Women In The Front Line. Is It Progress?

[Shafted]

But it takes something like 16 Calories to walk a mile and something like 3000 Calories to drive a mile.

Sorry Megan, but me thinks that's backwards.

[saudade]

Alas, the spirits brings out the truth ! Such is always a welcomed thing

Ive known people whom wished to go to combat. Some never returned. Those whom wishes such and experienced it realized that they shouldnt have ' wished ' for such to begin with.

Heres the problem as I see it. Granted, my time was over 20 years ago ( when I was 17 ).

As a guy, I had to run 3 miles in 18 minutes. I had to do 20 dead hang pullups and 80 situps in 2 minutes. To be an ' operator ' or shat is known as ' special forces ', the standards were even higher.

For women, at the time, they had to run a mile and a half in 16 minutes, hold on to the pullup bar with their chin over it for a minimum of 30 seconds and do 50 situps in one minute.

The physical standards were scored the same for the Rifle Range and NCO training/MCI's. The uniform and grooming regulations were WAY different also. Yet, both were considered for the same promotion.

What WILL happen in the situation now.. Women *MIGHT* all be forced into the same physical standards as men. The opposite could happen but then our ( U.S. ) forces wouldnt be half of what they are.

I do know, there are some women that are stronger, faster, and better equipped ( mentally ) then many of their male counterparts. Where the problem comes to a head is when those women decide they want the standard raised, are ALL the women now going to have to shave their heads and wear a ' high and tight '. How about uniform regulations? ALL of the ' double standards ' must go.

I repaired communications equipment. There were women in my field repairing the same systems. I couldnt see ANY of them being able to live without their makeup, their bras, ear-rings.. basically.. they would be ' men '.

What you call ' narrow thinking ' essentially boils down to whats called ' combat effectiveness and ' unit coercion '. If you have neither, you WILL loose on the battlefield every time.

Have you looked into the background of the person your speaking of? Might they be a decorated veteran whom has the experience of doing such service? Might they have a real world insite into what the conversation is about?

Look at what the guy said :

"To have women serving in infantry ... could impair the mission essential task of those units, and that's been proven in study after study,"

Look what I posted as the PFT ( Physical fitness testing ) for the US Marines.. DO you REALLY believe women could carry a full ruck with equipment that is needed to complete a mission up a hill and engage?

Theres a reason I dont often mention that Im a Veteran. Many people just dont understand why the system that is in place is there. Some will say ' Its unfair! Its all wrong! ' until you have to actually get a War done. The Stakes are pretty high and theres no room for ' Social Experiments '.

If they can do the same as a guy, then yeah they can engage.

I'm not going to go tit for tat on every point with your reply, but my counter response is if women serving on frontlines is so bad, why has Britain been doing it for longer? Or other militaries for that matter?

Also, it is narrow minded thinking without data to back it up. Without *any* data or experience it is pure conjecture. I'm not sure how else to put this, he may be right, you may be right, but without data it is nothing but an opinion. He mentions that its been "proven", but never actually lists said studies nor what they proved. And as the illustrious Mark Twain wrote, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. It is hard to get statistics right. Reference the biomedical study debacles of extremely poor statistical methodology. Without the actual data and information it is nothing but an unsubstantiated political blurb. Politicians also say that things like bank bailouts are "proven" to be a good thing. Even though economists, aka the people teaching it and studying it, not the politicized people, know it doesn't work. I'd throw in quotes about Greece's financial trouble, but what economists know to be helpful and what Germany and France are imposing are two different things. (don't derail this into finance, I don't want to go down that rabbit hole)

I don't put any faith in his statement that this is "proven". There are many militaries around the world with women, even they don't say how they'll do in our military. Before we put the cart before the horse on how this is bad, lets wait and see what happens. I have enough family in the military in multiple services to know that guys can screw up just as much as women.

Allow me to condense my whole comment: There is nothing useful to discuss right now until we have something to discuss. Right now all we have is hyperbole and gut instinct, lets see what spaghetti sticks to the wall before breaking out pitchforks and the Sturm und Drang.

[Shafted]

Hey all, may I suggest we move this discussion to the appropriate thread, as ILK has started a thread for this very subject. It's time to get this thread back on it's original topic.

To be found here http://www.hhplace.o...-food-industry/

Opps, I see you already did this while I was typing, saudade.

[saudade]

Sorry Megan, but me thinks that's backwards.

Looking at it it scientifically 150lbs (sorry metric users is ~90 calories, 300lbs is ~180 calories. It is highly weight/fitness dependent.

So 1 calorie is ~4.18 joules. That means it takes about 377-753 joules of energy for a person to walk a mile. The car won't do well in this, but lets find out how badly.

