On Gender and Combat

[Ignaddio]

This thread was created, in part, to discuss the impact that gender has on combat roles in the military. To be more specific, the differences between men and women in the roles of infantry, special forces, and pilots.

My opinion on the matter, as stated in the shoutbox previously, is that while there are women that -can- be trained to face the rigors of modern combat on the front lines, the number of them that can is insufficient to warrant the military's time and resources in weeding out the ones that cannot. Thus, I believe that the policy of excluding women from infantry roles and special forces is practical, and not sexist. As far as women making better or worse pilots? I don't know if there is sufficient data in either direction to support either argument. There are great woman pilots, and mediocre woman pilots, much like there are great male and mediocre male pilots.

The following is an article that supports my views on the subject, although it seems more like an opinion piece as the facts therin are sparse. http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/08/30/women-in-the-infantry/

[Oniya]

I have heard that women have a better ability to withstand G-forces than men, and my Google-fu revealed the following interesting page:

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html

[Brandon]

When I was in the Army the only reason why women were not allowed into infantry positions was because of personal hygiene (or so they said). I personally have a hard time buying that though since when I asked exactly what the personal hygiene issue was they remained tight lipped if not outright ignoring the question.

Now I was not infantry but I was still forced into a combat situation a few times and the results are really the same IMO. Ive seen men and women loose it when the shooting starts and Ive seen men and women pick up their weapon and fire back with an intent to kill. Unfortunately training is often not a good way to figure out whether a person has the mental fortitude for combat or not since it lacks a lot of the realism. You're always put into little laser tag style equipment and while you can hear the shots of blanks going off and beeping to indicate a soldier is dead or wounded it lacks the feeling of danger and thus the part of our brain dedicated to survival fails to kick in. Now those field exercises still teach you things but its rarely ways to survive when you are being shot at

I guess what I'm trying to say is anyone, male or female, can be an effective soldier and its impossible to know who will or wont perform till they are forced into actual combat.

[Paladin]

I've been in the military. It IS a sexist organization to the core. Women are just as effective fighters as men are. In some ways women are better.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I would assume they would weed out poor female combatants the same way they weed out poor male combatants.  Which means they just throw the two groups together and see who can pass the exams.  Now I do feel that women should and must be held to the same standards as their male counterparts for infantry, but I do not think women would be any worse for the job.  As for the article, that is entirely opinion based and has no facts or numbers what so ever to support the argument. 

[Xanthus]

This thread was created, in part, to discuss the impact that gender has on combat roles in the military. To be more specific, the differences between men and women in the roles of infantry, special forces, and pilots.

My opinion on the matter, as stated in the shoutbox previously, is that while there are women that -can- be trained to face the rigors of modern combat on the front lines, the number of them that can is insufficient to warrant the military's time and resources in weeding out the ones that cannot. Thus, I believe that the policy of excluding women from infantry roles and special forces is practical, and not sexist. As far as women making better or worse pilots? I don't know if there is sufficient data in either direction to support either argument. There are great woman pilots, and mediocre woman pilots, much like there are great male and mediocre male pilots.

The following is an article that supports my views on the subject, although it seems more like an opinion piece as the facts therin are sparse. http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/08/30/women-in-the-infantry/

this is very interesting, but i have been in the military, the us navy. (hold all jokes for later please) and i can tell you first hand, women can not hold a flame to men. yes i will give credit where credit is due, but military is not and in my opinion should not be for women. medics yes, pilots yes. but grunt units, no. special forces, no.
women are lighters on there toes so yes i will give them that, but men can carrier heavier loads. there physically built for combat. its in our dna. its primal for men. there can be many women that may be able to do a lot of things the men can do. but if i have been shoot and my partner is a woman. 9 out of 10 times they can not carry me. although i have been surprised by some petite little things lol.
another thing is, and this gets me going a bit, is that a lot of women think they can do the job, but when they get into combat they realize they cant. training is one thing but when your out there life or death situations. women can not preform. and a lot of them want to get out of the area so they get knocked up and pregnant  so they can go on leave. and guess what, when a woman leaves on pregnancy leave they don't get replaced the unit suffers!
...hmm i think thats about it for my two cents lol

[Saikotsu]

Ironically, the majority of the worlds best assassins are female.  I believe it is in the 70's percentage wise.  As for whether or not women can perform as well as men in combat, I really don't know.  I've heard your argument before, Xanthus, and I believe it is a decent one, but at the same time, I've seen women who could beat really strong men in terms of strength (I'm talking about some really buff dudes being outclassed by even more buff women).  I believe it all comes down to the individual soldier. Some won't be able to handle it, like some people have said here, and others will excel at it. 

[Canuckian]

Ironically, the majority of the worlds best assassins are female.  I believe it is in the 70's percentage wise(I'm talking about some really buff dudes being outclassed by even more buff women). 

But that's taking the extreme examples.  Any discussions about groups of people must take the averages as the "standard sample" and it's a valid question: can an average woman carry an average man for extended periods?

As for whether or not women should be in combat, I really don't know where I stand on the issue.  But I have read (without links to back it up) that there are studies that have shown that when under combat and enemy fire, male combatants will disregard orders in order to give female combatants extra attention.  Perhaps it's less of an evolution question and more of a society question: have we, as a society, progressed enough to the point where average men can treat average women as "one of the guys"?

[Ignaddio]

If we're going to be using prior military experience as an example, then I can state honestly that the average woman in the Navy has a hard enough time just getting around the ship on her own. There was a door near my berthing (read: giant multi person bedroom) that had to be kept shut for equipment operation reasons, but it was on a high traffic passageway, so the door got used by just about everyone. The compartment it opens into, while that door is shut, develops a low pressure area that tends to hold that door shut. Nine times out of ten, when a woman came to that door, she needed assistance in getting it open.

Now place that ship in a combat situation, and ask her to carry an average, passed out man through that door on her lonesome. Will it happen? For that matter, set that compartment on fire and ask her to evacuate from it. Can she do it?

[Paladin]

If we're going to be using prior military experience as an example, then I can state honestly that the average woman in the Navy has a hard enough time just getting around the ship on her own. There was a door near my berthing (read: giant multi person bedroom) that had to be kept shut for equipment operation reasons, but it was on a high traffic passageway, so the door got used by just about everyone. The compartment it opens into, while that door is shut, develops a low pressure area that tends to hold that door shut. Nine times out of ten, when a woman came to that door, she needed assistance in getting it open.

Now place that ship in a combat situation, and ask her to carry an average, passed out man through that door on her lonesome. Will it happen? For that matter, set that compartment on fire and ask her to evacuate from it. Can she do it?

Then it sounds like the Navy needs to train more to build up muscle in its women. Its an easily solveable situation.

[Brandon]

Then it sounds like the Navy needs to train more to build up muscle in its women. Its an easily solveable situation.

My thoughts exactly.

I've always thought the navy was to lax in its standards for muscle mass on both men and women. I know you sit on your butt more in the navy then the army and that idea alone makes me think higher standards are needed because they dont use that muscle mass as much

[jouzinka]

And there I thought we got over the "women can't drive" kind of issues...

[Paladin]

My thoughts exactly.

I've always thought the navy was to lax in its standards for muscle mass on both men and women. I know you sit on your butt more in the navy then the army and that idea alone makes me think higher standards are needed because they dont use that muscle mass as much

Exactly! I've seen army women and by god they can carry just as much as any army guy out there.

[Canuckian]

Three guesses which branch she belongs to (and the first two don't count).

For the record, my discussion wasn't "Women can't drive!" and more asking about "Can men let women drive on their own merits?"

[Brandon]

Wow, I'ld do her...oh wait back on topic...um...Oh another thought comes to mind that the idea of carrying wounded while applicable is slightly flawed. Few people tend to carry a single person for soldier unless in emergencies. Generally speaking (and remember were judging women on a general basis for this thread too) youre going to have 2 people assisting in wounded extraction. If two women, no matter their size, cant pick me up (Im 6' 190 lbs) and get me out of there they they wouldnt have been able to pass their PT test in the first place.

Even if they cant throw a guy over their shoulder like the girl in the picture above they can still easily drag all but the heaviest people and the heaviest people means average obese Americans which wont be in the military in the first place because they cant pass a PT test

[Paladin]

Wow, I'ld do her...oh wait back on topic...um...Oh another thought comes to mind that the idea of carrying wounded while applicable is slightly flawed. Few people tend to carry a single person for soldier unless in emergencies. Generally speaking (and remember were judging women on a general basis for this thread too) youre going to have 2 people assisting in wounded extraction. If two women, no matter their size, cant pick me up (Im 6' 190 lbs) and get me out of there they they wouldnt have been able to pass their PT test in the first place.

Even if they cant throw a guy over their shoulder like the girl in the picture above they can still easily drag all but the heaviest people and the heaviest people means average obese Americans which wont be in the military in the first place because they cant pass a PT test

I will second what brandon says.

[Ignaddio]

Then it sounds like the Navy needs to train more to build up muscle in its women. Its an easily solveable situation.

Sure, the solution always sounds like more training would fix the problem, but is it a sufficient issue to warrant the time and cost? How much has the Navy's current standards cost them in terms of combat efficiency, casualties, et cetera? I'd be willing to wager it's not cost effective to raise the standards. The Navy practices Operational Risk Management, and to me it seems that the risk imposed by having the standards that it does is not worth the cost. In terms of a cliche, "If it Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It." I was merely bringing up an example of the average woman in the military, at least in my experience.

