Women soldiers?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I expected better from a MODERATOR, but I'll just add that name to the growing stack. A REAL mature move. What are you, twelve? Besides, I said a LONG time ago that I LOVE women, just not in combat. Oh, and by the way:

In spring 1991, in the wake of Desert Storm, Colorado Rep. Pat Schroeder introduced a bill to repeal the prohibition against women flying combat missions. While that bill was pending, sexual misbehavior at the annual Tailhook gathering of naval aviators developed into a scandal. The bill passed, allowing women to fly combat missions, and the navy soon began allowing women on combatant ships.

In another controversial move, "co-ed" basic training began in 1994. Opponents argue that in basic training and throughout the military, female recruits are held to lower physical standards than men -- or that standards for both have been weakened to allow women to pass.

"The services are always looking at physical fitness standards. The standards between men and women are different," says Lt. Col. Susan Kolb, spokesperson for the Defense Advisory Committee On Women In The Services (DACOWITS).<span id='postcolor'>

Misogyny comes in many forms.  In your case it seems like as long as 'they' arent allowed in your sandbox, you're fine with 'them'.  In your exact words: 'I LOVE women, just not in combat.'  

I am not twelve.  But I am also not as sexist as you are.

And if you are willing to give your opinions on women in armed services, then how on earth am I being immature by expressing my opinion of your opinions?

I will however agree with your disgust for lowering standards to allow women to pass.  It is not unfair to hold a set of standards to ensure that recruits meet baseline physical standards.  And if a woman OR a man cant meet them, then they shouldnt be admitted.  There is nothing at all wrong with that.  If you lower said standards to allow people not of a competence level to pass, then you cant expect an adequate level of performance.

edit: Just FYI... being a Moderator doesnt mean turning in my right to have an opinion.

[E6Hotel 0]

Fortunately, USMC boot camp is still segregated. I really can't imagine having gone through P.I. with female recruits in the platoon. It seems silly, because if AVERAGE male and female recruits train together and are held to the same standards, the males are obviously not going to be pushed as hard as they should be. Maybe Army grunts get extra conditioning at AIT to make up for it?

Semper Fi

[BaronVonRed 0]

I keep trying to stop reading this thread because I am obviously outnumbered and defending a position that I just cannot hold against these odds, but I can't STOP

Ok, I'm stopping now, but only after this comment and this is all, I'm not reading this thread anymore

My last and I really mean it this time, my last comment on this thread:

I sincerely hope that all enemies of the U.S. subscribe to allowing women on the battlefield and in the bush; it will just make our job all the easier when/if (but probably when) the time comes. So yes, fill up your troops with women, and make sure to have plenty of them on sentry duty when the Deadly Recon comes a knockin'.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 22 2002,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fortunately, USMC boot camp is still segregated. I really can't imagine having gone through P.I. with female recruits in the platoon. It seems silly, because if AVERAGE male and female recruits train together and are held to the same standards, the males are obviously not going to be pushed as hard as they should be. Maybe Army grunts get extra conditioning at AIT to make up for it?

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Uh-oh..Now I am going to sound sexist

I think basic training SHOULD be segregated. It's a simple fact that men and women think differently, so the ways in which you shape a mans psyche and outlook to being part of a team and unit needs to be different from the ways you indoctrinate a woman. Conversely, the indoctrination that will work well on a woman would likely leave the average guy going 'huh?'

Once basic is over, I see less of a need to segregate.

What are your experiences with female Marines, E6? The ones you have known..were they competent in their MOS?

[Bart.Jan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 22 2002,19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Nov. 22 2002,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Same way you can tell that goverment doesn't need black policemen/policewomen because there is lot of white candidates.