1 gallon of gasoline (american, also sorry again, but whatever) is 132 x 10^6 joules of energy. Here's where it gets nasty.. So lets assume we have a 25mpg car, just because I feel like it. That gives us 5_280_000 joules of energy for the crappy, but not gas guzzler car.

So she's totally right, but our cars engines are total shit at extracting energy from gasoline.

Hey all, may I suggest we move this discussion to the appropriate thread, as ILK has started a thread for this very subject. It's time to get this thread back on it's original topic.

To be found here http://www.hhplace.o...-food-industry/

Opps, I see you already did this while I was typing, saudade.

Heh, yep, i'm not trying to pick fights or anything, just throwing out my drunk opinion and using my copy of matlab out of boredom on the last one. I'll shut my lil trap up, think i've probably angered enough people. But I love debating things with people of opposing viewpoints/views/etc... Just here isn't the best spot I suppose.

[Shafted]

Due to the lack of information in Megan's original statement, it can be taken a few different ways. Both figures could be human calorie expenditures.

[meganiwish]

(Yes, sorry, my post was a bit ambiguous. I meant to make a point about food versus fuel crops) As you say, back to the point. Saudade is right about British women on the frontline, but, crucially, they're not in combat roles.

[ilikekicks]

If they can do the same as a guy, then yeah they can engage.

I concur. *IF* a woman can hump a pack and go through the vigors ( which some men cant ), more power to them. But the numbers are so few.

I'm not going to go tit for tat on every point with your reply, but my counter response is if women serving on frontlines is so bad, why has Britain been doing it for longer? Or other militaries for that matter?

The only army that I know of that has allowed women in their infantry has been Israel. Women do drive tanks, act as field medics/doctors, run supply convoys, mechanical/electronic/maintenance.. But rifles in direct fire.. I have yet to see or hear of it from any standing army.

I believe this to be a good article and source. Its from an Actiuve Duty Female Officer in the U.S. Marines. If ANYONE would have an opinion on combat, it would be the Corps, hands down.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

"As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security."

Also, it is narrow minded thinking without data to back it up. Without *any* data or experience it is pure conjecture. I'm not sure how else to put this, he may be right, you may be right, but without data it is nothing but an opinion.

I would accept openly the opinion of those whom have ' been there, done that ' and lived to tell about it. What your insinuating as ' narrow minded thinking ' has to do with LIVES being put on the line. MANY of them.

All the titles and slanders such as ' narrow minded thinking ' dont mean a damn thing to me when your bottom end is being shot at. Lives cannot be replaced like a spare part. If you wish to say something as being ' narrow minded ' , go right ahead. I did quite well during my time wearing a uniform and can say there are some rules/laws/guidelines that dont need to be politically corrected by title.

He mentions that its been "proven", but never actually lists said studies nor what they proved. And as the illustrious Mark Twain wrote, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. It is hard to get statistics right. Reference the biomedical study debacles of extremely poor statistical methodology. Without the actual data and information it is nothing but an unsubstantiated political blurb. Politicians also say that things like bank bailouts are "proven" to be a good thing. Even though economists, aka the people teaching it and studying it, not the politicized people, know it doesn't work. I'd throw in quotes about Greece's financial trouble, but what economists know to be helpful and what Germany and France are imposing are two different things. (don't derail this into finance, I don't want to go down that rabbit hole)

France? They have a great military! Tanks have 3 reverse gears! Their rifles are brand new, never fired.. only dropped once ( joking folks! )

from the article :

"As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field."

The 0300-0399 MOS fields are Marine Infantry. Everything from Riflemen, Grenadiers to Recon/Amphibious Warfare.

I don't put any faith in his statement that this is "proven". There are many militaries around the world with women, even they don't say how they'll do in our military.

Read the link I posted above. Again, its a Marine Corps Officer. I would put my faith in HER statements. Iraq and Afghanistan both? I would say she has quite an experience pool to draw from.

Before we put the cart before the horse on how this is bad, lets wait and see what happens. I have enough family in the military in multiple services to know that guys can screw up just as much as women.

Very true. But have YOU served? Its one thing to make speculation off what ' so and so ' has said, but its another when we experience these things for ourselves.

Allow me to condense my whole comment: There is nothing useful to discuss right now until we have something to discuss. Right now all we have is hyperbole and gut instinct, lets see what spaghetti sticks to the wall before breaking out pitchforks and the Sturm und Drang.

Theres plenty to discuss.

*IF* women are to be permitted in combat arms MOS fields, why shouldnt they then be subjected to the Draft as all able bodied males are?

