She could break you open like a shotgun.
Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,304
I would like to hear more on this from your point of view. Do you look down upon or different at women who do that?
I can't say for certain whether I'd look down upon the first female in that unit, the one who just barely escaped needing a height waiver just to enlist. I don't know whether she thought she was going to rock the infantry like a bassinet, or if she was the victim of your typical recruiter who was just trying to get his numbers up (and recruiting IS a numbers game) regarding a push to get new XX chromosomes into the combat arms professions.
With regards to the company bicycle, I'll just keep my rant to myself, because I really don't want to get banned. Yeah, it would be that bad.
If only I could like this a thousand times, especially the bold part in red. Second order of effects: good luck fighting the VA for that service connected hip injury that suddenly isn't service connected anymore. They don't want to pay you for shit. Have fun with that, I'm not. /sarc
And now, for the moment we've all been waiting for!!!
You might not think he knows what he's talking about, but I damned sure do. A brief CV for the uninitiated, dear Serenity: just over 10.5 years active service in two career fields, one of which was most definitely "male dominated," while the other was simply a male-predominant unit; four deployments to the Iraq theater of operations, two apiece for each career field; and while I have certainly never been in a combat arms unit, I have been in more than one situation that would warrant the awarding of a Combat Action Badge in the manner that it was originally intended to be granted (NOT just because a rocket sailed over the other end of my FOB). Oh, and just to check the other requisite boxes on that SJW resume, I'm a cisgendered bisexual female that served the entirety of my career in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military. So go ahead and have a seat, because I'm uniquely qualified in whatever matrix you've got planned to trot out. I have been "That Girl," although I was more often referred to as "the unicorn," or "one of the guys."
You said you were waiting on a stronger female military voice to make sense of this thread. This indicates that either you had no idea who I am when you read my posts, or you discounted my posts in this thread outright. Is it because I didn't agree with you? Or is it because I'm not dressed up as June Cleaver in camoflauge, therefore I'm not feminine? That's rhetorical. Stay seated, if you please.
You know what doesn't get done while people are preparing for these dog-and-pony shows? Training, that's what. Every moment spent getting the requisite number of bodies to make some jackass with a constellation on his/her collar happy could be spent honing a perishable skill or increasing the body of knowledge required to excel in the profession of arms. Instead, everyone has to line up, look happy, and shake hands with some functional alcoholic that won't even remember a single name by the time he gets back into his vehicle. Yeah, that's not a waste of time...
As far as demanding special privileges go, you'd be surprised. While the first signal company I was assigned to was predominantly male, the battalion had a large female contingent. It was my "absolute pleasure" [/sarc] to serve with these fine specimens of victimhood. During my time with these female service members, I had to testify in two 15-6 investigations; the first was for a blatantly false accusation of sexual harassment against a male soldier, and the second was for a hostile work environment complaint that arose when the female in question made lewd and obscene jokes towards male members, then filed a complaint when she became the subject of the exact same joke in the exact same conversation. I was also sexually harassed twice by females, to include having my very own lesbian stalker.
I also observed, during my first deployment, a female SFC bragging about initiating a sexual harassment complaint against a male service member because he had an erection in his sleep. IN. HIS. FUCKING. SLEEP. When the proscribed uniform for sleeping is the Army Physical Fitness Uniform (shorts and a t-shirt), and she was walking through the male sleep area at a time when night-shift workers were asleep in their cots, what the hell did she think she was going to see?
Then there were the females that requested that they never pull 12-hour guard duty at night because "eeeeew, it's unsafe for girls." The request was granted, never mind that they each were in possession of a fully functional M-16 with a minimum of 120 rounds of 5.56mm ball ammunition. Do you think that they'd have the balls to shoot the enemy on a battlefield if they didn't have the guts to shoot an attempted rapist? Then there were the requests to reschedule a PT test because they were on their periods; thankfully, those were denied.
I could go on for days, but I don't have that much space.
Not all women think alike. The women that think in a way suitable to thrive in combat arms or other, more highly specialized professions, often are told they "think like a guy." They tend to not have as many problems integrating as the girly-girls who are more concerned with bringing the "grrrrl power!!!11!eleventy" to the profession of arms. They also aren't exactly the paragon of femininity when in uniform. At home is a different story, but actual shooting wars aren't fought in the living room.