But my argument wasn't against women in the military, it was against women in Infantry and Special Forces positions.

[Paladin]

Sure, the solution always sounds like more training would fix the problem, but is it a sufficient issue to warrant the time and cost? How much has the Navy's current standards cost them in terms of combat efficiency, casualties, et cetera? I'd be willing to wager it's not cost effective to raise the standards. The Navy practices Operational Risk Management, and to me it seems that the risk imposed by having the standards that it does is not worth the cost. In terms of a cliche, "If it Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It." I was merely bringing up an example of the average woman in the military, at least in my experience.

But my argument wasn't against women in the military, it was against women in Infantry and Special Forces positions.

But you see my argument IS FOR women in the INfantry and Special Forces. As I have said They can do anything WE MEN can do, and alot of times they can do it BETTER.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I was born and raised in the south.  Guns to not bother me.  Gun fire doesn't bother me.  You shoot at me, I'm gonna shoot back.  If I get hurt when I'm working I brush it off and only pay it mind when I have time.  I am one hell of an actress and manipulator when I want to be so if the Special Forces scenario is an undercover one I've got that covered easy.  And while I may be tiny (and now I'm out of shape a little) I am strong and I have carried men twice my weight easy.  It depends on who the woman is.  How mentally strong she is.  How well she was trained.  And how she was raised.  I think it's purely environmental.     

[Canuckian]

I think it's purely environmental.   

Less "environmental" and more "sociological", I think.  We still pamper young daughters with Disney Princesses and pink and pretty flowers and the like.  We still have a vast gulf of difference (on a society level) between men and women, and that's still the big stepping stone IMHO.  Mainstream society still preaches "equality" and "gender-neutral terms" but I think that we're just fooling ourselves and, in a general sense still have a long way to go before we're a truly equal society in all areas.

I refer to my original post, and the aforementioned case studies of mixed-gender combat squads.  If those are true, then we're still not nearly as progressive as we delude ourselves into thinking. 

[ShrowdedPoet]

See, I was never pampered.  I never had the whole princess thing.  I was a tomboy. 

[Canuckian]

See, I was never pampered.  I never had the whole princess thing.  I was a tomboy.

And we wouldn't have you any other way ;)  But I'm talking more in a general sense and my statements is more applicable.  I've recently spent time around a lot of young girls (had to chaperate a 10 year-old's birthday party *shudder*) and it really struck me how we treat young girls and how society directs them in a general sense.

[Brandon]

This is where PT tests and other military standards come in. If the graders arent cheating for the person performing the test (yes it happens) and the test is at a point that it requires everyone to be strong, flexible, durable, and fast enough to do the job then there is no difference between men and women in military roles and by extension Infantry and special forces.

Mentalities in combat can only be proven in combat so you cant have a standard for this till someones been put into a real combat situation.

Except for this "hygiene issue" that was spouted when I was a soldier (and consequently was never defined even when asked about) we can prove that men and women can perform equally in combat as long as theyre held to the same standard.

[Canuckian]

So... you're saying that Men are the weaker sex, and that therefore all soldiers should be women?

Sounds like a certain God-Emperor I know...

[Oniya]

Except for this "hygiene issue" that was spouted when I was a soldier (and consequently was never defined even when asked about)

According to the link I posted earlier, I'm willing to bet it's the concept that women 'take longer on latrine breaks' because they 'can't pee standing up'.  As there are both devices and techniques that allow that, and that both sexes have to 'bottom-strip' to take care of the other necessity, it's hardly a viable excuse.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I have a feeling the "hygiene" issue is in regards to the menstral cycle, not our differences in urinating.

[Ignaddio]

This is where PT tests and other military standards come in. If the graders arent cheating for the person performing the test (yes it happens) and the test is at a point that it requires everyone to be strong, flexible, durable, and fast enough to do the job then there is no difference between men and women in military roles and by extension Infantry and special forces.

Mentalities in combat can only be proven in combat so you cant have a standard for this till someones been put into a real combat situation.

Except for this "hygiene issue" that was spouted when I was a soldier (and consequently was never defined even when asked about) we can prove that men and women can perform equally in combat as long as theyre held to the same standard.

If you'll kindly read the article I posted in the OP, it does a bit of explaining on the part of the hygiene issue. What I suspect is that people knew the issues involved but couldn't speak about it intelligently enough to explain it to someone further and, in order to avoid foot in mouth syndrome, shut up.

As far as Physical Fitness standards, they aren't the same. Men and women have separate minimum scores for everything from push ups ad situps to run times, and it gets easier as you get older. The point of physical fitness standards isn't to ensure you can do your job; if you placed someone, male or female, who could only accomplish the minimum required of them, in the role of infantry, I suspect that they would flounder and fail. The intent behind physical fitness standards is to maintain the health of the general military populace, including the large majority who never expect to be placed in a hostile situation. That, and a trim sailor looks better in a uniform than a round one.

[Paladin]

So... you're saying that Men are the weaker sex, and that therefore all soldiers should be women?

Don't put words into my mouth that haven't been said please. As I said women can do SOME things BETTER than men. NOT that ALL SOLDIERS should be WOMEN. Men are not the weaker sex, I'm saying that in the MIlitary you can make it so there is NO WEAKER SEX. Womens should be able to fill the same military positions men do, including Infantry and Special Forces.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Don't put words into my mouth that haven't been said please. As I said women can do SOME things BETTER than men. NOT that ALL SOLDIERS should be WOMEN. Men are not the weaker sex, I'm saying that in the MIlitary you can make it so there is NO WEAKER SEX. Womens should be able to fill the same military positions men do, including Infantry and Special Forces.

Agreed.  And I do believe that what you quoted Pali is a logical fallacy so whoever said it might want to read over that thread.

[Ket]

There are great woman pilots, and mediocre woman pilots, much like there are great male and mediocre male pilots.

Along that same vein, there are great -insert any job in the military here- women, and there are great -insert any job in the military here- men. Which means there are also mediocre or just good enough or pretty darn good men and women in each category.

Let me tell you this. I may not weigh as much as some of the men I work with. I may not be as physically strong as some of the men I work with, simply because it's a given fact women have less muscle mass than men. But I'll be damned if I can't pull my own weight and then some, whether it be training or real life situations. The problem is how people think. There are still many men who look down on women who serve, thinking them to be less capable than themselves. And sadly, there are many women who take advantage of this and do not reach their full potential as a soldier or sailor. Which means those of us who do strive (sorry for the cliche) to be all we can be are looked over as equals and lumped into other groups.

Until the thinking of the majority is changed, women (as a whole) will never be equal in the military and never have the chance to show what they can accomplish in any field they are assigned to.

[Ket]

Also, please remember that there is no tone associated with mere text on a screen, so please, if you are unsure of how someone is making their point, ask them to clarify nicely.

[Chris Brady]

Then it sounds like the Navy needs to train more to build up muscle in its women. Its an easily solveable situation.

The issue here is biology and genetics.  To get an average woman to build up the same amount of muscle mass to be able to do what the average soldier can requires more work.  Which means costs more and takes more time to do so.  Which is one factor that plays against them.

Now that's not to say there aren't exceptions.  There's ALWAYS exceptions.

[ShrowdedPoet]

The issue here is biology and genetics.  To get an average woman to build up the same amount of muscle mass to be able to do what the average soldier can requires more work.  Which means costs more and takes more time to do so.  Which is one factor that plays against them.

Now that's not to say there aren't exceptions.  There's ALWAYS exceptions.

Like Ket said though, do women really have to have the same muscle mass to work hard and accomplish basically the same things as men?

[Chris Brady]

Like Ket said though, do women really have to have the same muscle mass to work hard and accomplish basically the same things as men?

From what I know of human biology?  Not at the beginning.  It can be built up, but again the major issue here is that time and training factor into this.  And the Military has 'traditions' and rules, and if it takes longer to build up the appropriate level of physical capacity for a woman, compared to a man, then there's an issue.

Which is not to say the Military isn't a sexist organization.  It is.  But some of the complaints are valid, even if the intention is wrong.

[Chris Brady]

I'd just like to note that there are multiple military organizations in multiple nations, so it might be worth-while to treat and analyze them separately.

And most of them are male dominated, and don't like change, which is something this women in the military is forcing them to do.

[Ignaddio]

My argument is that, considering the cost of attrition, the costs for training the average female military recruit for service in the infantry, specifically the American military infantry, is not worth the appearance of gender equality. Without changing the methods and time frame allowed, can the average female military recruit be trained to do the following?

“Look.  Whoever said this is a pogue and has never been in the field.  Yes, it’s about the 120+ temperatures – it’s almost impossible to operate.  Yes, it’s about the heavy body armor, and in full gear with backpack, hydration, weapon and ammunition, it’s more than 120 pounds for as long as the hump, 15 or 20 miles.  But it’s really about more than that.  It’s even more than about the ability to carry heavy weight for long distances in high temperatures.  We don’t bathe for a month at a time.  If we are doing MCMAP quals, we beat the hell out of each other, continually – every day, all of the time.  Literally.  Men beat the hell out of men, and get it back too.

Remember when I was in Fallujah and I had to jump off of the roof of the house?  I was under fire, my unit was leaving and I had to catch the HMMWV, and I had on full body armor with hydration, SAW drums and SAW.  And I had to jump from the roof of a house to the ground.  I have had to tackle men in Fallujah who were assaulting us.  Full grown men, attacking us by hand.  Football style tackle with holds and moves on the dude while in full body armor.

