces.

however, the largest goal to overcome in completely integrating women in our armed forces has nothing to do with the physical, psychological, cultural aspects mentioned.  it would be the closed minds of the men in charge that would refuse to change their current paradigms (some based on bullshit, others based on personal beliefs).  without a massive shift in perspective, overcoming the other three aspects that i mentioned above will result in nothing.

note:  i do not condemn or condescend to the men who believe women have no role in combat.  i am merely referring to those who use the three aspects i mentioned as excuses for their own personal beliefs.  because we all know that even if those hurldes could be overcome, there will always be some men chauvinistic (and i don't mean that in a negative, feminist way) enough to still want to keep women out of the armed forces.

Well, there IS the so called "Battle of Pots" in 1823 in southern Africa.  A militia army of women drove an army of men from the field by hurling their kitchen utensils at the men.  Since in African culture men are not allowed to handle cooking implements or they become unclean, the men fled the field rather than face the wrath of their fellow tribesmen, who would probably have killed them had they found out that their reputations had been soiled by touching the women's tools.  I guess fleeing the field of battle doesn't impugn your reputation???

Anyway, the battle helped establish the short lived Basotho empire, which only lasted until 1840.  Shortly thereafter the tribes were finally subjugated by the Afrikaaners--of which I am half Afrikaans, thus my interest in African history.

I figure, hey, its natives in Africa, so it probably doesn't count as much more than a historical aberration, but it DID happen.

Russia recieved excellent service from women in WW2, one (and i'm sure more) of their best snipers were women. Several of their aces were women also with way more that 5 air victories. I'm sure certain roles would be unsuitable but obviously if things ever got dire enough the reluctance to use women in combat would evaporate just like it did for the Russians.

If a woman can do the job and qualify on the same standards as set for a man then sure she should be allowed to serve, and fight.

Combat is extremely physical, yes, but enduring and surviving is more mental than anything.

Most of you responding have only seen combat on TV and think you are tough enough to take it only to find out you are not. No matter how tough you think you are war will screw you mentally and.

Women have [b]no[/b] place in combat units with men..
The Russians employed female snipers and female mortar squads...And the Germans just loved capturing them..
I cannot think of anything that tear apart unit cohesion in the field than women in an infantry platoon...other than booze & dope on patrols..
Women going without showers for a month or two at a time...and then there is the monthly curse..
An enemy scout dog ought to be able to smell that a mile away...no offense just thinking of this tactically...

I should add my personal opinion about womenz in combat, since this IS the peanut gallery after all.

Given our CULTURAL VALUES among many people in the country, it seems like adding women to our fighting force will complicate things and engender alot of controversy, which will impede efficiency, create morale problems, and dissention within the ranks.  But throughout history, when a nation has REALLY been down for the count, the women have often turned out to be a major source of military strength.  Remember the women's anti-aircraft batteries holding the Germans off outside Leningrad, turning their anti-aircraft guns against the German tanks and buying precious time for the massacred Red Army to retreat?  That wasn't an orderly retreat, it was a rout, and if the women hadn't held the line with those guns Leningrad probably would have been taken at the cost of countless Russian lives.  

Oh, and another thing, American women have been in combat, as far as I'm concerned, since the Vietnam War.  I have a good friend who was a head trauma nurse at a MASH unit in South Vietnam.  She has post-traumatic stress disorder, which I can assure you is very very real, she carried a 1911 and wore a helmet, and she's survived things in real life that my worst nightmares as a child don't begin to approach.  She has permanent memory loss from the day the Tet Offensive began until two weeks later, she doesn't remember a thing.  I'm not going to tell her that she wasn't in combat!  But she's the first to tell you that she didn't want to be there!

I think a lot of good arguments (ogically, if not practically) are being made all around.  However, if the concept of females in combat roles is sound, it should be demonstrated by ALL FEMALE units (air, infantry, armor, arty, et al).  Now, I will freely admit that this is a straw-man argument, as it will never be practiced due to resistance from all sides of the ideological spectrum.

My own experience, based on nothing more than interaction with and observance of females in the combat arms, says that there are limitations that are not mitigated by any of the supposed benefits.  And 90% of this comes from my belief that women are not [i]physiologically[/i] compatible with combat conditions, whatever their mindset.