That isn't to say that there won't be problems. There certainly are still misogynists in the world today, in and out of the Army. I had my run-ins with a few, to include a platoon sergeant that hinted at my failure as woman because I was out chasing bombs instead of living la vida housewife. However, if that female otherwise meets the standards as set by the Army, there are already leaders in place that would see the situation and handle the situation accordingly. You'd be surprised at how many simply DO NOT CARE what the chromosomal package consists of, so long as he or she can just do the damned job. They just elect to keep quiet; they aren't the fucking white knights you're looking for to effect the social change you desire.
As far as physical standards go, lighter body armor that is as effective as any that we currently wear, lighter packs that don't break and can carry the load, lighter radios that are still as rugged and operational as their heavier counterparts, etc. would be just as much of a boon to male soldiers as it would to females. That's the only way you're going to get around the physical requirements being what they are. There are some things, however, that can't be made any smaller or lighter without compromising effectiveness. The bomb suit is one, bullets are another. If you can come up with something lighter and at least as effective (if not more so), then please engineer it and make it available so that ALL fighters can benefit from it. Or should we only make all the "combat lite" gear available to females? How is that fair?
Physiology is a motherfucker. It's not sexist to say that a woman's body breaks down at a faster rate than a man's when performing the same amount of physical work in a controlled environment. I've mentioned my injuries in past posts in this thread and some others, and they are mainly the result of years of extreme use. By extreme, I mean lifting 500lb truck hoods -- even with hydraulic assistance -- on a 26 ton vehicle several times a day for two years, humping 100lb field safes across motor pools because nobody was around to help, schlepping multiple 85lb antenna bags to and from when your retrans site has to relocate yet again, throwing 90lb robots in the back of a truck, lifting a soldier that outweighed me by nearly 100lb (without body armor) into a fireman's carry and move him to the other side of the building, and all of this at an age where most soldiers are already starting to plan their retirement (I enlisted in my mid-20's). That kind of activity breaks down males of the same age, and proper nutrition, supplements, and personal fitness can only delay the damage so long. That I was so old when I finally wore out makes me a statistical aberration, an outlier, an anecdote, not a reliable example of the majority of females.
Saying all of that qualifies me to ask you this question: if a male and a female of the same age, perform the same work for the same amount of time in the same conditions, and the female body breaks down first, what good is she to the unit in a combat capacity? Secondly, from a budget standpoint, how much would it cost to train and install females in a unit where they wear out faster than the males, meaning that the rate of replacement would be greater?
Guess I'm going to get some warning points, but this is going to be worth it. Bitch, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. I'll be goddamned to the bowels of undying hell before I let some ungrateful whelp tell me that I don't have the fucking will to succeed because I stepped into a male-dominated career field that was open to women long before the combat arms. I stepped into my role in spite of all the bullshit, as did all the other females that completed the same training as myself. Bombs don't give a flying fuck in the sky what your fucking gender is; physics is physics, and dead is dead.
I stepped in to save lives and break shit, and that's exactly what I did (shooting back was just a party favor). I had leaders that saw through the bullshit and did what was right. Not just new kids, I'm talking old timers, prior infantry types, that saw through the misogynist shit and treated me fairly. While it will take time for the historically male professions to come around to the same level that my job was, it is not impossible. Your blanket statement takes a serious, cholera-ridden shit upon the ethics and morals of the male leaders that I have had the pleasure of serving with during my tenure. These are men who have fought, and sometimes died, in service of a nation that is filled with the ungrateful, whiny likes of you.
War is a messy profession, and it will always have elements of raw violence and outright barbarity. That's why it's fucking WAR!!! The inherent barbarity is exactly why it should be a last resort, not a social experiment to prove that ovaries beat testicles 3:1 in a taste test; it's fucking death, not the Pepsi fucking Challenge. You think I had better things to do in my life than blow up 1200lb of shit in one go and not go to jail? Except for sex, I can't think of a whole lot that was better than that. That's why I was cut out for that life, and little girly-girls are not. It's so much more than what your myopic worldview can understand. Read some history, some Sun-Tzu, educate yourself about the great military minds, read up on Joan of Arc, learn what war actually fucking is, and then come back with an informed argument as opposed to some fucking social media talking points.
