They said the same thing about the WNBA. There's a reason men have historically handled the majority of sports and combat, and it has little to do with citizens worried about dead women. But back to the sports analogy, there are women's sports that exceed men's like gymnastics. What I'm trying to say, ninja assassins would be a more fit role for their skills than in infantry.
They made a movie called Ninja Assassin. And the male ninja assassin a) killed a female ninja assassin and b) the female ninja assassin-in-training didn't want to train to kill people anymore and ran away and got caught and so forth. Q.E.D.
I was also wondering why that wasn't the next logical step. "If all these idiot guys say we can't do it, why don't we prove them wrong?"
This. The military hasn't dealt well with the existing condition of having women in the ranks yet. The instances of rape and sexual assault are more threatening than combat. Top brass reportedly thinks that this will REDUCE sexual assault, and if the science bears that out, then I'm all for it. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/421/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/421/index.html</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/09/rape-us-military" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... s-military</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://news.yahoo.com/women-combat-units-could-reduce-sexual-assault-military-192140134.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.yahoo.com/women-combat-unit ... 40134.html</a> Another consideration for this has to be what happens if she's captured? I ask because the military has an increasing responsibility for it's soldiers, from the first day of boot until they hand a folded flag over to someone. What happens when she's captured, raped and tortured? How loud will the argument be that "if it were a male soldier, it never would have happened"? Psychological damage notwithstanding, is the military prepared for the additional cost and risk of a soldier that has a higher likelihood of injury or greater expectations and need of normal medical care? If that's part of the bargain, so be it, but there must be additional value delivered outside of just PC equality. At what job would a woman in combat outperform a man? I'm not in the military, I'm just fascinated by this whole debate because it seems like a popular ideal (equality) being thrust on the military without conferring significant advantages. In short, it sounds like politicians dicking soldiers by thinking they know better...again.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/us/female-pow-is-abused-kindling-debate.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/us/fe ... all&src=pm</a> If females being taken as prisoners of war and abused were such a big fucking deal, then every single one of you would have already brought up this case to make your point. Not because you would have done a five second Google search, but because it would have been seared into the public consciousness. Or this female POW <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Johnson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Johnson</a> And what do you know, Jessica Lynch got more attention because she was white. I guess we need to go back to the segregation argument: we should have a minority-only army, because that way when they die overseas, fewer people back home will care. I think that's the thrust of what you're all saying. I find it odd that we're concerned about female POWs being abused and that causing a media shitstorm back home (nevermind that we've already discussed that female soldiers dying would cause a shitstorm back home when women having already been doing a lot of dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and nobody seemed to care all that much. The other thing that's odd about it is that the most famous American female soldier in Iraq was on the other end of horrific POW abuse. Which did cause a media shitstorm.
There were 3,192 reported sexual assaults in 2011. Women make up about 20% of the military; there are about a million and a half people on active duty, so that's 300,000 women. Assuming that about 90% of sexual assaults go unreported, (I haven't studied the subject, so I honestly don't know the statistics on that) that's 10% of the female population getting assaulted somehow. Assuming that 95% go unreported, that's 20% of the female population getting assaulted somehow. Meanwhile, the oft-quoted statistic is that one in four female college students suffer rape or attempted rape. I think that the military has managed to extricate itself from stuff like Tailhook and has taken a very, very serious stance on preventing this stuff. I had to sit through a four-hour brief on the subject a few months ago.
I wouldn't, and nobody else would. They would chuckle that they were an "experiment", just like the SOCOM CST's were. And you know what? The CST's are ABSOLUTELY not ready for combat, even after their rigorous training and selection process. But know you what they are good at? Exactly what they were intended for: engaging Muslim females, and gleaning intelligence from them. They are really good at this job, a job that no man could do in their stead. Do they bank on this? Do they trumpet to the mountains that many, many HVI's have been capture or killed due to intelligence gleaned from their operations? No, they do not. They bitch and moan about how they haven't been asked to "the fight", like there was something better there that they aren't doing. "Yes, is this Mrs. Pritchard?" "Yes?" "Is your Daughter having a party this weekend?" "Why yes, we've been planning it for weeks." "Well, my daughter hasn't been invited, and she's terribly distraught about it." "WELL, FUCKING TELL HER TO START HER OWN FUCKING PARTY, AND TRY TO MAKE IT BETTER THAN MINE." /end scene
Organize the units based on when their periods fall during the month, maybe a platoon for each 4-5 day window, then turn them loose at that time. Duh. Again, all-female combat units might just work for certain missions (and can you imagine the morale hit on Islamic nutjobs who get their asses kicked by a bunch of infidel harlots??), but the reason it hasn't really been suggested by the decision makers is that they don't give a shit about combat effectiveness. The goal isn't women in combat arms per se, it's women in the most elite units such as the 82nd and 101st and ultimately SF and the 75th. Like I said, THIS IS 100% ABOUT POLITICS, it has nothing to do with combat effectiveness and in fact I'd be lying if I said I didn't think that diminishing the combat capabilities of the US military is even a side benefit in the eyes of some (not all) of the morons who are pushing this.