These are only my experiences, and I won't attempt to pass them off as statistical evidence:
1.  As early as my long lost days in ROTC, where I've been forced to hump two rucks and two rifles, because even the fittest females (PT 270+) could not complete the marches unassisted.  These WERE NOT injured personnel, but "deployable" soldiers.
2.  My experiences at the Jump School at Ft. Benning, where my the wonderous luster of my jump wings was tarnished by the fact that my 201/ORB will forever list the course as "COED", as then entire platoon was forced to run "only" at the speed of the slowest female.
3.  The fact that I've had to use precious AIRLIFT assets to remove female soldiers from the field for periodic (twice weekly) showers and "hygiene breaks."  Hardly the "dustoff" of combat lore ;)
4.  The fact that EVERY female officer within the battalion staff (and thank God it was only the staff) was PREGNANT on our most important yearly field exercise, and could be seen "waddling" about in MATERNITY BDUs (WTF?),unable to buckle their LBEs or hump any gear other than their donut-shaped seat cushions, and assigning the majority of their duties to their male counterparts.

That said, I don't at all feel hypocritical assigning the appropriate praise (for their jobs, not their sex) nurses, clerks, mechanics and others who have distinguished themselves.

In short, "An Army that seeks to judge both sexes by two standards can only VICTIMIZE one and SHORTCHANGE the other." (Author Unknown)

An update:
She now says that she was mistaken, and trying to refer to Phillipe of Macedonia, where ALexander the Great's father was defeated by an army that utilized female archers and charioteers. She says that she found this on a women's history website.  So, no doubt that this should be taken with a grain of salt or two.

Somehow, I think they meant to name it the "Womyn's Herstory Website."  [;)]

Does anybody know where there might be a clip of this online?  I saw it once, and it is tragic, yet compelling.    
"add power, Add Power, ADD POWER, EJECT, EJECT, EJECT!"

Woman can suffice in combat, but there is no compelling reason for our country to employ them, until we get into a situation similar to Russia in WWII.

Anybody who has ever been in a front line combat unit would agree that it is a very bad idea.

The better question is why would any woman Want to be in combat?

For the politically-oriented in our military, it's not that they want to be in combat, but they want to be in COMBAT ARMS and combat arms units.  The career path in the combat arms is much more accelerated over nearly all others (except the "professional" ranks like doctors, dentists and lawyers, where attrition keeps them moving up).  One of the most common arguments by Pat Schroeder (sp?)is that keeping women out of the combat arms is hurting their careers, regardless of what it does for performance and readiness.

I guess I am jaded.  I spent my time in the USMC and for the majority of WM's I saw, I wouldn't take 90% of them into combat.  Its just those other 10% of WM's you gotta worry about.  They would cut your liver out and eat it for chow! And talk about ugly!!!!!!!!!!!!Jeezuss!!!!!!!! Scare the devil out of ya on those PT mornings before they "pretty up" (especially during those lovely few days of the month!).  Most of them make Chewbacca look sexy.

I remember this one at the E-club on Futenma....shakin' her ass to Copperhead Road....Looked like a freaking Sasquatch mating dance.........

Jarhead94 out

I don't know much about the Karen Hultgren incident, but I was under the impression that it wasn't her fault. I heard it was caused by mechanical problems which caused the engine to stall. Now, as pilots are responsible for checking parts of their aircraft mechanically, this might or might not be her fault. But I heard that it wasn't, no?

Her left engined flamed on landing, causing the aircraft to roll and yaw to the left, she and her RIO punched just before hitting the water, but she ejected straight down into the water, where she was killed.  The RIO survived.  Anyhow, the Navy took the UNPRECEDENTED step of fishing for the aircraft in deep water in order to PROVE mechanical failure was 100% at fault.  They've never done that for any other (male) aviator.

When it was brought up that there are procedures for dealing with engine failure, the Navy drafted young male pilots for a test program to recreate the incident in a simulator.  However, all of the pilots were able to maintain control of the aircraft for another pass and successful landing (simulated).  Then, they were instructed that they WERE NOT allowed to follow the PUBLISHED corrective action, and had to "react instinctively."  Still, they all recovered the aircraft.

It was clear from the start of the investigation that Lt. Hultgren WOULD NOT be found at fault, and that's how it ended up.

Frontline (a show on PBS) did a pretty good job of covering both sides of the argument.  By "both sides", I mean the lie that the left forced the Navy to commit, and the truth.