I'm ready for my thread ban now. Good night.
<mod note: thread edited slightly for language --mara>
You might not think he knows what he's talking about, but I damned sure do. A brief CV for the uninitiated, dear Serenity: just over 10.5 years active service in two career fields, one of which was most definitely "male dominated," while the other was simply a male-predominant unit; four deployments to the Iraq theater of operations, two apiece for each career field; and while I have certainly never been in a combat arms unit, I have been in more than one situation that would warrant the awarding of a Combat Action Badge in the manner that it was originally intended to be granted (NOT just because a rocket sailed over the other end of my FOB). Oh, and just to check the other requisite boxes on that SJW resume, I'm a cisgendered bisexual female that served the entirety of my career in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military. So go ahead and have a seat, because I'm uniquely qualified in whatever matrix you've got planned to trot out. I have been "That Girl," although I was more often referred to as "the unicorn," or "one of the guys."
You said you were waiting on a stronger female military voice to make sense of this thread. This indicates that either you had no idea who I am when you read my posts, or you discounted my posts in this thread outright. Is it because I didn't agree with you? Or is it because I'm not dressed up as June Cleaver in camoflauge, therefore I'm not feminine? That's rhetorical. Stay seated, if you please.
It's been taken, alright. Stay seated.
There's a great deal of politicking and "back story" involved in that one handshake. The generals aren't in that picture because they want to extend a warm and hearty handshake to their troops, not by any stretch of the imagination. They are there because a dog-and-pony show was scheduled so that they could verify that their directives from the Pentagon are being followed. That's it, nothing more. I've had to do several of those dog-and-pony shows during my time, and I got tagged for several of them because I was female (y'know, because diversity).
You know what doesn't get done while people are preparing for these dog-and-pony shows? Training, that's what. Every moment spent getting the requisite number of bodies to make some jackass with a constellation on his/her collar happy could be spent honing a perishable skill or increasing the body of knowledge required to excel in the profession of arms. Instead, everyone has to line up, look happy, and shake hands with some functional alcoholic that won't even remember a single name by the time he gets back into his vehicle. Yeah, that's not a waste of time...
As far as demanding special privileges go, you'd be surprised. While the first signal company I was assigned to was predominantly male, the battalion had a large female contingent. It was my "absolute pleasure" [/sarc] to serve with these fine specimens of victimhood. During my time with these female service members, I had to testify in two 15-6 investigations; the first was for a blatantly false accusation of sexual harassment against a male soldier, and the second was for a hostile work environment complaint that arose when the female in question made lewd and obscene jokes towards male members, then filed a complaint when she became the subject of the exact same joke in the exact same conversation. I was also sexually harassed twice by females, to include having my very own lesbian stalker.
I also observed, during my first deployment, a female SFC bragging about initiating a sexual harassment complaint against a male service member because he had an erection in his sleep. IN. HIS. FUCKING. SLEEP. When the proscribed uniform for sleeping is the Army Physical Fitness Uniform (shorts and a t-shirt), and she was walking through the male sleep area at a time when night-shift workers were asleep in their cots, what the hell did she think she was going to see?
Then there were the females that requested that they never pull 12-hour guard duty at night because "eeeeew, it's unsafe for girls." The request was granted, never mind that they each were in possession of a fully functional M-16 with a minimum of 120 rounds of 5.56mm ball ammunition. Do you think that they'd have the balls to shoot the enemy on a battlefield if they didn't have the guts to shoot an attempted rapist? Then there were the requests to reschedule a PT test because they were on their periods; thankfully, those were denied.
I could go on for days, but I don't have that much space.
I don’t think so. I’ve been reading this thread with interest for while and the opinions are unconvincing. All I’m really reading is an unwillingness to adapt to change. My understanding is that if the military is serious about integrating women, they need to accommodate for the differences. But when they do, people complain.
