<font color=cccccc>I've been told it's time to move on and let the young pups run. Ok, I concur. I've been told my mentality is 'old school'. Again, I concur. I've been told my size could be a hindrance (6' 245lbs). Ok, if a bunch of 'girly men' had to sling load me, I suppose. NOW, I've been told: </font>


Army Wants Women On Front Lines
The Herald
October 24, 2004

The U.S. Army is trying to overturn a ban on using women soldiers in forward support units in war zones to ease its growing manpower crisis in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While females still would be barred from combat formations likely to experience direct contact with an enemy, planners want to deploy them alongside fighting brigades as drivers and logisticians to free up scarce male forces.

A shortage of trained American infantry in Iraq prompted the request for the Black Watch to be sent north to Iskandariya to free up American marines for the assault on Falluja.

Although women serve as jet, transport, and helicopter pilots, they are excluded from ground combat. There are about 200,000 females in the U.S. Army - about 17% of its total strength.

About 8% of the 102,000 soldiers in the British Army are female, a proportion which has grown since roles available to them were expanded in 1998. Women represent 9.5% of officers and 6.8% of other ranks.

UK servicewomen are also excluded from direct combat and submarine service. British governments have resisted changing the policy because they feared the political impact of large-scale female casualties.

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday: "The policy introduced in the U.S. in 1994 which prevented the deployment of women soldiers close to the front line no longer has a basis in reality. There are no clearly-defined front lines any more.

"A high proportion of the 250 or so supply convoys which criss- cross Iraq's roads every day come under attack. Many of the vehicles have females in their crews. Bases supposedly behind the lines also come under regular mortar and rocket attack.

He added: "It makes no sense to have to use male soldiers for tasks which could be done easily by their female counterparts when we are short of troops trained to close with and destroy the enemy."

The U.S. Army's high command hopes to be able to persuade Congress to lift restrictions in time for the deployment of the 3rd Infantry Division to Iraq next year.

<font color=cccccc>At this time, I am NOT PREPARED for this!
Thoughts?????????????</font>

If females fulfill the prescribed physical and mental requirements for front-line duty then what's the problem? Does aggressive female behaviour intimidate you? ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I agree if the women in question can pass the EXACT same tests and qualifications as there male counterparts then there should be no reason why they can not be active in the same zones as there male counterparts.

[ 10-28-2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: T-D-C ]

That said, the "tests and qualifications" should not be stupid or male-biased. Navy example: doing 125 pushups has all of nothing to do with anything, combat or otherwise.

It does mean that the only girls who can do 125 look like men, and often talk like them & take the same protein supplements as them.

That said, the "tests and qualifications" should not be stupid or male-biased. Navy example: doing 125 pushups has all of nothing to do with anything, combat or otherwise.

It does mean that the only girls who can do 125 look like men, and often talk like them & take the same protein supplements as them. </font>[/QUOTE]But if the job or assignment requires alot of strength and stamina then those pushups for example are requires to show that you have that strength and stamina.

If the Army wants wormen to take a front line role then they have to take the exact same tests that they put the guys through. If they take anything less then they are putting not only the women in danger but also the rest of the army unit who depend on that soldier.

Example. Your mate gets shot in the leg. You try to pull him out of the combat zone.
1) All those pushups and strength exercises and made it easy to get your mate up on your shoulder and carry him out.
2) The qualifications and tests were changed. A women ( or a guy) can't get that wounded soldier out of the combat Zone becase they are not strong enough.

It could happen.

Cheers!

That is the problem. Even though the female fulfilled the prescribed physical and mental requirements it is the males alongside them who must overcome their own mental hurdles of being in combat situations with women.

True, but that is the male's problem, not the female's.

(Non military POV)

Part of it depends on how prevalent Felix's POV is. Without doing the research, I bet it's not that rare. If that's the case, it would be disadvantageous to a unit if some guys don't think the women are capable or should be there at all. This may change over time of course; just think about how many more options women have now vs 100 years ago. Then again it's still unequal in most fields (in terms of pay and advancement potential).

Now, I'm 1 inch shorter and 105 pounds lighter than Felix, and it'd take a whole lot of adrenaline for me to get him off the ground. I bet I could with the benefit of military training though. We just have to make sure mental gender biases don't get in the way of an objective assessment of what a soldier is actually capable of.

I'm pretty sure that a percentage of those military women are combat capable, but for biological reasons they've got to want it more than their male counterparts. And it looks like they're going to have to prove it to them.

Equality is equality. If women want the perks of joining the work fore (equal pay), then they can accept the downsides as well.

I do note that studies indicate women are better equipped to deal with pain than men are. I don't know that my personal experience backs this up, but statistics are statistics.

Remember that little thing called childbirth? Yeah.

<font color=cccccc>Physical abilities = physical limitations. In PT shorts, and T-shirt, I tip the scales at 245Lbs. Once the tape-test is complte my Army BFI = 14.5%.

In full battle rattle, my total combat weight then becomes 338lbs.
38lbs = IBA/ Uniform (body armor)
28lbs = New Ruck (back pack) system
6lbs = M4 w/30 rd magazine
15lbs = LBV (Load Bearing Vest) Not on IBA (Ammo, H2O etc)
6lbs = Helmet

IBA range in weight from 18-24lbs
Basic load on back pack 22-30lbs
Weapon M4 = just under 7, M16 almost 10lbs
I prefer the LBV over the IBA, some attach the qucik clips to their IBA, basic load 180 rds, 2qts water, 1st aid kit, bayonet etc.
Kevlar new style = 6, old school = 8.

Now, one set fits all, for Small soldiers add 85 lbs, Medium add 87lbs, Large add 90, and XL+ add 93-95. Ok, so you take the back pack off - 28lbs. Think of still wearing 50+lbs of gear on ones body, think of reaction time, and impaired movement.

