dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 11, 2016 2:45:40 GMT
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Apr 11, 2016 14:41:13 GMT
When I was a police officer, I served with some women officers who were really good, and tough enough to whip most men. She will probably make a good soldier, but I hope this isn't a move to validate the politically correct notion that all women are equally capable of front line combat as are the men, which simply isn't true. Police work isn't the same thing as military combat.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 11, 2016 17:45:38 GMT
Colt Allow me to preface my remarks as being from a civilian. I served with female officers as a reserve police officer and found them like men, some good, not good and a couple excellent officers. I can not visualize how one's personal privacy can be maintained on maneuvers let alone in combat. Perhaps I am looking at this issue incorrectly but all the women I know cherish their privacy.
Another thought I have is since we as boys are taught from childhood not to hit girls, would male soldiers attempt to protect female comrades and expose themselves to additional dangers? I know the Israeli Defense Forces have female infantry and pilots who serve in combat but curious as to what concessions if any that have been made for female accommodations? Allow me to state that if women desire to serve in combat roles, I have no problem as long as they can physically perform. Women aviators are certainly qualified for combat as would naval officers serving and commanding vessels. I am uncomfortable with the thought of women as special forces or infantry combat soldiers if they cannot perform the required physical drills and not be a hindrance to unit proficiency.
Curious to other's thoughts and ideas. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 11, 2016 18:32:57 GMT
I am not groaning, but neither am I in my grave - Yet.
The truth is that women have been in Infantry, and Armor battalions at least since, the advent of the brigade combat team. I see female soldiers all the time at Fort Carson wearing the distinctive insignia of the 8th and 12th Infantry and the 10th Cavalry among several others.
With the advent of the BCT about 12 years ago, most of the support positions were taken out of the line maneuver battalions, and grouped in five forward support companies of the BCT's support battalion, along with that battalion's main support companies. One of the prime reasons for doing this is that there were a high number of these support positions that could be filled by women, but there was still a legal prohibition of women serving in combat arms units. The support battalion is not considered a combat arms unit, so they could serve there without any restriction.
In practice, while belonging to the support battalion these companies are attached, that means WITH, sharing all the hazards of combat associated with the line companies. Many times the personnel of the FSC's are further attached downward to the line companies themselves. In the 4th Infantry Division, those FSC's wear the insignia of the battalion they are attached to, not the one they belong to. Illegal as hell as far as the lineage, heraldry, and honors people go, but I am not going to tell. I do not know if the same practice prevails in other divisions or separate BCT's. Would not surprise me if it did.
What you have is a way that the Army has gotten around the law for these last many years. So Fox News and all the other Psalm singers are way, at least 12 years, behind the times. The times changed with the advent of the BCT.
In practice though, the minimal privacy is already there, and I suspect that has been learned to have been coped with many moons ago.
The key issues those are ones of standards. As long as the same standard of fitness and performance are met, then I for one, am not prone to demand a genitilia check. I am more concerned with tactical, technical, marksmanship proficiency, and the stamina to withstand the rigors of combat. If those can be met, I have absolutely no problem.
Our Constitution outlines the equality of our citizenry, equality under the law that is. Equal means equal, not half or one third or two tenths equal. In this context it means an equal chance, an equal opportunity to compete. If some women can make the grade as an Infantry rifleman so be it.
As far as "not hitting girls" goes, that may be a concern, but I have not seen any evidence of it in the last thirty years. Women were starting to be completely integrated during my time, and I saw no evidence of it, and I read a lot.
Special Operations Forces: SOF covers a lot of ground over and above the Special Forces Groups and Ranger battalions. There is a lot that makes up the Special Operations community that is not nearly as well known to the public as these above listed types of units. Women have been serving in SOF for about the same amount of years as all the other types of units in the Army. I do not know, but it would not surprise me to learn that women have combat roles in SOF units neither you nor I have ever heard about, or have any business knowing about, and that's just fine with me. There are certain jobs and certain situations in SOF that only a woman could do.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 11, 2016 19:05:34 GMT
You know when you think about it, this really shouldn't be news, as you know women have been on the front lines for quite a while but just not labeled as infantry. Other countries have had women in combat roles including infantry for decades. It really isn't a case of women not being qualified or capable, it's a case of changing mindsets.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 11, 2016 19:17:44 GMT
The main mind set to change is woman coming home in body bags in large numbers, and I just cant see any nation excepting that.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 11, 2016 20:04:48 GMT
Service women have been coming home in body bags from practically every conflict. What difference does it make if her title is a nurse, cook, pilot or infantry?
