Posted on 05/29/2005 11:13:11 AM PDT by Crackingham
It looks like you agree with me.
There is an innate difference in the sexes as you pointed out,and it's not just physical strength.
Women can "read" people better and have more sharply honed intuitive skills.
When I was raising my family I could automatically sense if something was disturbing one of my kids. Their father would say,"Gee, he/she seems okay to me". I was always right in this type of thing.
Dad did his thing,I did my thing and it all worked out.
I like having someone around to do the "heavy lifting" LOL
Women could be in auxiliary units,as I said.
We did very well for many,many years without women in the military facing combat.
As a female I feel that 'feminism" has actually set women back.
I am old enough that I remember when men tipped their hats to women,even young women,gave them the seats on the bus,and held doors for them.
In the old days women like my mother were not the weaker sex,their strengths were just in different areas than the men.
The strengths of each sex complemented eachother.
Women in the military is a social experiment that goes against the natural order of things. It will probably end in disaster, either in the military itself, on the civilian side, or most likely both.
Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the women in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raider and the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.
It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.
This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. (Don't forget that the Soviets only did it because of the hugely staggering quantity of casualties that they suffered, on a scale that we can scarcely concieve of) That is not the case now as most personnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. 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. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today's military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.
One of the problems in assesing the impact of this issue vis-a-vis the Iraq war is the fact that we handily defeated them with the forces that were already in place in the invasion phase. Due to a combination of the skill of our superbly trained, equipped, motivated soldiers; and the ineptitude of our enemy (but they are getting better) our casualty rate has been thankfully far lower than we should have been reasonably able to expect given historical precedents. Notwithstanding this the question must be asked as to what would happen should we face an enemy that could inflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? The United States Army was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program as technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality. While we can continue to pray that we will never again face an enemy that will be able to attrite us as the German and Japanese Armies did, we MUST not plan as though it will never again happen. The Iraq war as it is presently playing out IS NO TEST OF THIS PROPOSITION.
Many commentators 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. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG's and .50 cal HMG's, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted "dual physical training standards" was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements. My son, a reservist in a NG chopper unit, is contemptuous of what he describes as continual coddling of female soldiers. He is planning to transfer to an infantry unit.
In situations of full mobilization, women are essential. 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.
Hundreds of thousands of women have served and are serving their country honorably and well. I honor them for their service and accept them as comrades and fellow veterans. We can only hope that their service will be continued in such a manner as to enhance the ability of the military to fight. The potential consequences for the individual soldier and the military's mission are too serious to subordinate to social engineering.
Yes, and in the "old days" (the 1970s) I was unable to rent an apartment without my father's signature on the lease, although he was retired in Alabama on a disability pension and I was a successful engineer. Because he was a man and I was 'a girl'.
And in the "old days" I could not get into law school, "because it's no use teaching girls to be anything; they just get pregnant and quit." I was told that my scores on the LSAT and my university grades "are high enough if you were a man, but WE DEMAND HIGHER GRADES FROM THE GIRLS."
I have been fighting for 40 years against this "Men are men and women are girls" mentality and I'm sick of it. However, I expect this entire generation of men have to die off, and the last one to die will be moaning 'NO GIRLS IN THE CLUB HOUSE!' as he shuffles off to a Heaven in which he will be horrified to find that women are not kept around only as brood mares and sex objects and typists.
Unless he's a Mormon, of course.
"If a woman is physically incapable of doing a job, she ought not to do it. If a man is physically incapable of doing a job, he ought not to do it. A man who is five feet nothing and 98 lb. is not superior to a woman who is 5'10" and 165 lb. of solid muscle, merely due to the fact that he has a penis and she has none. This is not a question of male and female. It is a matter of ability to do a job."
You are missing the point. More than likely the "5 foot nothing, 98 lb male" will not make the selection cut due to physical unsuitability. The 5 foot nothing woman with identical physical capability could possibly be selected under the "gender normed" regime of dual physical standards that have been adopted to insure politically acceptable numbers of women.
Remember, a man who can only meet the female standard of physical fitness gets washed out. Women get to stay and are magically presumed to be able to do the same job under the same criteria as the washed out male soldier.
No YOU are missing the point. I am saying that there ough to be ONE standard and ANYBODY who meets it ought to be accepted and anybody who does NOT meet it ought to be washed out.
I am 100% against a standard for men and a standard for women. ONE STANDARD FOR EVERYBODY.
"And in the "old days" I could not get into law school"
No.
Oh, you will let girls into some places as long as we don't want to get into places YOU don't want them.
Too bad. We're not going back into the kitchen and we've all got shoes these days, that we bought for ourselves.
There WILL NOT be a single standard for men and women because it will have to be lowered to accomadate women. If it is kept high enough to adequately test men than we will not have the numbers of women that Patsy Schroeder types and DACOWITS feel are politically acceptable. This situation with women is largely POLITICAL and NOT impelled by military necessity!!!!
Why are you so angry?
Calm down .(And I don't call women"girls")
22 years in the military, and I have NEVER met a 5', 98 pound man in the service. My son, an adopted Filipino, is 5'2" - and 160 pounds...he's as wide as he is tall.
