Posted on Jan 8, 2014
Women in combat, can we stop with the BS and just make it happen?
10.9K
71
43
14
14
0
4th British woman in history to earn the Military Cross.<br>Kudos.<br>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1375233/Mother-told-Military-Cross-hero-daughter-Kylie-Watson-Oh-Kylie-What-did-Next-time-don-t-.html<div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/09/article-1375233-0B8E4B [login to see] -385_1024x615_large.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1375233/Mother-told-Military-Cross-hero-daughter-Kylie-Watson-Oh-Kylie-What-did-Next-time-don-t-.html">'Oh, Kylie! What did you do? Next time, please don’t...': What mother told Military Cross hero daughter who twice braved hails of bullets to tend war wounded</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">Lance Corporal Kylie Watson, 23 - who stands just 5ft 1in tall in her Army-issue boots - is one of only four women in history to bear the coveted initials MC after her name.</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>
Gender
Women in the Military
Honor
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 22
8
8
0
The "no women in combat" clique tends to overlook that there are actually a lot of *men* who aren't suited for combat arms, either. Strength and abilities vary widely from person to person, and what matters is whether you can shoot-move-and-communicate, and look out for your buddy when bullets are flying, not what parts you have between your legs.
They also forget that "combat arms" has long since ceased to mean they are the only ones likely to engage in combat.
They will lose this battle, just as they lost the battle against gays serving (even as far back as Barry Goldwater this was clear, as when he said "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.") and against racial integration in the service.
And when they eventually lose the battle, and the childish kicking and screaming stops, the nation and our military will be all the better for it.
They also forget that "combat arms" has long since ceased to mean they are the only ones likely to engage in combat.
They will lose this battle, just as they lost the battle against gays serving (even as far back as Barry Goldwater this was clear, as when he said "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.") and against racial integration in the service.
And when they eventually lose the battle, and the childish kicking and screaming stops, the nation and our military will be all the better for it.
(8)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
True, but there is also a difference between CA who go out looking for a fight as part of their job and CS and CSS who just happen to get into fights as part of their job. My concerns is that women just need to be able to meet the same standards as men have to meet. If they can do that, no problems in my book. Just don't lower it for affirmative action.
(5)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Couldn't agree more LTC Paul Labrador. In the argument regarding Ranger School I've always argued that it wasn't a "Civil Rights School" so to speak. If someone can pass the standards then good for them but if someone, male or female, cannot make the standards then end of story. Standards are there for a reason and some things are supposed to be hard.
(3)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
This isn't the same as gays serving in the military. This isn't even the same as blacks serving the military (reference WWI and WWII ideology). Sexuality and race have zero bearing capability. Sex however does. It is a physical thing. To deny it is to deny simple biology.
Point blank, for every slot they give to a woman to try out for a combat arms mos, they give away a slot for a man who has a higher chance of graduating. The number of women who can physically compete with a man is not in proportion with a successful venture in terms of financial cost for training slots and the successful graduation of candidates.
If you support women for combat arms, you are literally supporting fewer bodies to serve in already undermanned (literally) duty positions.
If you want to base it on the paper thin merit of a woman getting an award, let's count the number of women who have gotten the Silver Star since WWII...the number is one....out of tens of millions who have served...of which women have served in the millions....just one....in 75 years+....and your justification is the actions of a woman in a foreign military.
Point blank, for every slot they give to a woman to try out for a combat arms mos, they give away a slot for a man who has a higher chance of graduating. The number of women who can physically compete with a man is not in proportion with a successful venture in terms of financial cost for training slots and the successful graduation of candidates.
If you support women for combat arms, you are literally supporting fewer bodies to serve in already undermanned (literally) duty positions.
If you want to base it on the paper thin merit of a woman getting an award, let's count the number of women who have gotten the Silver Star since WWII...the number is one....out of tens of millions who have served...of which women have served in the millions....just one....in 75 years+....and your justification is the actions of a woman in a foreign military.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
The country needs to get it's head around the issue and accept it - we live in a 'free' society where equal rights are talked about - but not always in practice. I have known plenty of women that I would rather have backing me up then some men. Each individual is different - not all men are suitable for combat type roles and some women aren't either. It should be - let all try and those that succeed in making the grade are put into those positions. It shouldn't be based just on gender.