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 11, 2016 21:12:37 GMT
Dave, There are good and bad minds in all walks of life, Chuck gave you the long an short of it all. I will add one short story that goes even further back than 12 years ago. 1986,(NBC Training) Nuclear, Biological, Chemical warfare training. This was the first time I and others were integrated with female airmen in this training. There was no time for modesty, and I as one who generally suffered from early onset of "Dirty Old Man Syndrome" had little time nor inclination to gawk. Modesty was not an issue neither was exposure, as nobody needed to be exposed. Chuck will be familiar with the decontamination procedures. The field exercise went on for a week and two nights were spent underground in a coed dorm in the most uncomfortable bunks I have ever slept in. The following week we were all involved in rapid runway deployment, and shall I say in my sexist way, the girls put out as well as the boys, in reference to their job performance. Two of the young ladies were attached to the USAF Special Operations Command. They were not Special Operators. Chuck is familiar with Eglin AFB, where the training took place, at Hurlburt Field.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 11, 2016 21:16:10 GMT
As far as women police go, if you accept those employed by private agencies, armed, and many times working without readily available support, we have had armed officers since before the Civil War. Check it out.
The average female firefighter's day is far more strenuous than that of the average male soldier's day.
Rosie the Riveter, in WWII, in most cases had a far more tiring day, than the average soldier of the period, in or out of combat. Remember combat is 99 and 9/10 sheer boredom, punctuated by brief spells of complete terror and bedlam.
Did not even see a mention of how many women were killed and wounded in Paris or Brussels. All life is precious, we are finally coming around to recognition of the fact, that death effects all just as much. That is a good thing, for possibly we will now get serious as to how to mitigate the act itself. When a soldier dies in combat, it is the title soldier that matters, not Miss or Mister.
The stories you see on Fox news in this regard, are designed to elicit the type of emotion that Dave displayed. They are not the only ones, only the most prominent. They want to evoke the emotion of the good old days of the Donna Reed prototype. The only problem with that is the good old days covered up reality that has been women sharing the dangers of combat since at least the Battle of Monmouth Court House. So the good old days are sheer fiction, a fiction created to elicit response.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 12, 2016 10:25:51 GMT
Service women have been coming home in body bags from practically every conflict. What difference does it make if her title is a nurse, cook, pilot or infantry? No doubt they are Beth, but you will never have a situation were dozens of women are killed in a single firefight.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 12, 2016 10:54:27 GMT
Service women have been coming home in body bags from practically every conflict. What difference does it make if her title is a nurse, cook, pilot or infantry? No doubt they are Beth, but you will never have a situation were dozens of women are killed in a single firefight. No and in an ideal world we wouldn't have dozens of men either. I guess my view is that women are an essential part of today's military. They have been on the front line and close to the front line for ages with all sorts of job titles. The only difference that the US military made was allowing women into the last few remaining jobs that had been closed to them. It was like one of the last links in the line of women becoming fully integrated into the military. I don't know if this link was posted but it explains more about what was changed. Of course who knows what will happen in the future if certain people end up in the White House. Right now there seems like the whole political arena is a very bad SNL sketch.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 12, 2016 12:57:20 GMT
Beth, I don’t want to get too much into this because it does no one any good, but out of the 442 British personnel killed in Afghanistan, 439 were male and 3 were female, now I know the ratio of men to women is in the men’s favour, but imagine if it was 50 – 50 half of that total was women.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 12, 2016 13:19:19 GMT
Ian, Just a thought on my part, the first step in courage and heroism might just be the putting on of a uniform when you don't have to. This pertains to both male and female. The one thing we must remember is there is a fairly strong weeding out process along the way in these career fields. We are at this point not just looking for cannon fodder.
The only real fear I have is that we begin relaxing requirements for some politically based outcome. That would be unfair to the fighting force as well as the individual.
We have lowered the standards of education in this country, it seems to allow everybody to feel good about themselves(give everybody a trophy syndrome)and it shows in our worldwide standing(sorry Dave, hate to knock educators).
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2016 13:25:01 GMT
Far be it from me to instigate a Constitutional crisis, but equal means equal. If someone here in this country does not like it, ten change the Constitution, go back 100 years to when married women were the property of their husbands, and none had the basic right of a citizen - to vote. Good luck with that.
War today is not the war of trenches and front lines. The extended battle space is the theater and beyond. Women have a vital part to play in an all volunteer force, and frankly they must take their chances just like anyone else.
The best way to prevent catastrophic casualty figures of either gender is first class training for all, supported and supporter alike. So if the training for all is to the same standard, the requirements of membership is universal, you go a long way in mitigation of risk.
We have to get away from these ideas of the past folks, and recognize the world we live in. It will take time, as all things do, but you had better get used to the idea that women are fully integrated into the combat forces of the United States, They are there to stay, so the best thing that can be done is stop the pissing and moaning, and get on with the process of strengthening the combat force of today, and leave the past where it belongs, in the past.
Soldier is not gender specific. Those that wish to be a soldier know the risks involved.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 12, 2016 14:11:01 GMT
I agree Chuck, It doesn't bother me if women make up 50% of the rifle platoon, if they feel that they can do the job then fair enough. But it is not us that they have to worry about, it’s like that there is an unwritten rule, which is similar to the Birkenhead drill and that is a natural process that all men have to follow.
|
|