If its about equality,m should grooming standards, uniform and codes all be equal? If so, should we allow male service members to wear skirts and heels ( if they choose, women can choose to wear trousers instead of a skirt )? Should women be forced to the shearing of their hair as well? Cosmetics?

What a lot of people whom say ' closed/narrow minded ' dont understand is there is a whole boatload of things that will need to be addressed. The U.S. Military doesnt run under Constitutional guidelines, its run by something called the UCMJ or ' Uniform Code of Military Justice '. There is no such thing as ' liberty ' or ' Equality '.

*MY* suggestion would be to allow women to volunteer for combative arms fields and give them a shot. Im sure SOME ( very few ) would make it. But if the field is open to such, put ALL women into the prospect of having to carry their weight.

Im pretty sure, you will find, most dont want to be grunts/infantry. The idea of such is grounds to go wrist cutting.

[saudade]

Very true. But have YOU served? Its one thing to make speculation off what ' so and so ' has said, but its another when we experience these things for ourselves.

No I have not, and I'm not going to respond further if this is degenerating into Ad hominem range.

[hoverfly]

Believe what you want to believe, Hoverfly. Myself, I no longer rely on the commercial food chain as you know it. Once you stop trying to feed people with money and teach them how to provide for themselves it's a great life. I know, I'm living it. I work 12 to 20 hours a week and it provides for all my needs and more, so please don't generalize.

Perhaps you should look at some facts here.

http://www.icis.com/...garcane-vs.html

This data would seem to disagree with you and at the very least what you quoted was outdated. It was the second hit for the search criteria of "prices corn versus sugar cane" the first was a pdf.

You still may yet prove me wrong, but your not off to a good start, but don't worry my intent is without malice. Who knows this might be a great exercise in data acquisition for the both of us. I have personally met several poor people that can't afford food, but they can afford that new 42 inch plasma television.

PM me if you want to talk, it's time to get this topic back on track.

I will personally start a thread telling the membership I was wrong if that is the case based on information available to all of us.

Data is form 2010, it's out of date.

[meganiwish]

Oh gosh, it isn't hard to spark conflict, is it? Sorry.

[Shafted]

Data is form 2010, it's out of date.

You're welcome to provide me with more updated info, but not here. It's off topic and we really need to get back to the discussion at hand.

[SF]

Maybe this thread should be shut down, like other threads are when we all get into a tiff? Grrrrrrrrr....

Back to the topic at hand, Gals on the front line? Yeah, put 'em in, excellent idea!!! An All American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion !!!!

[Shafted]

Maybe this thread should be shut down, like other threads are when we all get into a tiff? Grrrrrrrrr....

Back to the topic at hand, Gals on the front line? Yeah, put 'em in, excellent idea!!! An All American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion !!!!

I think we are fully capable as a group of getting this thread back on track without locking it. It's not about politics, religion or guns. As you said, "Back to the topic at hand,"

Let's just hope those women don't do what the Amazons did and lop off a breast to make swinging a sword easier.

[Amanda]

I'm sure I could manage to launch a satellite missile or operate one of those drone thingies from a keyboard without having to lop either of my breasts off or even a fingernail for that matter.

[yozz]

The story about the breast had to do with that it made it easier to shoot arrows. You don't want the string of a strong bow to hit your breast. In a society, the ideal situation is to have for each job the most qualified person. So you set standards, and people that fulfill the standards qualify. I don't see anything wrong with this. For combat duty this may mean that a far smaller percentage of women candidates qualify then of the male candidates, as long as combat duty is mainly physical. Who knows what war will look like in 100 years. But don't we have similar things for pilot training etc? Y.

[Shafted]

The story about the breast had to do with that it made it easier to shoot arrows.

You don't want the string of a strong bow to hit your breast.

Yea, that would sting like a mother and throw off the trajectory of the arrow. Thanks for correcting me, makes even more sense than a sword.

[ilikekicks]

No I have not, and I'm not going to respond further if this is degenerating into Ad hominem range.

My point being is that we all have out opinions. Certainly, Im not going to tell GM how to build cars. I never questioned any of the Plumbers I sub-contracted jobs out to. I didnt bother the Masons either as I dont know how to lay brick properly. They arent fields I would say I have a ' good grasp ' on. Familiar with them, sure, I know of the work, but certainly, *I* wouldnt be the one to ask an opinion of as it would probably be less informative and all speculation.

It is NOT a ' degenerative ' means to ask ' what are YOUR credentials ' when discussing something that has lives depending upon it. You have an opinion, feel free to offer it, but we ALL must understand that MOST of our opinions on MANY things amount to absolutely nothing as they have no weight behind them.