Consider the physical difference. The Army has changed Basic over the past months to prepare new recruits to fill directly into combat ready units. No longer can little Johnny pass the PT test at 2/3 standard. HOWEVER, the Female chart has yet to cahnge.
Lets use the entry 17-21 year olds.
Push-Up for PASS M=42 F=19 for MAX M=71 F=42
Sit-up for PASS M=53 F=53 for MAX M=78 F=78 No typo, equality.
2mile run PASS M=15:54 F=18:54 for MAX M=13:00 F=15:36.

We, as in the Armor Battalion, conducted an unsponsored test during gunnery a few years back. We invited any and all of the soldiers, and keyed towards female soldiers, to attempt tank crew operations simulating loading the main gun. We had quite a few show up, only 5 of the 27 soldiers could manage the task. Of the test personnel 12 were female 15 male. Of the 5 that could actually load the main gun 100% were male. The dummy round we use to train loaders with is 100% physically identical to the actual round it replicates. Except it is made of poly and not combustable cartridge. Anyhow, the task is to retrive the round from the ammo well, load it into the main gun, check the path of recoil, arm the gun, and announce UP. Now for tankers this is clocked for a maximum of 7 seconds, with seasoned loaders accomplishing the task in under 3 seconds. We did not hold time standards, just to see who could do it. A 120mm dummy round only weighs 52lbs for SABOT and 64lbs for HEAT. 5 of 15 males could actually accomplish the task. 0 of 12 females. Total of 5 for 27. Again there are no-longer any non-shooters! Right.

Mentality has been brought up. I have trained all of my military career to do nothing more than 'Put Steel on Target'. To Kill. To Destroy. To Conquer. To Annihilate the enemy. To push through the objective. To secure the far-side, re-organize, care for the wounded, call or conduct CASEVAC, and prepare for the counter attack. It's in my blood. It's instilled in my tank commanders, and pounded into all of my LTs!

Now, I can see enhancing the training for ALL NON-DIRECT COMBAT units, and turning them into shooters. The new remark is there are no longer non-shooters we are all shooters. There are no defined front lines. Then by all means get trained. Get hot, get prepared. Dish it out if you receive fire, just do it. Just don't think the mission is to difficult when you are called to the engagement area.

Now, lets discuss headline news. Are we the people prepared to see equality in the KIA listings? This is where my train of thought was heading, but after I've just bored you all into submission, the real question is can we handle HEADLINE NEWS?</font>

It's a problem that will cause mistakes though. Felix said he is not ready for it. Lucern said that "it would be disadvantageous to a unit if some guys don't think the women are capable or should be there at all". And he is right. If you have a combat unit made of predominantly men and several women the men would not be as effective because of the mental hurdle of being alongside women.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to have women in combat at all. Just that, exactly as Lucern stated, currently their would be a disadvantage to that unit because of the males attitudes towards those women. Disadvantage in combat situations is a bad thing.

And to take it further, I recall reading (maybe at this forum) about a situation that could occur with prisoners of war. You and your squadmate, a female, are captured and placed in seperate cells. The female is being raped in the next cell and you are aware of it from your own cell but are powerless to do anything to stop it. I imagine that the female would have the training to attempt to mentally deal with this as a possible consequence of her being a captured soldier. You the male in the cell would be the one having the breakdown.

But at any rate.. if females are eventually going to stand side by side with males on the battlefield then this will be a step in that direction. And I think is the males who will need more training that the females to get them over whatever mental barriers they have of serving in the frontlines together.

Right, so there are obvious physical limitations -- gender independent -- that might keep one from performing certain jobs. I, for example, weigh all of 125 lbs, and could not carry nearly that sort of weight.

I can max any SEAL or Marine Corps PFT, however, with room to spare. Pushups / Situps 130+, Pullups 40+, Run / Swim times without worries. All because I've obviously got nothing to pull / push / kick around, and my heart's got an easy time of things. And I'm a smoker :rolleyes:

The point is people -- not sexes -- are suited to different things. I've no doubt that our Women's Rugby team has some girls who could carry a wounded Felix off the battlefield without trouble :D

As for mental difficulties on the part of some guys, I'd say it's far past time them to either adapt or retire... and most of them would probably agree.

Felix said: This is a valid point I think Felix. As a society, we do still treat women differently in a number of ways based solely on gender. Female criminals aren't likely to receive the death penalty or even comparable sentences than male criminals who did virtually the same thing. Then there are cases like the [highly embellished] Jessica Lynch ordeal, which wouldn't have been told the same if she was a he. As is, every KIA's pic is eventually shown on TV, and we're pretty sensitive to any KIAs (especially at the beginning of a conflict). It's pretty hard to see guys my age (22) and even younger on the screen without some sort of reaction deep down. Seeing women there would be very hard for some, even at the ratio of 17:100 that they represent. Obviously Felix (assuming he's not playing Devil's advocate) and others who aren't prepared to see them in that kind of combat aren't prepared for equal casualties either. As for myself, I can't say it bothers me much more than any other casualty, which is certainly not to say it wouldn't affect me.

Djinn Raffo said:
Possibly. I have the unfortunate distinction of knowing about torture and those who live through it from my work with a UN-funded non-profit (politically motivated torture, not POW torture). 90% of the organization's female clients were raped while confined, and about 25% of the males - often while family members were made to watch. I'll just suggest that IMO no training will prevent a breakdown for either squadmate, particularly the female one. Such is torture, and it's awful. I think you're on to something with the idea that there is more than just women in combat that many men aren't prepared for.

And from a gender studies POV, aleph_null1 is right that of course gender does not inherently limit a person. It's a biological factor, but not necessarily a blanket limitation you can cover all women with. Ask Virginia Woolf ;)