Adding women to combat units will not make the units more efficient at warfighting.
Therefore, adding women to combat units DEGRADES the warfighting abilities of said units.

There is not a woman on this planet who can carry a combat load (pack, weapon, ammo, comm-gear, and/or part of a crew-served @85 lb.s) for 25 miles, drop pack, and then kick my ass (or any other decent grunt's).
I don't care if she IS an "Amazon".

Fact.

Quoted:
[b]Despite the flimsy rationalizations provided by some (over and over again) on this topic, the reality is that women can serve in combat units.[/b]
The reality is that you took a leave of your senses long ago if you believe this drivel.


[b]It just has to be done right.  As long as the women have to meet the SAME STANDARDS and perform the same as men in the same job, then there is no problem.[/b]
Tell that to the IDF.

[b]I agree that there is no doubt the men ON AVERAGE have a stronger build than women and ON AVERAGE have more upper body strength.  However, that by itself is not an argument.[/b]
Can someone pull up that report by our Defense Department of a month ago about how women's bones are much more brittle, how their tendons and ligaments tear and strain much easier, how they get hernias much easier and their cervical and lumbar vertebrae are much weaker. Thanks.
Not that any of this matters in combat, right?


[b]And before anyone tells me that I don't know what I'm talking about -[/b]
You don't know what you're talking about.

[b]I am in fact one of the only people on this board that does know.[/b]
Actually, you don't know what you're talking about.


[b]During the 80s and 90s, Denmark (where i served)[/b]
Oh, "Denmark", well, in that case....


[b]was the ONLY country in the world that allowed women in combat units.  Women served in Bosnia during the war as peacekeepers (part of KFOR) and when women came under fire (i Tuzla) for instance, the performed jsut as well as the men.[/b]
Oh, now I see, women can be shot at just as well as a man or at least as well as "Danish" men, so let them serve in front line combat roles. Right.

I think I'll weigh in here.  Had a similar discussion with a female co-worker who is AF Reserve.

First I think the military is too PC, I was Navy back when they asked if you were a fag.  And that's how they asked you when joining.  Went to basic in Feb 91' Great Lakes RTC, got an open hand up-side my head 10 minutes off the bus for rolling my eyes, cursed out with language that would peel the paint off a nursey wall daily for 9 weeks.  But one of the first things I noticed was that women were refered to as "females".  They were seperated from men and at that time there were 3 RTC facilities.  The one in Orlando FL trained the females, my CC's said we were lucky not to have been asigned to "P****Y Camp" because that's where it was easy and we would have to live with the shame that we became sailors where "females" trained.  There is a menatlity in the military that women are inferior and even though I agree that they are very capable in most cases, it is the hard wired mindset of men that will keep this debate from ever being settled.  

Being Navy it goes without saying that of all the services being female Navy is the toughest one mentally IMO.  The Navy as I was indoctrinated had "females" by some official mandate and that they were REALLY only good for one thing.  Of course the Navy has changed it's ways since Tailhook.  I wonder if women are referred to as "females" in bootcamp nowadays?  I know it has stuck with me and some other navy pals through the years.  

anyway I just can't picture a 110# chic with a 75# seabag full of gear on her back marching on the grinder in a late February Lake Michigan snow storm while being verbally abused like we were!  I mean could you really use that language with women.  While it is acceptable to call a guy(me on 7-4 day) a faggot cock-sucking mommy's boy because he forgot his 8th general order(deserved it) but imagine if a CC ripped into a female with ...."you little lesbo, tom-boy, C**T licking whore"  Just can't see it.  But I think there's a new Navy now where everyone is nice to you.  

Anyway women are capable in most cases but not all.  I don't know any woman that could carry my 6'4" 230# ass up a ladder well.  

Now, now [b]Belloc[/b] don't be that way.

[b]DK-Prof[/b] has a point.

Women CAN serve in combat units.

They can serve coffee and donuts at the USO shows! [:P]



I think I posted my thoughts on womyn in the military previously.

Nothing I've read from anyone here provides any logic or facts to change that.

No, actually it doesn't HAVE to be done at all.
There is no reason.

Here's an idea...

Let's consider OUR military to be the one that should be emulated.

There are no aspects, none whatsoever, of Denmark's Armed Forces that we should emulate, in order to improve our warfighting abilities.