Women are citizens same way as men are. Because they are females they have no RIGHT to defend country as males ?<span id='postcolor'>

No one has the "right" to be a policeman, or a soldier. The rule of thumb, as you alluded to, is that if you qualify according to the standards established by the organization, you may be considered.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Nov. 22 2002,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are some requirements for various branches. If someone doesn't meets them he must go out. There are some people responsible for setting requirements. But is it some sort of defect to be female ?<span id='postcolor'>

It's not a question of whether females are defective, it's a question of whether there is a need for them in combat arms. (1) There is no need, and (2) their presence would create more problems than it would solve. The military is not the place to conduct social experiments. As an extreme example, would someone in a wheelchair have the "right" to have an infantry table of organization changed so that he could join?

edit: sloppy quoting

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

To have right to be policemen or soldier I mean you can try to do it. If you met all requirements (no problems with law, good physical and mental condition ...) you can be choosen, of course. But there shoud be same criterias for men and women. Not to exclude cadet because she is woman.

In past women had no soul, they had no right to vote, they were excluded from official political life etc. Nowdays they can vote and they can be politician. They do not have to, they can = they have "right".

Wheelchar person doesn't met requirements for physical condition. But sex should not be some sort of condition or requirement.

(1)I think there is need for good soldiers and women can be good soldiers too. What's wrong with healthy women who can do her job  with same quality as man can do ?

(2)There can (and will) be some problems with including women into troops, but all problems can (and must) be solved. That some men can not stand women as equivalent colleague is not excuse for not allowing them to be their colleague. Women are human being too and they shoud not be punished because they are females.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Nov. 22 2002,19:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think basic training SHOULD be segregated.  It's a simple fact that men and women think differently, so the ways in which you shape a mans psyche and outlook to being part of a team and unit needs to be different from the ways you indoctrinate a woman.  Conversely, the indoctrination that will work well on a woman would likely leave the average guy going 'huh?'

Once basic is over, I see less of a need to segregate.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly. Our boot camp is segregated, but our MOS schools aren't. About the only restrictions in place are that males and females aren't allowed to be in the same barracks rooms after 2200. I can neither confirm nor deny that I have ever broken that particular regulation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Nov. 22 2002,19:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What are your experiences with female Marines, E6? The ones you have known..were they competent in their MOS?<span id='postcolor'>

Most of the females I've known, like most of the males, have been very competent. Then there are those who absolutely will try to use their sex as an excuse to get out of work or otherwise receive softer treatment. There is a detectable undercurrent (for lack of a better word) w/ male Marines about some WM's -- they tend to treat some WM's w/ kid gloves because of the possibility of sexual harassment charges. Obviously the more mature the Marines, the less likely this situation will arise.

Semper Fi

[Bart.Jan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In another controversial move, "co-ed" basic training began in 1994. Opponents argue that in basic training and throughout the military, female recruits are held to lower physical standards than men -- or that standards for both have been weakened to allow women to pass.

"The services are always looking at physical fitness standards. The standards between men and women are different," says Lt. Col. Susan Kolb, spokesperson for the Defense Advisory Committee On Women In The Services (DACOWITS).<span id='postcolor'>

This is the problem I don't like too. It's a sort of "positive" discrimination. As I wrote above I'm from equal condition for men and women. There shoud be one standart for all and it's bad to have factitious various criterias.

Sentry with that unbalanced soldiers can be really piece of cake for BaronVonRed's Deadly Recon.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Nov. 22 2002,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(1)I think there is need for good soldiers and women can be good soldiers too. What's wrong with healthy women who can do her job  with same quality as man can do ? <span id='postcolor'>

Obviously, women can and do serve. But not in combat arms.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Nov. 22 2002,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(2)There can (and will) be some problems with including women into troops, but all problems can (and must) be solved. That some men can not stand women as equivalent colleague is not excuse for not allowing them to be their colleague. Women are human being too and they shoud not be punished because they are females.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not punishment, it's putting the needs of the unit ahead of the needs of the individual. About equal standards, there are two options here:

(A) Hold all to male standards -- Many highly competent females currently serving would be forced out.

(B) Hold all to female standards -- You will end up with a lot of dead grunts.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Nov. 22 2002,19:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think basic training SHOULD be segregated.  It's a simple fact that men and women think differently, so the ways in which you shape a mans psyche and outlook to being part of a team and unit needs to be different from the ways you indoctrinate a woman.  Conversely, the indoctrination that will work well on a woman would likely leave the average guy going 'huh?'