[RubySlippers]

What pisses me off is the Selective Service just registers men and according the military in five branches women can do close or more than 50% of the specialties. Minus the marine Corps where it favors men I believe but am not sure about that. So why not enforce equality there if women really want to be equal with men in all areas. What because we don't have a penis we can be drafted and serve the military during war to defend our country.

[Trieste]

Ahem.

Please stop talking about DNA and genetics as if they are not mutable. They are, and the US government pours enough money into the military that it could easily tinker. Soon enough, we won't need the war-mongering males anyway.. (Attention: THAT WAS A JOKE.)

I'd just like to note that there are multiple military organizations in multiple nations, so it might be worth-while to treat and analyze them separately.

No Beurocracy likes change, unless it's a bigger budget to create more bureaucracy with.  Just about any long standing Military is filled with bureaucracy, just like any long-standing government agency of any kind.

So are you analyzing them separately, or are you lumping them together? Please pick one.



I'm moving this topic to Politics and Religion. From this post forward, I expect people to back up their claims with numbers, before this devolves into something it shouldn't. You want to claim that women are usually shorter than men? Fine. But you had better have the sources to back it up. If you are in any way confused by that instruction... then don't post.

[Canuckian]

Which is not to say the Military isn't a sexist organization.  It is.  But some of the complaints are valid, even if the intention is wrong.

Ahem.  I'd like to point out that the Canadian military is completely gender-integrated.  Women can apply for any job in our services, including our fledgling submarine service. 

[Trieste]

Well, they do say a bureaucracy exists primarily to perpetuate itself. I suppose the question would be: do you consider the military itself to be a bureaucracy, or would you say the bureaucracy merely controls the military? Is there a difference, or is the difference academic?

Ahem.  I'd like to point out that the Canadian military is completely gender-integrated.  Women can apply for any job in our services, including our fledgling submarine service.

When I lived there, they had some serious cross-training happening, too. Any one person could do things that would take two, probably three jobs in the US ... as I understood it, anyway.

[Canuckian]

When I lived there, they had some serious cross-training happening, too. Any one person could do things that would take two, probably three jobs in the US ... as I understood it, anyway.

... you're my new Goddess...  ;D

[Trieste]

*bestows blessings and light upon the Canuckian* ;)

[Paladin]

Still, muscle mass is usually one of the deciding factors in application of force.

I can proove you wrong on that count many times over. I'm a Martil artist. I have seen a woman who might weigh 120 lbs sopping wet throw a man who is 250 lbs of solid muscle damn near straight across the room. Its all about training. Who has the bigger muscles has nothing to do with it. There are ways around anything.

Size and Muscle does not matter.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Paladin is right about that one for certain.  In my small dabblings in martial arts they were never considerate of my size in picking a sparing partner, telling me that in real life I don't get to choose.  While certainly I was at a disadvantage, the technique and skill carried me through.  Also, I help hold down patients that are easily two to three times my weight and I'm expected to safely corral them even by myself.  I've helped carry patients much larger than myself.  Certainly the male staff do it more often, but we don't always have them.  I can't look down at someone in a pool of blood and go "sorry sir, but none of the guys are working tonight."  Simple application of proper body mechanics is a wonderful tool.

If someone wants something bad enough, then they will do it.  I don't see why the military would have to alter their training methods for women or where the additional cost comes into place.  I say give them a chance.

[Kotah]

Paladin is right about that one for certain.  In my small dabblings in martial arts they were never considerate of my size in picking a sparing partner, telling me that in real life I don't get to choose.  While certainly I was at a disadvantage, the technique and skill carried me through.  Also, I help hold down patients that are easily two to three times my weight and I'm expected to safely corral them even by myself.  I've helped carry patients much larger than myself.  Certainly the male staff do it more often, but we don't always have them.  I can't look down at someone in a pool of blood and go "sorry sir, but none of the guys are working tonight."  Simple application of proper body mechanics is a wonderful tool.

If someone wants something bad enough, then they will do it.  I don't see why the military would have to alter their training methods for women or where the additional cost comes into place.  I say give them a chance.

Exactly. I work in the same line of work, and while I am a bigger female, I can double team a person much much larger then me. Once, during a small room fire, I lifted a 500 pound woman from a low bed and was able to toss her into her geriatric chair without assistance. It's not dragging a person out of a room, but I am sure it's possible to do as well. With a low bed your pretty much picking up someone off a mattress on the floor, getting their legs under them, rotating, and depositing. This woman, also, was a hoyer full assist. Which means she could bear no weight herself. If I can lift her, I could carry an average man by dragging, or arm and leg him with someone else. It may not be pretty, but it's affective.

Perhaps the problem with women in the military isn't exactly the women in the military, is the inflexibility of training. What may be the most effective way for a man, may not be the most affective for a woman. While I think women should learn the same things, perhaps they need to learn the most affective means for a woman to get the same job accomplished. Also, perhaps, allow some room for improve. Me bear hugging a woman twice my size and hefting her upwards and then twisting isn't exactly the best way to have removed her, but with the time I had, and with the possible threat of danger, it was fastest and most affective way to get my patient out of the room, and away from the electrical fire that her heater started. There were also 3 other people in the room. One of which was arm and legged by two men out into the hallway.

If they can effectively teach a women to carry a person out of a burning building ( not that I had to in this instance), I think we can handle a bit more then some people allow.

[Jude]

I'd like to start my first post on this topic by saying that I believe in equal rights and responsibilities for all individuals regardless of gender, but I do not think this necessary translates into equal treatment in all things.  When people discuss equality of the sexes, I believe they're referring to legal/civil/societal equality and not like... true equality, because the various genders are not completely equal in all things.

There are fundamental differences between men and women biologically that give advantages and disadvantages in certain tasks.  As has been stated, men tend to have a physique that lends itself well to brute-force physical labor whereas women tend to be more agile, et cetera, but the differences don't stop there.  There are differences in the brain and how men and women are hardwired to think and the areas in which they excel academically.

It's hard to impossible to say what effect our society has on the studies that show the gender differences in the brain.  Last I recall, the research indicated that we don't really know if these differences are partly in due to different standards, stereotypes, and paradigms applied to the sexes creating a different development environment or if humans have innately different brain chemistry, structure, and functional capacity.  It really doesn't matter though.  Societal progress is a slow process.  In as much as 10 years it's unlikely there will be much erosion of gender differences in the brain even if our cultural environment is the culprit.

The point is, people are different, and part of what makes society productive is people choosing the tasks that they are best fit for.  But at the same time, another thing that makes our society productive in general, is the ability to let people follow their dreams.  The effects of having gender as a factor for consideration in our military are far reaching, in many ways that I don't think people realize.

For a lot of people, being part of the military is a defining experience.  It can reform troubled individuals, teach you important skills, and develop character.  After your service you have access to special educational opportunities as well as veteran's care.  Plus we look upon veterans with such reverence; it seems wrong to rob women of that potential.  Granted we don't deny them the opportunity entirely, but we limit their potential.

I think what it comes down to is you need to balance practical considerations with theoretical principles.  We can't let women into the military into positions that they essentially cannot do and pushing them out entirely is simply unfair.  Even applying the same standards of recruitment, testing, and physical fitness to women and men wouldn't be a sufficient way to gauge their usefulness, as there are many problems with having integrated platoons, PMSing can be a complication, etc.

What it comes down to for me is, I have faith that the military's policy is based on the expert opinion of people with the right ideas who have studied and considered the situation more carefully than me.  I am not an expert; my opinion is simply that of a layperson who is poorly informed compared to the people who made the call.  That isn't to say that I don't hope the policy evolves more over time, I do, but I'm confident placing my trust in experts.

[Zeitgeist]

The only thing I would like to add to this this: I don't quite understand the propensity of people to cast others as sexist simply because they recognize a difference in men and women. Clearly we are different, each bringing their own set of skills to the table. Recognizing this is not sexist or misogynistic.

Truth is, women have already served, under one circumstance or another, in combat situations. And never mind the fortitude and endurance of those WWII, Korean Conflict and Vietnam War nurses. Can you even begin to imagine? Today women fly planes, and if not under direct combat orders, inside the theater of combat. They drive trucks over roads known to be littered with IEDs, the list goes on I'm sure.

Lastly, how about a shout out to the Soviet women who flew combat missions in WWII, dubbed by the Germans as the Night Witches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches. Seems to me women already have a proud and storied history in combat.

[Paladin]

ON top of that Russian had some of the dealiest snipers in WW2 and guess what, THEY WERE WOMEN! I can't remember what they were called but they were some of the deadliest snipers out there.

[Zeitgeist]

ON top of that Russian had some of the dealiest snipers in WW2 and guess what, THEY WERE WOMEN! I can't remember what they were called but they were some of the deadliest snipers out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Lobkovskaya



The point I would emphasize would be, not 'see they can perform in combat', it would be 'see they have, and already do!'

[Ignaddio]

I can proove you wrong on that count many times over. I'm a Martil artist. I have seen a woman who might weigh 120 lbs sopping wet throw a man who is 250 lbs of solid muscle damn near straight across the room. Its all about training. Who has the bigger muscles has nothing to do with it. There are ways around anything.

Size and Muscle does not matter.

Can that same 120 pound woman strap on an additional 120 pounds of armor and equipment, run 15-20 miles in 120F weather, perform hours of shooting excercises, and run back the same 15-20 miles to base, rinse, repeat for 28 days?