I can't recall an 5'10", 165 pound females either...although I'm sure they exist. But they would probably have less upper body strength than a 160 pound man - and in combat, strength is a plus.
Well, you sound like you have an agenda.
KateatRFM,
There are people of both sexes at the top of the physical pyramid who may be able to best someone of the opposite sex. That is not the issue. A woman who is 5'10" and 165 lbs is WAAAY in the upper percentile of body size for women.
People bring up the straw man argument of "We're not supposed to have women in combat zones because women can't handle seeing all the brutality of war..." which is just crap. No competent person says that. Women can and have shown that is not an issue. That women have the mental strength and capability is not in question.
It is mainly a physical issue, unit cohesion and logistical issue.
On a physical level, people who think women are the equal of men physically are either ignorant or ego-driven. Men and women are built differently with respect to bone structure and musculature, and it makes a difference. The incidences of lower extremity injuries under physical stress are FAR higher in women than men, and upper body strength in men far surpasses that of women. Women CANNOT hump 80 lbs of equipment the way a man can. Are there women who can?
Absolutely.
But on average, absolutely not. And if I am unconscious in a smoke filled compartment on my ship, I do not want a woman in a damage control party trying to throw my 215 lb body over her shoulder to take me up three ladders to safety. It is no coincidence, and not unfair discrimination, that the VAST majority of Special Forces troops and firemen are men.
I have worked in the medical field since I got out of the Navy, and as most people know, with the exception of the MD's (and that is changing) medicine is primarily a female occupation. Most techs, nurses, lab people are women.
I have had the privilege of working for some outstanding women. I would pledge fealty to them, they were (and are) that worthy of my loyalty. Excellence is not a male monopoly, as true "neanderthals" think.
But that does not mean I regard them as physical equals. (not that they are not equal to me, but that the average female is no match, hands down, for the average male in a physical contest)
And we hear some argue against women in combat because they would be overly protective. That is just plain bunk. The issue is not that men might be "protective" of women. I don't think that would be an issue at all. Hell, men are pretty darn protective of their male buddies in combat, how could they be more protective towards women?
Men are men, women are women, and biology is biology. If you get military age (young) men and women together in large numbers in boring/dangerous environments, the horizontal bop is going to ensue no matter what. And women will still get pregnant, no matter what, unless the tubes are cut and tied.
And furthermore...remember, it is NOT just the guys leering and chasing around after the non-compliant women in these units (as some "neanderthals" might like to think)...women do just as much leering, flirting and chasing as the men.
I heard a woman advocating combat roles for women who said "They just have to have the willpower to say no to the men, and then they can be treated like one of the men." Sure. It CAN be done if one has the will. However, next to the urge to eat, drink, and breathe, those "biological urges" are the most powerful there are.
Heck, all you have to do is look at the risks to their family, job, friendships, finances etc. that some people will take to satisfy those urges to realize just how powerful they are. There is a reason the cynics say "sex sells".
The point is, and I am guilty of it as well, we tend to look at our men and women in uniform and think of them as formed from a mold, which is what the military and basic training tries to do. It is easy to do, when you look at how well trained and proficient they are at what they do. They are the best in the world.
But they are human beings first. And the biggest problem with addressing the problem of sexual relations between members of a unit by saying "be responsible adults and don't do it" or by making regulations against it is that...is just will not work.
You can threaten to smack them with violation of UCMJ article 12345, you can hand out condoms like chocolate bars with each MRE, and you can physically grab each womans hand as you give her the paycheck and place birth contol pills in them, and subject them to hour long indoctriation each month and have it checked off that they attended in a log, but...women will still get pregnant by choice or by accident.
And a pregnancy is the functional equivalent of a combat wound, actually more serious. Some combat wounds can be treated and the soldier returned to the unit. Unless abortion is mandated in cases of pregnancy, that cannot be the case for a pregnant woman.
Phyllis Schlafly has cogently outlined these issues in her book "Feminist Fantasies". Many leftists dismiss Phyllis Schlafly as a "womans place is barefoot in the kitchen" kind of woman, but she is so far from that she makes the feminists look that way in comparison. She is a formidable intellect, and if I could ever work for her, I would do so in a heartbeat. Read a bio on her sometime, and you will see what I mean.
She wrote an article, which can be found at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20040517.shtml
While I abhor nearly any editorial related to U.S. Army Pfc. Lynndie R. England, (not because I hate her or anything, I think she was just a dumb young person, as many of us are at some point, and she just did something...dumb-it is because I am so sick of the media hype on the "prison scandal") I think this article makes some good points. But check out the book from the library, it is worth the read.
Thank you very kindly for your invaluable comments. I hope you don't mind if I save them for future threads. Your personal experience, knowledge of history, and eloquent writing style should convince everyone except the most die-hard uberfanatic feminists that your position is the correct one.
And thank you for your service to your country!
Thank you. I appreciate your graciousness and hope that my essay is useful to whaever purpose that you see fit. I hope that a saner policy will make use of women in roles that are most suitable for the MILITARY MISSION and not the FEMINIST AGENDA!!!
Please can I? Please? :^)
Wow - your comments are great as well. I'll save them along with DMZFrank's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.