Once basic is over, I see less of a need to segregate.  <span id='postcolor'>

I don't agree. No special treatement should be given. It is really quite simple: for different jobs in the military you have specific requirements, be it physical or psyhical. The person who is qualified for the job by meeting the requirements should be able to get the job, regardles of sex.

[KingBeast 0]

Lets all sit down together and watch GI Jane shall we?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly. Our boot camp is segregated, but our MOS schools aren't. About the only restrictions in place are that males and females aren't allowed to be in the same barracks rooms after 2200. I can neither confirm nor deny that I have ever broken that particular regulation.

<span id='postcolor'>

LOL. I like that. You sound like President Clinton

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of the females I've known, like most of the males, have been very competent. Then there are those who absolutely will try to use their sex as an excuse to get out of work or otherwise receive softer treatment. There is a detectable undercurrent (for lack of a better word) w/ male Marines about some WM's -- they tend to treat some WM's w/ kid gloves because of the possibility of sexual harassment charges. Obviously the more mature the Marines, the less likely this situation will arise.

<span id='postcolor'>

Now there is something that I see as being a serious problem with women in the military..and one they contribute to themselves. While you have to be careful with what you say and how you treat a person of the opposite sex, some allowances have to be made for command structure. There really isnt time in a lot of situations to be more polite to a woman when issuing an order..but I can see some half baked feminist taking exception after the fact. And that's a bad thing. If you want to play with the boys, I think you need to have a little thicker skin and not be hyper sensitive. After all, what might seem like a sexist remark can also be just the way a guy talks to those around him.

But considering that the whole thing really is in its infancy..I suppose there are kinks to be worked out.

[BaronVonRed 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 22 2002,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not punishment, it's putting the needs of the unit ahead of the needs of the individual. About equal standards, there are two options here:

(A) Hold all to male standards -- Many highly competent females currently serving would be forced out.

(B) Hold all to female standards -- You will end up with a lot of dead grunts.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

FINALLY, some backup!

Note: not a "post" really, just pointing something out.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Note: not a "post" really, just pointing something out.<span id='postcolor'>

lol

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 22 2002,14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Nov. 22 2002,19:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think basic training SHOULD be segregated.  It's a simple fact that men and women think differently, so the ways in which you shape a mans psyche and outlook to being part of a team and unit needs to be different from the ways you indoctrinate a woman.  Conversely, the indoctrination that will work well on a woman would likely leave the average guy going 'huh?'

Once basic is over, I see less of a need to segregate.  <span id='postcolor'>

I don't agree. No special treatement should be given. It is really quite simple: for different jobs in the military you have specific requirements, be it physical or psyhical. The person who is qualified for the job by meeting the requirements should be able to get the job, regardles of sex.<span id='postcolor'>

I went to gender-integrated basic training because my job (commo) was classified as combat support, not combat arms. In my opinion, it was detrimental to our training. Too much sexual chemistry distracting the soldiers and the top males were not physically pushed to their limits.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 22 2002,20:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Nov. 22 2002,19:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think basic training SHOULD be segregated.  It's a simple fact that men and women think differently, so the ways in which you shape a mans psyche and outlook to being part of a team and unit needs to be different from the ways you indoctrinate a woman.  Conversely, the indoctrination that will work well on a woman would likely leave the average guy going 'huh?'

Once basic is over, I see less of a need to segregate.  <span id='postcolor'>

I don't agree. No special treatement should be given. It is really quite simple: for different jobs in the military you have specific requirements, be it physical or psyhical. The person who is qualified for the job by meeting the requirements should be able to get the job, regardles of sex.<span id='postcolor'>

I am not saying special treatment. I am also not suggesting two seperate sets of qualifications. What I am saying is that the mental portion of turning a civilian into a soldier can and should be customised to accomodate for the difference in the way men and women think and reason. Not implying that one is better than the other... just different.

[BaronVonRed 0]

Well, at least I seem to have backing now for numbers 1 and 5 of my origianl post that got everyone's panties all wadded (not posting, keeping score)...