[Paladin]

Can that same 120 pound woman strap on an additional 120 pounds of armor and equipment, run 15-20 miles in 120F weather, perform hours of shooting excercises, and run back the same 15-20 miles to base, rinse, repeat for 28 days?

yes actually she can. She was in the Army before she started martial arts with the acadamey I was at. I will say nothing further because I realize now that nomatter how much evidence I provide you with you will be stuck in your opinion.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I really don't see why a woman couldn't do that with the same skill and endurance of a 120lb male counterpart.

[Ignaddio]

yes actually she can. She was in the Army before she started martial arts with the acadamey I was at. I will say nothing further because I realize now that nomatter how much evidence I provide you with you will be stuck in your opinion.

Who says my opinion hasn't and will not changed, I mean, outside of you? I was only asking a question. Had I been of the opinion that she could not, I would have said so. The fact of the matter is that I don't know. Hence the question.

[Canuckian]

I really don't see why a woman couldn't do that with the same skill and endurance of a 120lb male counterpart.

Actually, I have to disagree with that.  As was pointed out above, men and women (regardless of their similar weights) have fundamentally different bodytypes when it comes to musculature.  A 5'6 woman who weighs 120lbs is (probably) much healthier overall than a 5'6 man who weighs 120lbs.  A man that light would probably have some serious health issues to deal with.

Now in an attempt to slightly steer the conversation away from trolling and name-calling, here's a question.  How do you people deal with the difference in uniforms required for men and women?  I mean, they're called "uniforms" but they're hardly uniform between the genders.  Men have to wear ties and slacks while women have neck tabs and skirts (with their dress uniforms, that is).

What do you peole make of that requirement between the sexes?

[Jude]

yes actually she can. She was in the Army before she started martial arts with the acadamey I was at. I will say nothing further because I realize now that nomatter how much evidence I provide you with you will be stuck in your opinion.

Just because one or two women are capable of the job doesn't mean that enough women are in general in order to justify allowing women to serve in the infantry.  There are drawbacks to allowing both sexes into any division of the military, which have nothing to do with women.

Discipline is easier, you don't need segregated living, hygiene, or dressing facilities.  It's simply easier to give orders to a more homogeneous population.  Then there's the problem of relationships developing that are bad for unit cohesion, female soldiers getting pregnant in the field and needing a discharge (which is a very big issue in the military in certain parts of the world if you pay attention the news).

It's a question of whether or not the benefits exceed the setbacks, which is not situation that an anecdote can clear up.  Anecdotes are, by definition, the exceptional cases.

[Paladin]

Who says my opinion hasn't and will not changed, I mean, outside of you? I was only asking a question. Had I been of the opinion that she could not, I would have said so. The fact of the matter is that I don't know. Hence the question.

My apolagies, this is just a situation that heats me up a bit. I mean no disrespect but from my point of view I call it as I see it.

[Oniya]

Now in an attempt to slightly steer the conversation away from trolling and name-calling, here's a question.  How do you people deal with the difference in uniforms required for men and women?  I mean, they're called "uniforms" but they're hardly uniform between the genders.  Men have to wear ties and slacks while women have neck tabs and skirts (with their dress uniforms, that is).

What do you peole make of that requirement between the sexes?

As that requirement is only for dress uniforms, and isn't expected to be worn in combat, I view it as no different from the 'expectation' that a female CEO is to be seen wearing a skirt-set.  It's a holdover that could probably be done away with much easier than any of the other gender-related distinctions that the military makes.

[Ignaddio]

Actually, I have to disagree with that.  As was pointed out above, men and women (regardless of their similar weights) have fundamentally different bodytypes when it comes to musculature.  A 5'6 woman who weighs 120lbs is (probably) much healthier overall than a 5'6 man who weighs 120lbs.  A man that light would probably have some serious health issues to deal with.

Now in an attempt to slightly steer the conversation away from trolling and name-calling, here's a question.  How do you people deal with the difference in uniforms required for men and women?  I mean, they're called "uniforms" but they're hardly uniform between the genders.  Men have to wear ties and slacks while women have neck tabs and skirts (with their dress uniforms, that is).

What do you peole make of that requirement between the sexes?

If I recall correctly, the skirts are an optional component, at least in the Navy; slacks are standard issue for men and women. That said, our coveralls are identical, as are the new Navy Working Uniforms, up to and including the buttonholes (I think.). One of the more humorous differences I remember seeing were on Navy Utilities, how the women's rank insignia were smaller than men's. I can't for the life of me recall why that was necessary, except to identify man from woman at a distance.

[Zeitgeist]

If I recall correctly, the skirts are an optional component, at least in the Navy; slacks are standard issue for men and women. That said, our coveralls are identical, as are the new Navy Working Uniforms, up to and including the buttonholes (I think.). One of the more humorous differences I remember seeing were on Navy Utilities, how the women's rank insignia were smaller than men's. I can't for the life of me recall why that was necessary, except to identify man from woman at a distance.

This is a fine example of seeing bogey men where there are none. I myself served in the Navy, so I'm not coming out from left field here. The insignia is smaller, likely due to the shirt and sleeve size, rather than by any design to contrast men vs. women. I don't know about anyone else, but even from a distance my eyes would likely use different and more obvious clues to distinguish man vs. woman.

[Zeitgeist]

This is a fine example of seeing bogey men where there are none. I myself served in the Navy, so I'm not coming out from left field here. The insignia is smaller, likely due to the shirt and sleeve size, rather than by any design to contrast men vs. women. I don't know about anyone else, but even from a distance my eyes would likely use different and more obvious clues to distinguish man vs. woman.

In addition, the difference in size could very well just be a mechanism for inventory, than any other.

[Trieste]

This is a fine example of seeing bogey men where there are none. I myself served in the Navy, so I'm not coming out from left field here. The insignia is smaller, likely due to the shirt and sleeve size, rather than by any design to contrast men vs. women. I don't know about anyone else, but even from a distance my eyes would likely use different and more obvious clues to distinguish man vs. woman.

A woman in a baggy coverall with her hair braided up and under a cap who is too far away to make out facial features can easily be mistaken for a man.

I... fail to see why you would need to identify a man from a woman that readily, though. I suspect it really does have to do with narrower shoulder widths and less flat room on the chest.

My opinion is that both women and men should be allowed to prove themselves if they want to. If a woman wants to join up and do her best to keep up with the boys, who the heck has the right to stand in her way? And if she can't do it, tell her she's got to go or let her retry it as many times as men are allowed to. My opinion is that most women wouldn't want to, but if they can do this ...

Can that same 120 pound woman strap on an additional 120 pounds of armor and equipment, run 15-20 miles in 120F weather, perform hours of shooting excercises, and run back the same 15-20 miles to base, rinse, repeat for 28 days?

... then she's earned her right to serve in whatever position those men can.

[Ignaddio]

I had only intended it as a joke; simply a humorous observation that I and my male divisionmates used to haze the women. And yes, we made fun of each other as well; no one was excluded from ribbing about this or that, from job performance to personal failings, as far as I'm concerned it was all in good fun.

But back to the subject at hand, has anyone been able to find a resource that can support their argument? I'd hate to see this thread get locked for lack of their use. I'm still trying to find a resource of "healthy" height and weight, and outside a calculator that predicted 160 pounds was a healthy weight for me (at six feet, five inches), I am not having much luck.

[Paladin]

Thats just it I am Proof The Man was My Instructor.. as was the Woman.

[Kotah]

Can that same 120 pound woman strap on an additional 120 pounds of armor and equipment, run 15-20 miles in 120F weather, perform hours of shooting excercises, and run back the same 15-20 miles to base, rinse, repeat for 28 days?

The real question here, is if she CAN- would you deny her the right to do so?

[Paladin]

The real question here, is if she CAN- would you deny her the right to do so?

I believe the term here should be... HELLL NOOO

[Sure]

The problem here is that there are no hard statistics on women's performance in combat because... women are rarely sent into combat. If they are, it is ad hoc and usually the side doesn't admit it, which lends itself poorly to studies.

The only time I have heard arguments about why women shouldn't be in combat backed by statistics was in a study (which did not actually comment on whether this was right or not) which mentioned some information from the IDF. The IDF found that:
1.) When female soldiers were wounded or killed in combat, a significant number of men would both become less likely to obey orders, harder to control, more aggressive, and more likely to attempt to kill the enemy.
2.) Members of groups such as Hamas etc etc were significantly less likely to surrender to a woman and less intimidated by women.

The source is David Grossman's On Killing.

That being said, those are more an indicator of attitudes and sexism rather than of anything inherent about women, in my opinion. Regardless, this remains the only study I have ever heard of (and I looked into it quite a bit a while ago) that justifies women being excluded from combat positions. I couldn't find any studies in support of it. So, personally, I'm inclined to think they're not really out there...

I'm for allowing women into combat positions, by the way.

[Ignaddio]

The real question here, is if she CAN- would you deny her the right to do so?

I wouldn't call that a right. A job is not a right, by any stretch of the imagination.

But if it were up to me, and it were something I could know about someone without having to expend the time and money attempting to train the other women that could not, certainly not. That said, I also do not know the cost of training a soldier in the infantry MOS (I believe it's somewhere around $40,000 for the seventeen week school, but cannot back that up with a reference.) I also don't know the ratio of women physically capable of the job compared to those that are not. If I had to guess, though, I would say the cost of attempting to train the ones that cannot is sufficient to warrant the exclusion of the entire gender.

[Kotah]

Would you then also apply that to men that actively want to take part in a mostly female profession?