THAT is the main problem with ANY discussion. Everyone wishes to feel important and as if they have something to offer but such isnt always true.

This is what people become all ' Offended ' over and such is very silly and why many societies have so many problems. The problems arent complex, they are just being discussed by people whom are all out to have rainbows and flowers instead of getting to the heart of things. Those whom put forth solutions are the ones accused of being ' bad ' or having the ' wrong ' answers.

Having said such, Its my opinion that there are SOME women whom could probably do an outstanding job as a Grunt. The Majority of them arent capable to even consider the job ( physically ).

Data is form 2010, it's out of date.

I thought the food-stuffs went to the other thread?

Oh gosh, it isn't hard to spark conflict, is it? Sorry.

Honestly.. thats how conversations are to be in ' modern times '. People whom have done things need to be discredited by those whom havent so they can ' join ' or ' fit in '. Every kid gets a trophy in this generation, there are no winners or loosers. Everyone must be ' equal '.

There will be true equality when I can pop out a kid and some woman can impregnate me. ( I type such quietly so Darian doesnt hear me. Shes all for such! Already had that discussion! ). Until then, people should look at facts, not ' feel good ' emotional answers.

The story about the breast had to do with that it made it easier to shoot arrows.

You don't want the string of a strong bow to hit your breast.

In a society, the ideal situation is to have for each job the most qualified person.

True, but thats not the Society of the U.S. presently nor many other Nations.

Some wont like this response, but I have to be honest.

What will eventually happen when they go for ' Full Equality ' in the Armed Services? People need to understand that the Armed Forces is NOT a place for ' Social Experimentation ' by any means. I understand people of the ' Progressive mindset ' cannot fathom such but I would say to them ' Set the example! Do your time, then tell me about it. Till then, Your not being the one SHOT AT! '.

Then I can wear the badge of ' the bad guy ' and I wont give a rats ass about it either way.

So you set standards, and people that fulfill the standards qualify.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

For combat duty this may mean that a far smaller percentage of women candidates

qualify then of the male candidates, as long as combat duty is mainly physical.

Who knows what war will look like in 100 years.

But don't we have similar things for pilot training etc?

Y.

There are many fields in the Armed Services that have opened up to women. Mechanics, Transportation, Pilots, Training positions, Armorers.. the list is very long, almost as long as their male counterparts.

[Bubba136]

Gosh! How can anyone top taking a bowstring in the titty? -.

[meganiwish]

I'm sure I could manage to launch a satellite missile or operate one of those drone thingies from a keyboard without having to lop either of my breasts off or even a fingernail for that matter.

I used to do archery and I never had to lop anything off. That said... It does hurt your fingers though. I could only draw a bow of 20lbs. The ones they took off the Mary Rose had a draw weight of 180lbs! Olympic archers today draw about 90lbs.

[Amanda]

180 lb's That's incredible, enough to make ones nipple twinge!

[meganiwish]

I should imagine it could make any number of things go twang too.

[Amanda]

The ones they took off the Mary Rose had a draw weight of 180lbs! Olympic archers today draw about 90lbs.

maybe I'm a bit old fashioned but I was thinking, I'd rather fancy a man who had the power to use a bow like that. But then I found myself wondering wether he might be an odd shape because of it. Do you know if that was the case?

[meganiwish]

Yes, they say it took training from childhood. That's why the French cut the string fingers off captured English archers, because they couldn't just switch hands. It's reputed that that's where the Harvey Smith originated, as a sign of defiance.

[Amanda]

It's reputed that that's where the Harvey Smith originated, as a sign of defiance.

Oh that's brilliant Meg. Thank you.

[meganiwish]

One wonders why the French didn't just kill captured English archers, but maybe that wasn't the done thing, even then, even though archers were commoners and wouldn't have come under the rules of chivalry. By all accounts, the Englsih at Agincourt were most unchivalrous to even their knight prisoners. With my little bow, if I'd been there I'd have had to be uncomfortably close to the French to make an impact.

[Amanda]

Well you would have been seen to be very progressive anyway.

[meganiwish]

Eyeball to eyeball archery, or is that just a Hastings thing?

[Amanda]

Can you imagine women on the front line in those days??

[meganiwish]

Apparently not unheard of, although this was a little later, in 1520: '[bernal] says, "How happy we were to see Dona Marina alive, and Dona Luisa, whose escape at the bridge was due to some Tlaxcalans, and also another woman called Maria de Estrada, who was the only Spanish woman in Mexico." Of this intrepid female nothing else is known.' (Cortes and Montezuma, Maurice Collis)

[Amanda]

Well of course, there's always exception to the rule. However, I just can't imagine, in general, that women could be so stupid. It's only men that have a history of going to war.