Claire, the Lean, Mean, Killing Machine: This Woman's Army

Toogood Reports ^ | 4 May 2003 | Nicholas Stix

[mrustow]

Bump to list.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

I am perfectly willing to discuss this issue with fellow citizens who have served, but I suspect there are many who shout "No damn wimmin in the military" while never having served a day in their lives.

I'll make sure I remember your "conditions" later. As someone who has done many things in my life, I'll be very surprised if you can discuss as many topics as I can.

Have you ever taught in college? High school, perhaps? I sure hope you don't have any opinions about education...

[dark_lord]

Um...actually I have taught as an adjunct professor at the graduate program level (not as my full time job, just as a sideline.) Not sure what this has to do with education opinions.

As to my "conditions"...I just point out that there are a lot of people who have never served a day of military service who have lots of opinions about how that service should be run. As taxpaying citizens (presuming they pay taxes and are citizens, a big assumption nowadays) they have the right to state those opinions in the realm of public discourse and have them considered. (Yes, technically nontaxpaying noncitizens can yammer also but since they aren't paying the freight who cares.) But I think on a subject like this -- a service that depends on volunteers to staff and run it -- and considering the subject of women in the service in roles exposed to combat is partially an issue because not enough men volunteer -- yeah, I do think that the voices of those who serve should be given priority.

[wardaddy]

Amazing isn't it...FR is very PC on this one....mostly relative newbies...we've become moderates..lol

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

All occupations require volunteers to run them, unless there are press gangs that I am unaware of for the local 7-11's. Such "conditions," as you manufacture them, are attempts to stifle unwanted opinions that you cannot or will not defeat.

Simply put, the attempt to weight opinions based on your self-serving criteria is a dodge. You certainly wouldn't have been saying that if you hadn't been in the military. It is an attempt to delegitimize other arguments without rebutting them.

But that's fine. I don't expect to see your opinion appear on any primary or secondary education threads, since you don't know what you are talking about, having never taught at those levels...

[dark_lord]

???

This is a primary/secondary education thread? Where did you wander in from?

[Squantos]

LOL.....That line of thinking is right up there with the "people with no legs make better astronauts" theory !!

[wardaddy]

ROTFLAMO...PIMP!

[tmg]

"I'm sure you're in great shape. Can you pass the PT Test for a male soldier your age? "

Most likely not, but it has more to do with bad knees than anything else. Two Dr.'s and a physical therapist and I still can't climb a flight of stairs without it hurting. Idiots. (No offense intended to any Dr.'s out there, I'm just frustrated.)

"Would you really want to get into a knock-down, drag-out fight with a man of similar weight and skill?"

Actually, he was 5 inches taller and about 140 lbs heavier than me. The cops who arrested him weren't quite sure how I managed to fight him off.

The men I face on the sparring floor figured out pretty quickly that being bigger than me doesn't give them any advantage because I'm quicker, and have better balance and flexibility. This means I can get out of the way of strikes better than the big guys, and land hard kicks from awkward positions.

[mrustow]

That line of thinking is right up there with the "people with no legs make better astronauts" theory !!

ROTFL BUMP!

[SauronOfMordor]

Today, maybe 25% of the military are infantry grunts of some type or otherwise need those strength and endurance skills (like navy bomb loaders). The rest are techs, tweeks, and clerks. Which women can handle.

Right up to the point where the rear area suddenly becomes the front line. Or when the bad guys detonate a truck bomb right in front of the HQ. Then all the "techs, tweeks, and clerks" have to either grab rifles or help drag the wounded to safety after lifting large chunks of concrete off them.

I'm a "tech". I'm a "tweek". I'm grey-haired, pot-bellied, and way out of shape compared to the average male Army grunt. But I'm also 6'4, 220lbs, which means that I could function as a grunt if I really need to, far better than a 100 lbs girl can.

[PLMerite]

140 lbs heavier? His weight was in your favor, not his.

I'm sure you acquit yourself very well on the sparring floor, but in a situation where "loser dies," my money's still on the average male soldier.

[DMZFrank]

You are ignoring the reason that "gender-normed" PT standards were adopted in the first place. It is to ensure that politically acceptable numbers of women will qualify under the new PT regimen. Without gender normed standards 40-50% of women in the service would have to be discharged. I have seen studies that consistently show that the upper quintile of women's PT scores at WEST POINT!!!(women who are likely to be the most highly motivated and physically fit) scored equivalent to the bottom quintile of men taking the test. Had they been men achieving those scores, they would have been seperated from West Point by their junior year. We as a nation must decide that for the good of the service and combat readiness, all personnel should be held to the same standard and let the chips fall where they may, even if that means 40-60% fewer women than now.

