Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Not sure why you're looking to Gingrich or Santorum for sensible commentary on any issue.
If it's real, the men could get distracted watching her apply the vagisil.
One solution would be cleaner ditches.
Althouse, you already admitted yesterday that the vast majority of women are unfit for combat.You also made it clear that the women in combat thing is just a ruse so that women don't suffer the dreaded bogeyman, "discrimination."So, what's the point?
You posted with approval an item recently about letting women serve on the front line, so long as standards are gender-neutral.Do you really think that will remain the case?I predict that if women go on the front line, one of two things will happen:1) Standards (like how much you can carry, how fast you can run, etc.) will be split for different recruits, probably in a gender-neutral way, so that smaller/less-strong recruits can still pass muster.2) All standards will come down.Both options degrade the military.I like your idea that so long as we demand certain standards, women can serve anywhere. There are very strong, big, capable women who could beat the crap out of any terrorist we encounter. But in practice, this seems like a step toward degrading standards.
If it is true, it's just one more reason why it's a bad idea. This is completely aside from the strength issue and, almost as important, the morale issue.
this whole discussion of women combat is degenerating into farce. Santorum and Gingrich have no idea what they are talking about, nor do the arch feminists on the other side of the issue.As a former ranger and combat commander I only care about the ability of my soldiers to do their jobs-as long as soldiers of either gender meet the qualifications, I am OK with that.that said, however, I have little faith that our civilian leadership will make the right decisions.
"If it's real, the men could get distracted watching her apply the vagisil."I remember a woman fighter pilot who talked about how she pees during a long flight. It's very awkward, as you can imagine, and her male copilot promises not to look.
Notice that Althouse waits until she's too old to enlist herself and find out first-hand before she posits the question.
While in rural Iraq, I had several soldiers fall into or take cover in an irrigation ditch -- they are everywere there. Some of the filthiest, nastiest water you will find. Even though we got them into showers later that day, they still had all sorts of nasty skin infections.My point is not that women couldn't do this, my point is that combat is a dirty, nasty business and a policy made by bureaucrats won't change that.
You also made it clear that the women in combat thing is just a ruse so that women don't suffer the dreaded bogeyman, "discrimination."Althouse should have stipulated, all else being equal, are there advantages/disadvantages to having a penis vs. a vagina in trench warfare.
Who doesn't get infections from staying in a ditch for 30 days?
Just because they don't want women in the trenches doesn't mean they're afraid of lady parts.
this whole discussion of women combat is degenerating into farce.Agreed, we need us some pictures.
Nobody liked my proposed compromise which was: lesbians, only.
In today's combat operations, one does not stay in a ditch very long--modern combat operations do not resemble WWI trench warfare. As I mentioned above, these discussions are farce conducted by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
In fact Gingrich can't seem to get enough of lady parts. He's kinda like Slick Willie on that front.
Men and women are exactly the same, all one needs to do is walk through the isles of a drug store to know this.
The ditch warfare era is behind us, but many weeks in close quarters are still an issue. There'd be too much emotion and sexual tension, so I'm against it.
Nobody liked my proposed compromise which was: lesbians, only.Which kinda lesbians we talking about here?Those luscious type lesbian babes in porn?Or the one who were flannel shirts and play softball? AKA real lesbians?
It didn't stop us from going up in space.
How are the women going to do with the broken pants?
well as an former Army officer I do know that we had to allow the female soldiers to go back from the front lines every few days for hygene reasons. While the male soldiers could often go weeks without showers.
I think a fair summary of the comment threads over the last two days would be "as long as the women who go meet the necessary standards without them being watered down I'm ok with it" with a minority appendage of "even though I think it's not a good step for society". In something close to 1,000 comments on the subject infections were mentioned once in passing. But now we're going to focus on this one tiny aspect of readiness? Why? To facilitate leftist criticism that the right has a creepy fascination with ladyparts? Great. Let's delegitimize all the honest commentary under the creepy umbrella that doesn't describe anyone commenting. That's the leftist way.
It's not a meme. It's a belief. And it could be a canard.
Renee: going into space wherein the female astronauts wear diapers is simply not the same as closing with and destroying the enemy by close combat fire and maneuver.
Men have problems too - ever heard of trenchfoot? (aka: Bartonella virus, but that is another story)If you read real memoirs of combat the one thing that is universal from the days of Rome through to today is that soldiers are dirty, wet, tired, hungry, sleep deprived, worn down, living with nagging injuries, infected, and carrying too much.I'm sure women will have *more* problems because of the relative complexity of their genitals, but if you add that to the list I'm not sure the average misery index goes up much.-XC
My experience has suggested that women tend to be slower, weaker, and less violent than men, on average. These traits might tend to make them less valuable front-line soldiers.On the other hand, my experience has also suggested that women tend to be better than men at juggling multiple complex tasks. They might be better generals or secretaries of defense. Or presidents.The middle ground, and the path from bottom to top, could be the main problem.