[Ignaddio]

If there exists a profession where men face a high attrition rate, their training, while prohibitively expensive is funded by the government (or a similar agency not funded by the person being trained), then certainly I could see the value in excluding them as a potential candidate for the job in question.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I wouldn't call that a right. A job is not a right, by any stretch of the imagination.

But if it were up to me, and it were something I could know about someone without having to expend the time and money attempting to train the other women that could not, certainly not. That said, I also do not know the cost of training a soldier in the infantry MOS (I believe it's somewhere around $40,000 for the seventeen week school, but cannot back that up with a reference.) I also don't know the ratio of women physically capable of the job compared to those that are not. If I had to guess, though, I would say the cost of attempting to train the ones that cannot is sufficient to warrant the exclusion of the entire gender.

So with no notion of how much it would cost, no notion of how many women would wash out, no notion of the capabilities of the women who would apply and no real idea of the ratios, numbers or anything...you just decline it off hand.  I'm certainly glad this mentality was not present when women had to take over manufacturing jobs for the men during WWII, an area that women were thought to do poorly in since they were physically weaker.  Yet the women produced goods for their fighting men without so much as a hiccup. 

You have been presented with historical examples of women in combat, given personal expierences by people in the military and familiar with the capabilities of women fighting and have also been given examples of women in current jobs that require heavy lifting and manuevering.  All of this evidence combined should be enough to warrant more than an off-hand dismissal.  There is a point where you are ignoring evidence.

[Ignaddio]

I am ignoring historical evidence of women in combat as they are not examples of women in modern infantry, which is the stance that I took. I have given personal experience of women in the military and found them wanting.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I would assume that modern infantry can be a bit more accomodating for people with considerable advances in technology and equipment.  For certain the packs given to soldiers are lighter, along with the body armor and equipment.  So if women can perform in combat from WWII and beyond, then it stands to reason they could measure up in modern warfare as well.  The personal military expierence you gave involved a woman and a door...I'm not quite sure how that stands up compared to that.  Combine this with the fact that there are militaries with women integrated into them and the door becomes less of an issue.

[Kotah]

If there exists a profession where men face a high attrition rate, their training, while prohibitively expensive is funded by the government (or a similar agency not funded by the person being trained), then certainly I could see the value in excluding them as a potential candidate for the job in question.

Why, sir, there just so happens to be one!

Nursing. Most nurses receive government grants to take the courses required. In fact, my entire nursing education was paid for -ENTIRELY- by the government. Not becasue I'm poor, but because of... well.. there are initiatives for more nurses out there, many of which are exceedingly easy to fill the requirements.

While fewer men take interest in nursing as women, there is a small population that do want to join the nursing field.

There are also a lot of problems that come up with male nurses. The most common, I have found, is refusal of care from a male nurse. There are a lot of people out there that will refuse any and all care from male nurses. I can't even  begin to count how many extra patients i have had to take because the other nurse was a man. Thus putting extra pressure on the female nurses. Men who take an interest in work are less likely to succeed, and most leave the field within 5 years (there was a study recently published on how dissatisfied male nurses are, and such... but I couldn't find it online to save my life. I read it in RN). There is also a problem with wrongful abuse allegations against male nurses. Men are not allowed to take care of certain female patients with certain disorders, ect.

Show men be disallowed to be nurses?

[Jude]

At this point there's a couple of basic partitions separating how people feel on the issue, I think.

1)  There are those who feel like women should be allowed to serve because some women have proven themselves capable.  They don't care what the percentage is or how common these women are, they view it as a right, and a measure of equality.

2)  There are people who believe that some women certainly are capable of serving but also see the drawbacks of having them serve.  They don't know which outweighs which and would need statistics and a lot more research/information to make an opinion.

3)  There are those who believe women should not be allowed to serve because they're simply not as qualified as males are due to gender differences in the body.

I can see the merits of each position but I'm a number 2 myself.  I can't emphasize enough though how utterly useless anecdotal evidence is.  Individual stories are not data, they do not predict trends, only possibilities.  We're dealing with likelihoods when it comes to the consequences of policy, not potentialities.



As far as Kotah's answer goes, I think it's a bit of an invalid comparison to try and relate private sector nursing to public sector armed conflict.  A lot of it also has to do with how you state the question.

Should men be disallowed to be nurses?  No, but discriminating against men when it comes to nursing positions seems like a fair proposal.  I just don't like the idea of the government telling private institutions how to run their businesses in this instance.  If they want to hire male nurses, that's their choice, but I think they should have the right as a corporation to not hire male nurses if females are better suited for the job.

I also wouldn't have the government telling private security forces which do things similar to the military (i.e. Blackwater) that they can't hire females to be infantrymen even if the statistics show it's a bad idea.  So essentially I think the answer is different whether you're talking about private sector vs. public sector and whether or not the hiring practices are determined by the organization itself or by an outside force (i.e. government).

[Kotah]

My position, actually, is that if a woman can make it through the training, she should be allowed to serve.

As for how private hospitals are, nurses serve more then just your standard hospital and nursing homes. I've personally worked in VA hospitals for the navy in North Chicago. There are state hospitals funded and run by the government. In fact, most privately owned homes and hospitals are fully dependent on the government. Not to mention the fact that the government sets standards and dictates every part of the care you are going to receive.

It is illegal to discriminate because of sex when you go to hire someone.

[Ignaddio]

It was merely an example; personally, I find the fact that if the average military women needs help opening a door as a sign that they may not be ready for the rigors of combat. And it was not just one woman; it was about ninety percent of the women that walked through that door, and all of the enlisted men and women on that ship had to (personnel laundry was through that door).

Your assertion that the modern kit is lighter is unfounded; for one, body armor is a rather recent, heavy development. But I do have a reference here:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-11970.html

Webbing will normally be a bog standard weight whatever you do. I'd go for about 20 lbs.

Your bergen will vary depending on what you do. Remember that for a deliberate attack, you will only be wearing webbing. However, all the platoon support weapons/ammo must be put into position first. That means each man must carry at least 200-300 rounds of GPMG link (15 lbs, the GPMG roughly fires a pound of rounds every second) and several 51mm mortar bombs (say another 15 lbs) to be dropped off by the gunners/mortarman. so the basic weight for getting into position for an attack would be around 50 lbs. Add to that a LAW (10 kilos or 22 lbs) and the weight of your weapon and that pushes it up higher. Also, section I/Cs, 2I/Cs and signallers have radios weighing anywhere from 5-6 lbs up to 10-15 lbs.

Now, if you're doing an 'advance to contact' from a platoon harbour, then you will most likely be carrying your bergen too. In that would be your sleeping system, basha, spare water, spare food, spare ammo, signal kit, med kit, spare clothes etc etc. Your now looking at the very least at 80-90 lbs. Bear in mind also that in combat the temptation is always to bring more ammunition. You may also have 'special to task' kit that will weigh more.

That, of course is the modern picture. Back in WW2 the loadout was much simpler. They tended just to carry bullets, grenades and water as a rifleman (plus some odds and ends and a little food in their haversack). So I wouldn't say that your average rifleman would be carrying more than 30 lbs on a normal patrol.

In short, the average WWII kit was about 30 pounds, wheras the average modern kit can weigh from 80 to ninety pounds.

Why, sir, there just so happens to be one!

Nursing. Most nurses receive government grants to take the courses required. In fact, my entire nursing education was paid for -ENTIRELY- by the government. Not becasue I'm poor, but because of... well.. there are initiatives for more nurses out there, many of which are exceedingly easy to fill the requirements.

While fewer men take interest in nursing as women, there is a small population that do want to join the nursing field.

There are also a lot of problems that come up with male nurses. The most common, I have found, is refusal of care from a male nurse. There are a lot of people out there that will refuse any and all care from male nurses. I can't even  begin to count how many extra patients i have had to take because the other nurse was a man. Thus putting extra pressure on the female nurses. Men who take an interest in work are less likely to succeed, and most leave the field within 5 years (there was a study recently published on how dissatisfied male nurses are, and such... but I couldn't find it online to save my life. I read it in RN). There is also a problem with wrongful abuse allegations against male nurses. Men are not allowed to take care of certain female patients with certain disorders, ect.

Show men be disallowed to be nurses?

Five years sounds like plenty of time to perform at a career, compared to being an infantry grunt for a single enlistment. It seems like the men involved were plenty capable of qualifying to become nurses, even if they didn't stay there; if I were on the selection board issuing grants, I would not overlook a candidate simply because he was male, given the data you provided.

My position, actually, is that if a woman can make it through the training, she should be allowed to serve.

And what about the cost of that training, should she fail? Who picks up that check? You don't know who will make it until graduation day.

[Jude]

That's what I meant by 1) Kotah but I didn't communicate it very well.

As far as the discrimination thing goes, I don't really agree with that law.  It should be illegal to discriminate against people so long as they're just as capable of doing the job just as well as everyone else is, but if there's a logical reason for it, to me it seems wrong for the government to tie people's hands behind their back and force them to make poor business decisions when there's no real victims (except for the odd male nurse, who's chosen to go into a field that they have an innate disadvantage with, their call).

If females make better nurses, then our private institutions should have the right to decide to hire all female nurses.  And our public institutions should aim to hire the most qualified applications who produce the best results.  If that means all female nurses, I'm fine with that so long as the female nurse in question makes a better candidate than a male who's up for the job.

The difference between the military and nursing here is that nurses don't have to live together, shower together, be disciplined together, etc.  The comparison is very stretching.  Also if there's a shortage in female nurses and they need males in order to fill out their staff?  That's a different story.  And from what I've heard there is a shortage in nurses throughout the country.