1. I have a buddy that used to be in the 82nd, I will ask him about this as soon as possible. 2. The idea of all female units, or females on their period being more effective is exactly what I've been trying to argue against; I don't believe that females are any more or less effective in today's combat than males.
I asked my friend who was in the 82nd Airborne, "Hey, got a question. As a former member of the 82nd, would you have a problem with females earning their place in your ranks? His answers were, and I quote: "Huh? We had females in the 82nd. I had no issue with most of them... The few that I didn't like were mostly the ones with chips on their shoulders, or the ones that tried to play the parade pretty card... The ones that did their jobs and acted like soldiers were fine. Why?" At which point I said, "Argument about women in combat." This is when he loses me, or at least I disagree... He says, "Women in combat is bad cause men are idiots. Men will get themselves killed because of our natural hardwiring to defend females. Other than that, there's no issue with females in combat." I included that last part to let you know I wasn't selectively editing what he sent me. He agrees with me on most of the shit, just not the "Men being rational enough to do their work with women around" part. Can I ask the former Army guys (cause we didn't have this term in the Navy), What in the fuck is parade pretty?
Know what I find funny? Your posts in this thread started off with venom about how women were useless in combat, how WOG trades were going to suffer and how women were going to die disproportionately. I came along asking for you to get to google and wikipedia to find me some actual examples of this happening in countries where women were allowed in combat. Know what we discovered? Omegaham had the decency to respond and pointed out that, at least for Canada, there are still very few women in combat, even though there aren't any actual rules against it. Interesting, don't you find it. You, however, didn't respond to any of that, and now you're just railing on about how this is about politics and getting women into special forces. I wonder why. Also, are we seriously the idea of an all-woman infantry battalion? I mean, seriously? Somehow, not even the top woman from every combat training platoon would even come close to hacking it in the real infantry, but a unit full of them would somehow be a good experiment that would actually earn women respect just for trying? Women were excluded from combat in nearly every army in history for very good reasons? George Orwell did say that it was a sign of a first-rate intelligence to hold two equally opposing views and still be able to function, but this is pushing it. P.S. iczorro - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=parade%20pretty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... e%20pretty</a>
1. No one said anything about an entire battalion 2. Good job ignoring the part where I said "for certain missions" (ie not multi-week unsupported foot patrols in the fucking boonies, which is part of what the infantry does in real life) 3. I'm typing from an MWR computer in Afghanistan in a 10'x10' room with about 20 other people typing away, hence the not googling random shit (plus it had already been addressed by the time I posted again) I asked my friend who was in the 82nd Airborne, "Hey, got a question. As a former member of the 82nd, would you have a problem with females earning their place in your ranks? His answers were, and I quote: "Huh? We had females in the 82nd. I had no issue with most of them... The few that I didn't like were mostly the ones with chips on their shoulders, or the ones that tried to play the parade pretty card... The ones that did their jobs and acted like soldiers were fine. Why?" At which point I said, "Argument about women in combat." This is when he loses me, or at least I disagree... He says, "Women in combat is bad cause men are idiots. Men will get themselves killed because of our natural hardwiring to defend females. Other than that, there's no issue with females in combat." I included that last part to let you know I wasn't selectively editing what he sent me. He agrees with me on most of the shit, just not the "Men being rational enough to do their work with women around" part. [/quote] I meant the 82nd/101st infantry, sorry, should've been more clear about that. Women also fill support roles with the SF groups, although they don't get to wear the green beret (nor do male support soldiers). And the men being idiots part is a valid reason for keeping women out of front-line units. What I've yet to see from anyone that actually supports this is why it's good for the MILITARY. I don't give a shit about fairness. Why and how will allowing women in front-line combat units improve the capabilities of the United States military?? Numerous logical reasons have been given by myself and others for opposing it. Give me some reasons, based on logic and facts rather than emotion ("it's not fair" is an EMOTIONAL argument), why it's a good thing for the military. And again, this is not the same thing as integration or ending DADT. Barring women from combat MOS' is not the same as barring black MEN or gay MEN.
And for those insisting that it's fine as long as the women are held to the same standards as the men, which they certainly will be (because those people either have no clue how the US military is run in the 21st century or have their heads firmly rooted in the sand): <a class="postlink" href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/gen-dempsey-hints-bar-likely-lowered-female-combat/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... le-combat/</a>
Sorry, he was 82nd Airborne, didn't mean to confuse things. Like I said, men being idiots will be a factor, but I don't believe it will be any more of a factor than knowing gay dudes were in our midst (for multiple reasons). Ok, lemme 'splain. My combat qualifications are being on the VBSS team on the USS Milius (wherein we stopped, boarded and searched any ship that seemed at least a little suspect, to check if they had contraband. I was the first over the ladder many times with a mossberg 12, and lemme tell you... almost as good as skydiving) It's also how I got hurt enough to get kicked out on disability. Gay dudes had 1. guys that loved them, or at least were fucking them, in the same situations. 2. We knew there were gay dudes on our team, and we treated them like everyone else. (If you wanna say we'd treat women differently, refer to my earlier post about standing watch with girls.) 3. None of us gave a fuck (at least in my experience) who you wanted to fuck, as long as you were doing your job. Now, I can't say that this holds true for everyone. What I can say is that it held true for 99% of the people I knew in the Navy.