As to them serving in roles for "which they are qualified", all I can say is that a man achieving the PT scores that most women do would be most likely seperated, while the woman in the identical role and with identical PT scores is not.

As to my personal experience, I am a served 16 mos. in Vietnam in a Mech Inf. and a tank outfit. Following my discharge, I served an additional 20 yrs. in the National Guard. Physical fitness is an absolute imperative. Not only do you have to haul 80-100 pounds of gear around on your back through muck and mire, but you often have do do so while suffering from varying degrees of ilnesses (malaria, diahrrea, dengue fever, scrub typhus, dysentary, etc.) which further deplete your strength and energy. I saw many capable and dedicated women who were excellent soldiers. I did not see ONE who I felt would be capable of frontline infantry combat duty. They just couldn't carry a heavy load any appreciable distance, and it always took four of them to carry a casualty on a stretcher in training. I do not recall many men who were simply unable do do heavy basic grunt tasks after suitable training, while I NEVER saw a woman who could perform them, even after intensive training.
I saw many who could not perform unassisted basic tasks such as clearing a stoppage on a .50 cal. heavy machine gun, changing a flat tire on a 2 1/2 ton truck, lifting a tool box, carrying a loaded duffel bag, or packing up the HQ for rapid deployment. Again I am speaking of the large majority of them.

For me the issue is not denying them opportunity. For me the function of an army is to fight. If the present intergration of women in the service enhances that ability than it should continue. If it does not, it should not be continued. If all our future conflicts are like the last one, the discussion is moot. On the other hand, if a large number of personnel (15%) are not deployable in certain positions than we might find ourselves in trouble in a protracted conflict. We can not expect that such an eventuality can never happen again.

[Jeff Gordon]

Give it up. Move on. There is no story here.

Women are part of military now. The woman haters are being weeded out of the military. Within the decade women will be in combat units.

End of story.

[dark_lord]

I understand your points. But you are really discussing infantry roles, and infantry related roles. But consider the other side - the Air Force. Women fly bombers, refueling planes, work as mechanics, electronic techs, radio techs, navigators, comms officers and techs, etc. Air Force types don't go grunting through jungles, and mainly work at air bases here in the US or else far from enemy action. When was the last time we had an air force base overrun -- the Korean war?

Look up higher in the thread and see the maps I posted of US bases. Consider that the Air Force base personnel almost entirely stay put here. Yes, a few forward deploy. But the vast majority do not. So there, right there, exist a huge range of roles women can fill. And most of them require no more physical strength than that required to carry a toolbox (heck, lots of them require no more strength than carrying a pencil and a cup of coffee.)

:-)

[DMZFrank]

Nazi Armaments Minister Albert Speer said that one of the significant reasons for the German defeat in WWII was the failure to mobilize German women in the same manner as the Allies did. US and Allied women performed well in critical roles and proved contributed immmensly to the allied victory, being utilized in jobs consistent with their ability and military need.

Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda.

These folks are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness.

I believe that women are a militarily valuable asset, provided that asset is used in a manner that makes the military ready to fight, and subordinates feminist social engineering to that end.

[mrustow]

Give it up. Move on. There is no story here.

Women are part of military now. The woman haters are being weeded out of the military. Within the decade women will be in combat units.

End of story.

You sound just like Bill Clinton: "That's old news."

You didn't read the article, did you? And anyone who tells the truth, is a "woman hater"? Unless America gives up on being taken seriously as a military power, women will never serve in combat units. You can just keep on dreaming, Sweetie.

You wouldn't happen to be a staffer for the junior senator from New York, would you? And how are things over at DU?

BTW, your slip is showing.

[Jeff Gordon]

Your use pejorative and ad hominid attacks as a method of argument is duly noted.

There was a time when Jews were ostracized by the American Military. As a civilized nation, we have grown beyond such pettiness.

There was a time when Blacks were ostracized by the American Military. As a civilized nation, we have grown out beyond such pettiness.

There was a time when Women were ostracized by the American Military. As a civilized nation, we are growing beyond such pettiness.

[Ben Bolt]

Oh goodness .. The 1st time I heard those words I was at a Led Zeppelin concert . I think I'm better off lurking this thread ;)

[Ben Bolt]

Then stand on what you believe in . Keep notes on the social engineering . Write a white paper Jeff . Get some funding from my fellow taxpayers .

Tweak the system all you want . Women have no damn business in a combat role . Hating women has nothing to do with it . Butch up Jeff . In the mean time you will find a foe to crush you and you'rs .