It's all about whether or not the decision promotes the greater good in the case of it being a public decision; the private industries should be able to decide for themselves if they want to be discriminatory or not if it's good for their bottom line.

Granted everything I just said is completely subjective based on my own personal feelings and opinions; there's nothing substantive there.  I'm just stating my opinion.

EDIT:  Updated some stuff.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The forum post you presented states that the average patrol during WWII carries 30lbs, but in the modern military people readying for an attack carry 80lbs.  Granted I'm not in the military, but I'm not sure patrol means readying to assault an enemy position.  The forum post later talks about those troops on D-Day carrying upwards of 80-90lbs for their assault.  Other forum posts on that page also list the weight for WWII, Korea and Vietnam being upwards of the same weight.  A few veterans on that page also spoke up regarding Vietnam regarding the amount of water they carried being very heavy and cumbersome and over what your quoted poster estimates. 

While I'm sure we can go back and forth over the weight of today's infantry versus the past, it would ultimately be pointless.  The simple logic is if women did it before, they should be able to do it again.  While there are no numbers to support women being just as effective, there are none to support them not being effective.  The only knowledge I have seen presented to the contrary is the assumed fact that women are weaker and evidence of a door.  Women should at least be able to try for combat roles instead of being refused out of hand.

As for men in nursing, I believe the same critiera stands.  If it is wrong to deny men a chance to be nurses where there was no evidence that they would be successful, this job being extremely important as a person's life is in their hands, then it should be wrong to deny women a chance at combat.

[Kotah]

I said within 5 years. As in, shorter.

You yourself said:

But if it were up to me, and it were something I could know about someone without having to expend the time and money attempting to train the other women that could not, certainly not.

In reference to if a woman could do what you had elaborated on, should she be allowed to. The government paid $6000 per semester (4) so about $24000 for me to attend simply the nursing school. That does not count the 4 semesters of prerequisites required to enter the nursing school. Also, there is a state requirement to obtain your CNA before you can become an RN/LPN Which is another $1000. Living expenses, blah blah blah, lets call it an even $50,000 to become a nurse, paid for by the government.

I'm not arguing that a man shouldn't be a nurse, however, I am stating that it is easier to accept a male's ability to do something then for a female. A lot greater le way is taken for the possibility of the man to fail, then a female. The argument was if a woman COULD do it, should she be allowed to. You answered no. However, if a male COULD be a nurse, he should be allowed to despite proven failure.

[Ignaddio]

Before I head to bed, I have finally located some data, from Canada's integration of its infantry. Although the sample size is small, the results are telling.

http://books.google.com/books?id=WClLLY7RoGIC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=attrition+training+infantry+female&source=bl&ots=pwj_9mSu3o&sig=lDdh2qiEqCsqd-suHDj-9EpL970&hl=en&ei=LmdBS8PODY3YtgOd86WJBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=attrition%20training%20infantry%20female&f=false

Of 100 women who attempted infantry training, only one woman completed the course.

Combined with a total of 22,000 dollars for skills training.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1318/MR1318.ch4.pdf

Let's pretend that only 100 women want to join the infantry over the course of a year.

With 99 of them failing out, that amounts to a cost of over 2.1 million dollars, and is certainly an expense I'd be willing to look like a sexist jackass for preventing.

[Kotah]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask for better then a poll of 137 women. Let alone the fact that it states that the main reason the women left training was due to harassment and abuse.

I can't copy and paste, but feel free to scroll up to page 8, and read about the navy itself.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Alright, finally a piece of evidence and research to take into account for this debate.  The sample size is certainly small with only 100 women being considered for infantry training.  Canadian military passed a single woman through the training process, which certainly does speak poorly for women.  Yet the author gives no specific reference for that evidence, but instead leaps to the attrition rate of women from the military being 42% as opposed to the men being 10%.  Reference is given for that number, but then the reasons are listed with “physical rigors” being the last.  The others given are harassment issues which the author chalks up to women being unable to psychologically cope with the rigors of combat.

Simply taking this part of the article alone raises questions regarding the bias of the author.  An important area that a researcher would consider with this evidence is how much of the woman’s attrition rate is due to harassment and how much is due to women being unable to handle the physical rigors.  Author does not provide that evidence, instead continuing to press toward psychological rigors.  The author seems to feel there is no difference between a woman leaving the service due to harassment by fellow soldiers and the trauma of actual combat. 

The author, in the paragraph prior, states that women cannot handle the rigors of Special Forces training psychologically.  Once more there is no evidence for this assertion or reference; he simply states that this is so.  He also says this is why women are excluded from Special Forces training, despite that exclusion having been in place since their inception and never having been tested.  The author also, in the paragraphs following, states that it a known fact women do not measure up physically.  Once more he makes this statement without reference or evidence.  He brushes over statistical data by saying there is no incidences of statistically insignificant evidence to disprove women cannot out perform men physically.  No data listed or references, just once more a statement of fact.

Now what is really amazing is the author goes on to state that it is the fault of women that they are being harassed.  Women are not able to cope with male bonding and horseplay as they should in order to fit into the rituals.  That women raise too many questions regarding touching and close proximity.  So therefore women should be excluded from such activities entirely so that men might feel free to frolic and touch each other without restriction.  I can see why men are so worried about homosexuals being allowed in the military, such activities might be seen the wrong way.  Women should come to terms that men typically grab each other at the breast and genitals, whisper threats about rape into each other’s ears and make unwanted sexual advances as part of their male bonding. 

So in closing the article highlights the sexist nature of men in the military and their inability to exercise any restraint when put into close proximity with a woman.  I would hope this article more infuriating to a military man than supportive to his argument.  Though I will say bravo on the study about 100 women from a country that occupies the majority of North America.

[Ignaddio]

Considering that Canada allows its recruits to take on any training for which they qualify, it seems that it isn't only 100 women were allowed to attempt infantry training, but only one hundred women chose to take on infantry training.

And as for our unsubstantiated male bonding rituals, including harassment of one another, regardless of gender? I can attest to that, at least in my own experience. Roughhousing and verbal abuse are just about as sure to be encountered as bad food in a Navy galley. And yet, it sounds as if you are asking for special treatment, to be excluded from the bonding because you are a woman.  This isn't something that I hold with; if you wish to compete on equal terms, then you should expect to receive equal treatment. And that includes the bad with the good.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

According to the article, 137 women were serving in combat assignments in the Canadian military as of 1998.  The Canadian military, apparently under pressure, rounded up 100 interested applicants for infantry training.  Of that 100, only one woman passed muster to qualify as infantry.  I would like to know what combat assignments the other 137 women had in which none of them were in the infantry.  What combat assignment did they hold that did not even come close to the rigors of being infantry?  None of these women before or since had attempted infantry training?  Only those 100 women in 1998 ever tried for training in the infantry?  Something is a bit off with those numbers.

Also, not quite sure where I demanded to have special privileges and removal from male bonding.  Unless you are implying that the United States military considers it normal male bonding when a male soldier is raped by another male soldier.  If that is the case then perhaps women should stay out of the infantry.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I have to agree with seed.  I don't think it's asking for special treatment.  Would you grab another guys private parts?  Would you sexually assault another man?  Would you rape another man?  Is this all part of the bonding process?  Do you sexually harrass the men you work with?  Is all of that normal with men in the military? 

[Silk]

I doublt it, but I wouldn't put it past the female mind to miscontrude it as such

[Ignaddio]

I have to agree with seed.  I don't think it's asking for special treatment.  Would you grab another guys private parts?  Would you sexually assault another man?  Would you rape another man?  Is this all part of the bonding process?  Do you sexually harrass the men you work with?  Is all of that normal with men in the military? 

To answer your questions truthfully and in order, no, no, no, no, no, and insufficient data; using the definition of sexual harassment as defined by the EEOC as a meter:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature when:
·  Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or
condition of an individual's employment, or
·  Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis
for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
·  Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an
individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment.
Unwelcome Behavior is the critical word. Unwelcome does not mean "involuntary."
A victim may consent or agree to certain conduct and actively participate in it even
though it is offensive and objectionable. Therefore, sexual conduct is unwelcome
whenever the person subjected to it considers it unwelcome. Whether the person in
fact welcomed a request for a date, sex-oriented comment, or joke depends on all the
circumstances.
Source: Preventing Sexual Harassment (BNA Communications, Inc.) SDC IP .73
1992 manual

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf

I can truthfully say that I never sexually harassed or assaulted any of my divisionmates. That doesn't mean I haven't said hurtful, heinous things to them, and wrestled with them in a way that would appear sexual in nature to the outside observer. This was typical behavior where I come from; it was expected, and it was welcome. And yes, it was hazing. I can't truthfully say if all men in the military act that way, because I haven't met all the men in the military, and nor do I have data to suggest such a thing.

Further, I fail to see how the concept of rape only applies to women entering combat roles. I am not condoning rape, or sexual assault by any stretch of the imagination. Near as I can tell, the article is not either. But if we intend to treat someone as one of the guys, and that's not something they're up for, it sounds like asking for special treatment to me. Typically such people were ostracised, socially, from the group. Professionally, no one cared; no one got special treatment either way in terms of duty assignments, advancement, and such. But being ignored by one's peers is stigma enough.