Women do not make good COMBAT soldiers for several reasons:

1) They are physically inferior,

2) They have monthly hormone impacting cycles that affect their readiness,

3) They (in general) do not posses the natural instinct to kill as a male does,

4) They can be physically impregnated by the enemy,

5) They can cause inter-personal issues within a group (not really their fault),

6) It is the male instinct to protect them, which could cause judgement issues.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 22 2002,20:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I went to gender-integrated basic training because my job (commo) was classified as combat support, not combat arms.  In my opinion,  it was detrimental to our training.  Too much sexual chemistry distracting the soldiers and the top males were not physically pushed to their limits.<span id='postcolor'>

As I said earlier, I have no experience serving in a combat unit with women. They don't allow women in the costal rangers in Sweden. So I am not talking from experience there, but more of how I think that it should be. I have however met many competent female soldiers from other units. Most often they are better then the average male in their unit, since they have to constantly prove that they are as good as the others. It pushes them into becoming better soldiers.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,20:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, at least I seem to have backing now for numbers 1 and 5 of my origianl post that got everyone's panties all wadded (not posting, keeping score)...<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, you can stop spamming now, or I will make sure to it that you can't. There is no point in re-posting the same thing, we have all read it and understand what you think.

Now, enough is enough.

[BaronVonRed 0]

So if I had just said that I'd won points #1 and #5, that would have been sufficient?

[Bart.Jan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 22 2002,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(A) Hold all to male standards -- Many highly competent females currently serving would be forced out.

(B) Hold all to female standards -- You will end up with a lot of dead grunts.<span id='postcolor'>

(A) is rigt, in my opinion. Standard wasn't set because someone wonted bruisers but because it's needed. If anybody do not fit into then he/she must go.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Nov. 22 2002,21:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(A) is rigt, in my opinion. Standard wasn't set because someone wonted bruisers but because it's needed. If anybody do not fit into then he/she must go.<span id='postcolor'>

So the 37-year old female Master Sergeant that I work with (who happens to be a CPA and a CIA*) should be forced out because she can't run 3 miles in 28 minutes?

*Yes, I'm an auditor now.

<hangs head in shame>

Semper Fi

[RED 0]

Not at all (though 3 miles in 28 minutes is not that hard). I agree that a general standard of fitness should be kept but as long as she can perform her duties there will be no problems.

BaronVonRed - I though you were going to stop reading this thread?

Women should have to pass the same physical examination as men do, this will avoid problems.

Sorry for posting so late in the discussion, didn't get time to read the thread before this.

RED

[Bart.Jan 0]

I don't know how it works in the other Armed Forces, but in Czechia there are requirements dependent on age of soldier.

It shows if soldier is in good condition and capable for regular duty. There are also different tables for men and women.

We got point system. There are several pointed disciplines. Every soldiers must to satisfy lower limit in each discipline to stay in Czech Armed Forces (most of female soldiers I know can satisfy men-lower limit too). If he takes lowest posible point range he can stay in CzAF, but he can not be promoted to higher rank. With second point range soldier can be promoted. And with points above second limit soldier is in very good physical condition and , I think, it's necessary condition for serving in combat unit. Commander can also add or substract some money to/from personal valuation (it's some bonus to salary) according to that physical tests.

I think if there are some requirements for staying in Arm.Forces they must be fulfiled. And it doesn't matter if it's man or woman. It will be a much harder for women, but without this there will be always some men complaining about diferent criterias. And they'll be right.

"Woman, you want to do same we are doing ? So you must be same good as we are."

War is for warriors, despite of sex. It's what I call equal rights.

But it's possible that there'll be some persons, responsible for combat readiness, that, in future, lower needed criteria. But I hope they will be sure about it, that a common sense will win over a politics.

[NavyEEL 0]

all i can say is, that girl is HOT!!!

[FSPilot 0]

Women in the U.S. complained and whined and protested for equal treatement for countless years. They got their right to vote, and they got in the military.

Why stop there? They're equal, right? Give them equal physical fitness standards. Make them participate in the draft. Make them go into combat, even if they don't want to.

Men have to do it. If women are equal with men, they should too.