Not all women think alike. The women that think in a way suitable to thrive in combat arms or other, more highly specialized professions, often are told they "think like a guy." They tend to not have as many problems integrating as the girly-girls who are more concerned with bringing the "grrrrl power!!!11!eleventy" to the profession of arms. They also aren't exactly the paragon of femininity when in uniform. At home is a different story, but actual shooting wars aren't fought in the living room.
That isn't to say that there won't be problems. There certainly are still misogynists in the world today, in and out of the Army. I had my run-ins with a few, to include a platoon sergeant that hinted at my failure as woman because I was out chasing bombs instead of living la vida housewife. However, if that female otherwise meets the standards as set by the Army, there are already leaders in place that would see the situation and handle the situation accordingly. You'd be surprised at how many simply DO NOT CARE what the chromosomal package consists of, so long as he or she can just do the damned job. They just elect to keep quiet; they aren't the fucking white knights you're looking for to effect the social change you desire.
As far as physical standards go, lighter body armor that is as effective as any that we currently wear, lighter packs that don't break and can carry the load, lighter radios that are still as rugged and operational as their heavier counterparts, etc. would be just as much of a boon to male soldiers as it would to females. That's the only way you're going to get around the physical requirements being what they are. There are some things, however, that can't be made any smaller or lighter without compromising effectiveness. The bomb suit is one, bullets are another. If you can come up with something lighter and at least as effective (if not more so), then please engineer it and make it available so that ALL fighters can benefit from it. Or should we only make all the "combat lite" gear available to females? How is that fair?
Physiology is a motherfucker. It's not sexist to say that a woman's body breaks down at a faster rate than a man's when performing the same amount of physical work in a controlled environment. I've mentioned my injuries in past posts in this thread and some others, and they are mainly the result of years of extreme use. By extreme, I mean lifting 500lb truck hoods -- even with hydraulic assistance -- on a 26 ton vehicle several times a day for two years, humping 100lb field safes across motor pools because nobody was around to help, schlepping multiple 85lb antenna bags to and from when your retrans site has to relocate yet again, throwing 90lb robots in the back of a truck, lifting a soldier that outweighed me by nearly 100lb (without body armor) into a fireman's carry and move him to the other side of the building, and all of this at an age where most soldiers are already starting to plan their retirement (I enlisted in my mid-20's). That kind of activity breaks down males of the same age, and proper nutrition, supplements, and personal fitness can only delay the damage so long. That I was so old when I finally wore out makes me a statistical aberration, an outlier, an anecdote, not a reliable example of the majority of females.
Saying all of that qualifies me to ask you this question: if a male and a female of the same age, perform the same work for the same amount of time in the same conditions, and the female body breaks down first, what good is she to the unit in a combat capacity? Secondly, from a budget standpoint, how much would it cost to train and install females in a unit where they wear out faster than the males, meaning that the rate of replacement would be greater?
Guess I'm going to get some warning points, but this is going to be worth it. Bitch, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. I'll be goddamned to the bowels of undying hell before I let some ungrateful whelp tell me that I don't have the fucking will to succeed because I stepped into a male-dominated career field that was open to women long before the combat arms. I stepped into my role in spite of all the bullshit, as did all the other females that completed the same training as myself. Bombs don't give a flying fuck in the sky what your fucking gender is; physics is physics, and dead is dead.
I stepped in to save lives and break shit, and that's exactly what I did (shooting back was just a party favor). I had leaders that saw through the bullshit and did what was right. Not just new kids, I'm talking old timers, prior infantry types, that saw through the misogynist shit and treated me fairly. While it will take time for the historically male professions to come around to the same level that my job was, it is not impossible. Your blanket statement takes a serious, cholera-ridden shit upon the ethics and morals of the male leaders that I have had the pleasure of serving with during my tenure. These are men who have fought, and sometimes died, in service of a nation that is filled with the ungrateful, whiny likes of you.