That said, I am not interested in what the whole of that article has to say; I was only looking for the data that I quoted. And seeing as 1998 was the first year that women were integrated into combat roles, I don't see 137 as too far off a figure, considering as of 2006 it contains only about 843 active duty women. (That is to say about 64,000 regular personnel, times 12.2 percent consisting of women, times 10.8 percent of those women in combat roles.) Those 137 women in combat roles may have served as Tank operators, pilots, radio operators, special forces engineers, cannon operators, or numerous other roles that may or may not put you in the line of fire without being in the infantry.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008107/pdf/10657-eng.pdf

And here it is again, with a slight change for the sake of accuracy. And it has a reference.

Of 102 women who enlisted in infantry training, only one graduated.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG836.cfm

[RubySlippers]

The only reason to have women in the military if there was a draft ,in the US, would be to free a man to serve IN combat and let the woman serve as another capacity such as a clerk, radio operator and the like. Unless the woman can do the job as well as a man - pilot or tank operators maybe where physical strength is less important as the infantry.

[Ignaddio]

That reminds me of a point that I neglected to bring up. In the United States in 1981 it was determined that the prospect of the draft being men only was constitutional because the draft was intended to fill combat roles, from which women were barred. If the U.S. military were to allow women into combat roles, should all women 18 to 25 then be subject to Selective Service obligation?

http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html

This is intended to be a discussion point, and is not intended to back up the stance I have taken.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

People often don’t check the source they use for numbers.  That is no great sin except for when those numbers are used to prove a point.  A source should always be inspected for its bias and content, especially when one is looking at a social issue.  The article submitted is obviously a biased one that would take even the most unskilled reader moments to recognize.  Unreferenced opinions stated as fact, side comments regarding sexual harassment and a smoothing over of facts.  Even the numbers you quoted from the article are not proven to be inaccurate as you present yet another number.  Truth be told I also saw differing numbers for that same study elsewhere.  So three separate numbers for the same study, which is highly unlikely for the military as they are very keen on bookkeeping.  Were this a chemistry experiment, the numbers would be called false.

I would also address the attrition rate from the previous article.  According to a report that I will link on the thread, the attrition rate for the Canadian army is 6.2% for men and women.  I submit the Canadian figures because to my understanding they are the only military being discussed where women are able to join all aspects of the military.  They had done this for some time so I assume the training tactics and integration policies have been refined.  This seems a far cry less than the other listed attrition rate of 42%.  Also in the article there is reference to women in combat units, women serving in the infantry and women in command positions over fighting personnel.

Now rape is not exclusive to women in combat roles as can be evidenced by women being sexual harassed and raped while unable to even try for combat positions.  By the same token, male bonding is not exclusive for infantry.  Women are allowed into the alternate roles where male bonding is important and women face “social stigma” because of that.  They continue to be leaders in their areas, do their duties and hopefully command respect from their peer groups.  The account I have heard from women in the military is that they do engage in horseplay, joke with their fellows and also get into altercations with other men.  Another interesting point to note regarding the male bonding argument is that the same argument was used against African-Americans joining combat units, until integration was demanded among the armed forces.  African-American men seem to be doing quite well in their roles.

Simply stating that this is the boy’s club and if you cannot act like a boy then you can’t join is not an acceptable reason to block a woman from a career.  Women participate in the corporate sector which was saturated in male bonding and ritual.  Women participate in fire departments and police departments which were also saturated with male bonding and ritual.  They do these with great success and promise for continued growth in those areas.  So I find it hard to believe that infantry male bonding is so exclusive as to be impenetrable by women where they have adjusted and advanced in other areas that involve male bonding.

The difference that you are failing to recognize is between typical horseplay and when sexual harassment is brought into the equation.  While the list you provide is extensive, it does not allow for the simple difference.  A woman, having grown up with the pressure of sex, knows when simple play has gone too far.  When I play basketball, I know the difference between someone playing defense and someone touching in a way they should not.  Women do not go looking for these signs but are simply aware of the mood through years of encountering the same incidents.  Just as men are aware of one another and their “pecking” order, women are aware of sexual aggression and behavior toward them.   When sex is brought into such an equation it is inappropriate no matter the instigator or the recipient. 

http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf

[Ignaddio]

I'm fairly certain I can tell where the difference in attrition rates come from; the study that cites women's attrition rate at 42% refers to women in combat roles, versus the Canadian Forces' total attrition rate at 6.2%. In addition, the attrition rate cited by the Canadian Forces covers the years 2001-2006, while the earlier study was conducted in 1998. Personally, I think the difference between 100 and 102 is purely academic. Seeing as the earlier study did not cite a reference, it stands to reason that the author had a fairly accurate recollection of the reference, which was a telephone conversation someone had with a Heritage Foundation researcher. I wish said Heritage Foundation researcher had published their results, but I cannot find that. Heather Erlexben's article on wikipedia, however, states that she was the only one of twenty one to finish an infantry training class in 1989. Considering that the stat "one in one hundred two" includes a four year period, and the infantry training lasts sixteen months, if the classes are given back to back, two other courses could have been completed in that time. That said, in my experience the military works in parallel, not in series, meaning that multiple classes could have been run simultaneously.

My point referring to rape not being exclusive to women was intended to include men.

The difference that you are failing to recognize is between typical horseplay and when sexual harassment is brought into the equation.  While the list you provide is extensive, it does not allow for the simple difference.  A woman, having grown up with the pressure of sex, knows when simple play has gone too far.  When I play basketball, I know the difference between someone playing defense and someone touching in a way they should not.  Women do not go looking for these signs but are simply aware of the mood through years of encountering the same incidents.  Just as men are aware of one another and their “pecking” order, women are aware of sexual aggression and behavior toward them.   When sex is brought into such an equation it is inappropriate no matter the instigator or the recipient.

Correct me if I'm wrong (you'll find I often am), but it seems to me as though you are asserting that only women are capable of identifying when sexual aggression. Frankly, I disagree, having been falsely accused in the past. As I see it, the distinction between sexual assault and standard horseplay isn't a matter of gender, but is the interpretation of the most sensitive person in the room. I don't feel that women who do not wish to participate in our shenanigans should be barred from the job; if I said that, I rescind the comment now. What I meant is that I don't feel the environment should be forced to change as a result of the introduction of women. What I expect in that situation is a more natural evolution of camaraderie, similar to how it has happened elsewhere.

[Kotah]

It doesn't change the fact that in the article you cited where out of 100 women polled, and one passed, the majority reason to quite was do to sexual harassment and verbal abuse.

[Ignaddio]

One of the common elements of training a soldier is aggression. Verbal abuse is a matter of course in a military environment, and I can see how that could be taken on board as sexual harassment.

However the study that picks out the reasons for women's attrition in combat roles is a separate study than the one that displays a failure rate of one in a hundred, meaning that the reason that 101 women dropped out of infantry training is not yet explained. Regardless, the vast majority in that instance were unable to complete the training course, for whatever reason. If I were looking at that data, and the decision whether or not to open the gates for women to train in the infantry rested on my shoulders, I would keep them shut, no matter the reason the women didn't make it through.

[Destiny Ascension]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/11/marines_marsoc_111409w/

For the record, there exist zero 'non-combat' roles in Afghanistan or Iraq. Sitting around and looking interested, in a hawaiian shirt will get you shot up just as quick as walking around with a rifle.

Why not train women from the get go to do THIS, but also defend themselves as effectively as the men next to them. Women have always served in the Special Forces, from the SOE or OSS, to todays units. Maybe not the SEALs, but the CIA uses them with the SOG, and I'm sure the Army has them as well in not necessarily 'combat roles' but every role is a combat role today.

[Canuckian]

I want to know what people's opinions are about the draft question a few posts back.  If the military forces become fully gender-neutral and integrated, does that mean that all women between 18 and 25 (I think?) should be subject to the Draft just as much as the men?  Not "allowed" or "accepted" but compulsory and required.

Discuss please.

[Trieste]

No, no, no. You have it backwards, Canuckian. Gender equality should mean no one has to worry about getting drafted, not the other way around.

[Canuckian]

No, no, no. You have it backwards, Canuckian. Gender equality should mean no one has to worry about getting drafted, not the other way around.

Uh... me no grok?

[Kotah]

The idea is that if women were allowed a more active role in the armed forces, there wouldn't be a need for the draft. Those extra -omg must fill spaces would already be filled.

Not to mention they would be filled by a willing occupant, rather then someone that's prolly gonna wanna ditch the first chance they get.

[Jude]

No, no, no. You have it backwards, Canuckian. Gender equality should mean no one has to worry about getting drafted, not the other way around.

Gender equality has nothing to do with whether or not the draft should be allowed.  Maybe it's your opinion that the draft should not be done, that's fine, but it doesn't answer the fundamental challenge.  Being drafted is a responsibility whether or not you feel that it should exist.

The question essentially is, if men are given this responsibility and gender equality is forced across the board in the military, doesn't that include the draft as long as it exists?  Saying the draft shouldn't exist is simply answering a different question in order to avoid admitting women need to have the same responsibility as men if and when they're given the same rights.

The idea is that if women were allowed a more active role in the armed forces, there wouldn't be a need for the draft. Those extra -omg must fill spaces would already be filled.

Not to mention they would be filled by a willing occupant, rather then someone that's prolly gonna wanna ditch the first chance they get.

I don't think it's fair to say that the draft would never be necessary if women were allowed to serve in every capacity in the military.  It's inarguable that it would make the draft less likely to occur, but you can't make that much of a sweeping conclusion.  Having more women serving really wouldn't defeat the need for a draft if, for example, we went to war with China.