They're a fine enough fighting force, sure...
...so what?

We're the finest.
Why should we adopt the practices of a second rate (no offense) military?

Israeli Border Police have women that serve next to men. The various Celtic tribes regularly took their women to battle, also their children. Caesar commented on their damn women and welps in battle. But there is a big difference between them and many of the women in the U.S. anymore.

This is a sorry country in that we have grown soft. How many kids can do a proper push up? let alone an adult. They children of today in many parts of this country are being brought up as sissys. You  get caught playing cops and robbers......whoa let alone cowboys and Indians, in the school yard and you are suspended.

There are too many people that tell us how to live that are spineless, like many teachers, polititions and the like. Women in the military, I am as concerned about some of the men that we accept. Can they defend our country? Our do we depend on the Spec OPs as they are the only ones that can do the job?

My son was in a unit in the Army that was pretty much PT optional. His SF and Ranger officers loved him, he would do it because he wanted to, not when he was ordered to. Now he is 21 and a WO1. He is not as tough as his younger sister though...

Right on, Belloc.  I used to spend my summers pitching missiles off the island of Crete into the Mediterranean Ocean.  At the time, Denmark also used the island as a test/training range.  Let me tell you about the time I went into the MEN'S showers to find one of their soldiers soaping up his FEMALE lieutanant (a statuesque blonde of wonderful proportions).  For a brief moment, I, too, believed that women in combat arms was a great thing [;)]

Anyone who has seen even five minutes of the WNBA must also realize that women have no place in combat.  

Your average boys high school b-ball team would wipe the floor with them.  

Follow the analogy to the battlefield and you'll get the answer.  

Those WNBA babes should run at next year's Belmont.  

Well, if you disagree with someone then, by definition, you think they are wrong. Otherwise why would you be disagreeing with them?. [>:/][argue]

Beekeeper,

Never, ever, [i]ever[/i] again assume that you know anything of which I speak.  After your comments on the teenage pregnancy threads and now the woman-hating bullshit I see you spreading here I doubt we would see eye to eye on much.

As for the comment?  When I was referring to being in a role, I meant that of a woman in a combat role.  I do believe I am one of the few that can claim that on this board.  

So take your "checkmate" and shove it.

*I have my own opinions on the topic but I am too tired right now to go into it.  Most of what I see here is the same old "keep women in the kitchen" crap.  [rolleyes]

Quoted:
[b]I forgot that anyone that disagrees with you is automatically wrong[/b]
And of course the truth of this does not in any way dispute or even address the points in my post.  

[b]The point I am making is that unlike people like you who just have a strong opinion, I happen to have served in the only military that ran long-term trials to actually explore the REALITY of the situation.[/b]
The "Danish" military? Come now.
Our military also "explored' the situation or did you miss that little report I mentioned? I guess you also happened to miss the IDF's report on why they had higher casualties in non male exclusive units. What are your thoughts on the IDF's findings?

[b]That seemed relevant to the discussion - but I guess it's not relevant if you believe you already have all the answeres without ever bothering to explore how it might work in relaity.[/b]
You have me there. I'm not sure how anything works in relaity. But you on the other hand have YET to demonstrate how women fighing in front line combat divisions would make the units more lethal or effective.

[b]You know, if you're not actually going to respond with any real arguments or informaiton, it is a waste of time to just ridicule someone who understands the topic better than you because everyone sees it for what it is.[/b]
Sorry, I forgot, you're a whacko. [%|]
You have not addressed the IDF findings.
You have not addressed the latest Pentagons findings of just 3 weeks ago.
You have not said how it increases a units chance of victory by allowing women to be torn to pieces in a hail of bullets and shrapnel.
You have not provided even the remotest coherent extrapolation on how Danish men acting like women when being shot at (or was it the other way around) equates to "by God those women duck as well as men, if we have more like them we will surely win the day!".
Tell you what, why not get rid of ALL the men in your, ahem, "army" and just have women exclusively. Then attack somebody, anybody. Nutjob.

Nice [:)]

Too tired?  I am glad we are not in combat.

What is wrong with a woman performing a "so called" traditional role?  Go work in at-risk youth facility and see how many kids have stay home moms.  Why do women want to be little men?  I would not want my wife to stay home so I can "keep her down".  I would like her there to teach our kids how to be decent humans and that is much more important than any "career" in business or the military.