War is a messy profession, and it will always have elements of raw violence and outright barbarity. That's why it's fucking WAR!!! The inherent barbarity is exactly why it should be a last resort, not a social experiment to prove that ovaries beat testicles 3:1 in a taste test; it's fucking death, not the Pepsi fucking Challenge. You think I had better things to do in my life than blow up 1200lb of shit in one go and not go to jail? Except for sex, I can't think of a whole lot that was better than that. That's why I was cut out for that life, and little girly-girls are not. It's so much more than what your myopic worldview can understand. Read some history, some Sun-Tzu, educate yourself about the great military minds, read up on Joan of Arc, learn what war actually fucking is, and then come back with an informed argument as opposed to some fucking social media talking points.
I'm ready for my thread ban now. Good night.
<mod note: thread edited slightly for language --mara>
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,944
Dame
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,387
Why do your best speeches never fit on a pillow? Never mind. We'll work on it.
Mos def worth the wait @racing_kitty 
Thread locked till further notice.
Have a good night.
Have a good night.
Friendly reminder-
The topic is women in combat arms/SOF. Please stay on topic.
Don't dogpile, no need for name calling, if you have something to add or you want to discuss then that's great. If you wanna tell someone they are a fuck head, that's cool, just do it via PM or text or carrier pigeon or really any other point to point means of communication that doesn't force the staff to get involved.
Thread re-opened.
The topic is women in combat arms/SOF. Please stay on topic.
Don't dogpile, no need for name calling, if you have something to add or you want to discuss then that's great. If you wanna tell someone they are a fuck head, that's cool, just do it via PM or text or carrier pigeon or really any other point to point means of communication that doesn't force the staff to get involved.
Thread re-opened.
I hope this is not a repost. Saw the article on FB this morning. Although the title of the article is a bit frivolous in my humble opinion as the gear is not only taking hair into consideration in design/size(s).
Military Changing Body Armor to Accommodate Women's Hairstyles
Military Changing Body Armor to Accommodate Women's Hairstyles
And this is a good thing, the changes. They will benefit women in combat arms and support slices. While I'm still against incorporating women into combat arms, this is one of the changes that had to happen and may be an unexpected side benefit to the process. The GWOT has seen a lot of women in support roles go downrange on convoys and the like wearing gear that wasn't designed for them.
The ship has sailed, the horse is out of the barn, we need to make them run as fast as we can. I think this is a good step.
Last edited:
Topkick
Verified Military
I agree. I too am against women in combat arms but if you are going to allow it, you'll need to make accommodations. However, in some cases I am not against requiring the women to make the adjustments, such a cutting their hair short.
Equal is equal, no special accommodation and or differences. All required to do all the same in order to maintain combat effectiveness. No exceptions for any gender or person, if you can't do it, leave you're gone! This is about war fighting not feelings... That is currently not the policy, standard and nor will it be implemented.
If women can meet, exceed and maintain standards for combat Arms, they should have equipment that fits them properly to achieve the mission. Not lighter or less effective, just properly fitted.
Just in time for the GWOT!
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
So less coverage equals improved ballistic protection??? This is lunacy.
It has long been known in the military that if you make the arguement of survivability, it is hard for higher headquarters to deny your request. This has known degraded to, 'increased survivability because it fits over hair buns.'
Chontair
Unverified
From my understanding, the minimum requirements asked of a woman in the Army is as follows
Push-Ups - Minimum 19 Max Score 42
2 Mile - Minimum 18:54 Max Score 15:36
Sit-Ups - Similar requirements
If the numbers match the standard set for men I see no problem in letting a woman into an infantry unit and allowing her to deploy with said infantry unit. But the numbers don't match the standard. What a joke to put other lives in danger for the sake of equality when there is nothing equal about this. How wonderful to provide an easier route of passage to a world of suck just because we need to be "inclusive"
Push-Ups - Minimum 19 Max Score 42
2 Mile - Minimum 18:54 Max Score 15:36
Sit-Ups - Similar requirements
If the numbers match the standard set for men I see no problem in letting a woman into an infantry unit and allowing her to deploy with said infantry unit. But the numbers don't match the standard. What a joke to put other lives in danger for the sake of equality when there is nothing equal about this. How wonderful to provide an easier route of passage to a world of suck just because we need to be "inclusive"
Topkick
Verified Military
The APFT doesn't tell the whole story. Even if they meet the same APFT standards, there are many other factors/ accommodations involved when considering women in combat arms.
Similar threads