[Ket]

Here's the thing with the draft. It's sole purpose is to be able to form a large standing army of foot soldiers on a relatively quick basis.  Here's the thing with modern warfare. We don't use that large standing army of foot soldiers like we have in the past. Warfare has changed considerably since Vietnam, and is continuing to become less and less of two armies standing in front of each other shooting it out and more and more of the actual humans being in the rear while the technology works the front. I'm not saying there aren't front line soldiers, as there are, but the numbers are much lower than they have ever been.

If women aren't being allowed in direct front line combat roles, then why would they be included in the draft? If you want to argue for equality and equal responsibility's sake, then yes, women should be included in the draft. However, if there is nothing for them to do if they are drafted, then what is the point?

True equality is almost a utopian ideal. There will always be someone stronger, someone weaker, someone smarter, someone richer, someone poorer, etc.

[Ignaddio]

To quote myself, the previously stated question involving the draft was:

If the U.S. military were to allow women into combat roles, should all women 18 to 25 then be subject to Selective Service obligation?

http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html

That is to say, if the US military were fully integrated, should American women be subject to the draft?

[Jude]

That's what I was trying to ask too.  If you're going to give women equal rights in the military, you have to give them equal responsibility is my point.  Whether or not the draft is a likely to occur is beside the point.  If we continue the draft and we need it at some point, shouldn't women be drafted as well as men if they can serve as any role in the military?  It's a fairly simple question that should result in a simple "yes" for someone who believes in the sort of equality of the sexes being professed here, I think.

[Kotah]

1. Yes.
2. It is not my opinion, I was just trying to better explain a point.
3. Obviously, woman would have to join the draft the same as men.
4. Many women already join the draft, like me, on their 18th birthday the same as any man.

[Trieste]

Gender equality has nothing to do with whether or not the draft should be allowed.  Maybe it's your opinion that the draft should not be done, that's fine, but it doesn't answer the fundamental challenge.  Being drafted is a responsibility whether or not you feel that it should exist.

*eyeroll* Way to selectively misinterpret my post, Jude.

Being drafted is not a responsibility any more than being openly flagwaving patriotic is a responsibility. It is a violation of the person's right not to pick up arms for whatever random cause is in vogue at the moment. If there were a war/invasion on US soil? Sure, why the hell not? But there isn't, and until/unless there is, the draft has no place in the US military. None. Why? See what Ket said above.

[RubySlippers]

Here's the thing with the draft. It's sole purpose is to be able to form a large standing army of foot soldiers on a relatively quick basis.  Here's the thing with modern warfare. We don't use that large standing army of foot soldiers like we have in the past. Warfare has changed considerably since Vietnam, and is continuing to become less and less of two armies standing in front of each other shooting it out and more and more of the actual humans being in the rear while the technology works the front. I'm not saying there aren't front line soldiers, as there are, but the numbers are much lower than they have ever been.

If women aren't being allowed in direct front line combat roles, then why would they be included in the draft? If you want to argue for equality and equal responsibility's sake, then yes, women should be included in the draft. However, if there is nothing for them to do if they are drafted, then what is the point?

True equality is almost a utopian ideal. There will always be someone stronger, someone weaker, someone smarter, someone richer, someone poorer, etc.

That is not true a standing army needs ample support people from file clerks to mechanics to run. Every woman that can be drafted and trained in those roles frees up an able-bodied MAN for combat. I would even argue a disabled person like me could be drafted to fill a roll in an office here at home to free an abled bodied man to fight a war. And who says it will never haoppen if China and the US went to war a draft would be mandatory I would think. My father was a cold-war draftee and stayed in and he was trained as a medical orderly assisting the doctors and nurses. He was freeing up another person who might be more suitable to do another role.

Are you saying in WWII tthe service of women in uniform didn't benefit by helping the military alloocate men into fighting roles over doing more tasks like driving trucks, handling air traffick at home and doing the office work in the military? If so you just insulted the memory of several women in my family and their service in uniform to the defense of the Uniteed States.

[Kotah]

Uhhh. let's take a breather and try to chill out a little please.

[Canuckian]

Uhhh. let's take a breather and try to chill out a little please.

You're absolutly right.  Everyone, stare at Ruby's avatar for a bit.  *Stares* Okay, Trie and Ket?  Care to volunetee- aiee!  *dodges a tomato* Okay, okay...

[Kane Gunlock]

will I know this doesn't apply to humans as much in Nature it's some time the mother that's bigger and nastier than the male (I.E never get in the way of a mother eagle or T-Rex

[Ket]

Are you saying in WWII tthe service of women in uniform didn't benefit by helping the military alloocate men into fighting roles over doing more tasks like driving trucks, handling air traffick at home and doing the office work in the military? If so you just insulted the memory of several women in my family and their service in uniform to the defense of the Uniteed States.

No, I'm not saying their service was invaluable, because it was. And I'm not stating that any women who serves is invaluable (as that would be calling myself invaluable). What I am saying is, that the primary purpose of the draft, as it stands today, leaves out the necessity for woman to be included in it. If one day the military does become fully integrated, then yes, women should be in the draft.

[RubySlippers]

I stated the reason a woman can take a place of a man in a role not in actual combat. And I will love to add many combat roles are not physical such as operating Patriot Missle Batteries, working on naval ships and doing most of the tasks away from a front line.

For every woman who is a clerk say at a base in the states is one man spot that could be an infantryman or tank operator.

If we say drafted 30% of soldiers being women that increases the combat forces by 30% its simple math. I'm not saying a draft should be 50/50 but some decent portion women. And most occupational specialties women can do around half of the services, if you put in 30% of the spots being women it would be very practical.

[Canuckian]

So, if I may stir the draft-question pot some more, I have a question about some of Ruby's statements.

Why are women not included in the draft?  Why is it only men who are subject to it?  As she pointed out, women could easily fill non-direct combat positions and free a man up to take said position, thereby increasing the overall strength of the military.  Why is that not done already?

[Kotah]

It is, in some states.

[Trieste]

I don't know the facts behind it, but I would speculate that it's because proposing and/or supporting a draft is political suicide for many US politicians. We have not made use of the draft since Vietnam, when it was hugely unpopular and brought a lot of our men home sick, injured, scarred and broken. It really hasn't been updated since then, when the social climate dictated that men do the fighting and women make the babies. Updating the draft would, I would suspect, be seen as a sneaky precursor to using the draft...

If I were a politician, I wouldn't update it either.

[RubySlippers]

This is the problem for me if we go to war like we do now we should have a national referendum, if there is a declaration of war then instate a draft and no exclusions for having money or going to school AND a war tax to pay for it on all citizens not going to war.

I for one am tired of politicians sending our soldiers off to war without giving a damn and using poor people who enlisted to make some money in most cases as cannon fodder. And everyone else getting off and living normal lives while we sacrifice our men and women. I think this would be good and we would only commit our forces to war if there was a real threat. I mean enemies ready to invade the continental US sort of threat. The President still will have the navy and marines for other actions if needed.

As for the Selective Service to not include women now violates the equal protection of people based on gender.

[Sure]

As for the Selective Service to not include women now violates the equal protection of people based on gender.

Actually, it doesn't. It might not be right but it has been repeatedly ruled that such discrimination is legal which is why, for example, men have no right to dissociate themselves with a child (can be forced to pay child support regardless of whether they want or wanted the child, for example) while women do (Dubay v. Wells), or why only men are drafted (Rostker v. Goldberg).

[Kotah]

Men can give up their legal rights to a child and not pay support. It's harder in some states then others, but it does happen. Most men, I've found, do not want to give up full rights. They just don't want to pay support, and that's where the problem lies. When faced with the real meaning of giving up full rights, men would rather pay the support then do it. The difference for a man and woman in that regards, the mom can struggle to get rights back, the father cannot.

War is profitable. Not to you, yourself, but to the big names that write the big checks come election time. I'm not a no war theorist. I think there are good reasons to go to war. I fear that America tends to go to war for the wrong reasons. I.e. people like to talk about Hitler and WW2, the problem is, we joined the war because japan bombed us. Not really because, hey, the Nazi army was killing thousands of people. Sure, we helped there too... however, we didn't go full force until we had some fires going. On the flip side, we charged right into Iraq with little proof other then a man on the tv telling us we were in danger.

Women aren't going to be added to the draft because no congressman is going to risk loosing all that support. Same reason women are going to be put on the front lines. Somewhere, in the us, it has been rationalized that a woman in a body bag means a lot more then a man in a body bag. If it was her choice to put herself in that war or not. Let's just face that fact. It's not going to happen no matter how much we all argue.

[Ignaddio]

I for one am tired of politicians sending our soldiers off to war without giving a damn and using poor people who enlisted to make some money in most cases as cannon fodder. And everyone else getting off and living normal lives while we sacrifice our men and women. I think this would be good and we would only commit our forces to war if there was a real threat. I mean enemies ready to invade the continental US sort of threat. The President still will have the navy and marines for other actions if needed.

A bit off topic, but are you saying that the only people that enlist are poor and cannon fodder? My Dad's a doctor, I didn't need to enlist to pay for my college, but I wanted to pay my own way though my life. I'm twenty three years old now and my parents have more or less stopped paying my way, and it's a fact I'm damn proud of. I wasn't poor when I joined the military, it was a choice I made based on the options I had. And it seemed pretty lucrative, honestly.

[Zeitgeist]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-women-subs24-2010feb24,0,3205611.story

Not only are they opening the Silent Service to women, they are reevaluating over all the role of women in combat theaters, considering the roles they've already played in Iraq and Afghanistan.