(8)
(0)
5
5
0
My question to everyone is:
If having women in a direct ground combat role is so vital to the defense of our country, why have we not had them in the past?
We can go even further back, why wasn't there woman who was a Roman Legionnaire? Or instead of one Joan of Arc, why not hundreds of female knights? Or a say a regiment of grunts in history who happened to female?
You can argue whats fair, upholding standards and so forth. But you can't change biology, how men and women interact with each other.
Yes, women are in combat in a variety of jobs. Thats fine and they do great stuff. But why are so many obsessed with ensuring that women are in the Infantry, Armor & SOF? Heck many men can't cut it there ether.
Ground combat is stressful enough as it is, without throwing this dynamic in there. Shouldn't we more concerned about making our forces more lethal on reducing budget than placating political correctness?
If having women in a direct ground combat role is so vital to the defense of our country, why have we not had them in the past?
We can go even further back, why wasn't there woman who was a Roman Legionnaire? Or instead of one Joan of Arc, why not hundreds of female knights? Or a say a regiment of grunts in history who happened to female?
You can argue whats fair, upholding standards and so forth. But you can't change biology, how men and women interact with each other.
Yes, women are in combat in a variety of jobs. Thats fine and they do great stuff. But why are so many obsessed with ensuring that women are in the Infantry, Armor & SOF? Heck many men can't cut it there ether.
Ground combat is stressful enough as it is, without throwing this dynamic in there. Shouldn't we more concerned about making our forces more lethal on reducing budget than placating political correctness?
(5)
(0)
Maj Frank Thomas
Solid facts there, SFC. I have a tough time believing that the ones on the hill who mandated this move did their research before placing the ink on the paper. An increase in costs and injuries is what scientific research reveals. That can only lead to a decrease in readiness.
(3)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
So Hunter, let's do a simple task. Let's carry a 65lbs rucksack for a minimum of 5 miles a day, sometimes 10, for 10 days in between those those movements we are going to induce food and sleep deprivation. Except for this competition we only have 10 slots. You can pick who those 10 people are (male or female) except you can only pick them by sex. You have zero information about who they are but you need to pick a group where 7 of 10 personnel can complete the task.
I guarantee if you were faced with that task you would not pick a woman to be in the group. Why? Because the law of averages say that to add a woman into that mix would increase the rate of failure.
Every slot you give a woman for this kind of job is literally one less slot you can give to a man who has a higher chance of passing and...here's the kicker...can't get pregnant and needs to take a year off.
This isn't a job where you should be allowed to be a princess and do what you want. Bottom line, Combat Arms units are always undermanned. Every slot you give a woman is one less slot that has a chance to successfully meet even the basic standards to be in the unit.
I guarantee if you were faced with that task you would not pick a woman to be in the group. Why? Because the law of averages say that to add a woman into that mix would increase the rate of failure.
Every slot you give a woman for this kind of job is literally one less slot you can give to a man who has a higher chance of passing and...here's the kicker...can't get pregnant and needs to take a year off.
This isn't a job where you should be allowed to be a princess and do what you want. Bottom line, Combat Arms units are always undermanned. Every slot you give a woman is one less slot that has a chance to successfully meet even the basic standards to be in the unit.
(0)
(0)
SGT Anthony Rossi
Jerry, you hit the nail on the head. Show me one nation that adopted this kind of thinking that weatherd the storm of time. There isn't one. Whenever women are moved into these kind of rolls (as a norm) it's simply a display of the weakness of the masculinity in a given nation. People that pro women in combat always state the exception instead of the norm. Normaly speaking there is no benifit to adding the unique psychology of women into the combat picture.
(0)
(0)
SGT Anthony Rossi
If women are alowed to serve in combat rolls as a norm VA disabilities will increase damaticly.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google