Why do you think it's old farts afraid of lady parts? What evidence is there that their words reflect fear of the female genitalia? Or, is this just some bugaboo women throw at old farts when they don't like what they say?Does anyone stay in a ditch for 30 days anymore, like in WWI? Isn't that where the term "trench foot" originated? I think many man have biological problems after 30 days in a ditch. WWI was the first major war where more deaths occurred from battle than from disease and infection. Gingrich was wrong about men for sure.Having been married twice, having 2 daughters and 3 sisters, I know women have UTIs infinitely more than man.
Trench pussyLike trench dick would be any better? Imagine how bad that would be for those with foreskins still attached....
Jock itch? Men can suffer too, you know.
On second thought, let's just not imagine that at all.
Someone might know, but I would think the inside of a space vehicle is more is more hygienic than the average hospital operating room?
furious_a said... this whole discussion of women combat is degenerating into farce.Agreed, we need us some pictures.I suspect there's some lookist bias in that set of pictures.
Roger J. said... Renee: going into space wherein the female astronauts wear diapers is simply not the same as closing with and destroying the enemy by close combat fire and maneuver.I wonder if its an astronaut ordering all these Depends thru the Althouse Amazon portal.
They are in a perpetual campaign mode. Perhaps that is required to preserve democratic leverage. It is also opportunistic to present distractions from other, less convenient issues.
Women in combat?What difference, at this point, does it make?
Until the twentieth century, disease deaths during war always far exceeded combat deaths. Even in the twentieth century, diseases like trench foot and malaria seriously crippled Armies' ability to wage war. Claiming that women are somehow more susceptible to disease is just silly
my experience has also suggested that women tend to be better than men at juggling multiple complex tasksYou must live in an alternate universe than I do.
Let's have complete equality here.Or, is this just some bugaboo women throw at old farts when they don't like what they say?should beOr, is this just some bugaboo old fart women throw at old farts when they don't like what they say?
my experience has also suggested that women tend to be better than men at juggling multiple complex tasksHave you ever seen a woman driving while on a cell phone?
In the trenches for 30 days?Does modern warfare even use trench warfare? If so, does one really stay in them for long?
old farts afraid of ladyparts... or is it real? Althouse, you're halfway to a hit rap song already.
Anyway, the left sees the military as a group to hand out supplies after a disaster and save people from hurricanes and earth quakes and such. Not as a killing machine to defend America.So I'm sure this will all go swell.Really, it will.
I'd imagine the women would do the cooking and cleaning necessary in the trenches, so that they can invite people over.
Claiming that women are somehow more susceptible to disease is just sillyAgreed because it detracts from all of the perfectly legitimate reasons why women should be assigned to serve in line units.
This experiment will last until the next Jessica Lynch appears in a jihadi snuff video......and the withdrawal from *that* particular engagement make our exit from Mogadishu look like the US Forces Korea deployment by comparison.
When you have lemons, make lemonade. When you have yeast, make a nice baquette.
Can't say whether this is a serious risk or not but there are obvious problems with coed combat units foremost of which is that men and women both would be continually distracted by sexual thoughts, probably worse for the men. So social politics trumps unit effectiveness.
Got me. But I've never seen a man deathly ill from a UTI.
There are no misogynists in fox holes.
"my experience has also suggested that women tend to be better than men at juggling multiple complex tasks"It's easier for women to carry on a conversation while doing another task, but I'm skeptical about anything beyond that.
The military doesn't need or want this. The people at large don't need or want this. But Panetta had to give in to a coterie of shrieking harridans, who just can't STAND to hear anybody speak of "our fighting men." They have to horn in on everything men do -- est men have some role to themselves.These cosmic harpies have to spit in the soup, steal men's thunder, and try to steal their role in society. These dogs-in-a-manger (bitches in a manger, to be precise) are just motivated by invidious envy and malice. And Panetta is a putrid little eunich/Benedict Arnold/rat bastard.
Women are at a disadvantage in the infantry because they'll be smaller, slower and weaker than the men they'll be fighting. Do we want our soldiers to be fighting with a disadvantage? This is the question we should be asking. Sanitary issues are at most a secondary concern.
Does today’s warfare scenario contemplate leaving infantry in ditches for 30 days at a time?Its BS.That is not saying there aren't other legitimate concerns... but this aint it.. imo.
For the record, the guys on Attu in the Aleutians had a real problem with trench foot, as did the guys in Italy and the Bulge.There's also the party favor known as jungle rot, a fave in both the Pacific and 'Nam.Anybody who says we'll never have anything like that again is probably dreaming. I'll defer to roger on this, but I think he knows what I'm talking about.
...men and women both would be continually distracted by sexual thoughts, probably worse for the men.CENTCOM can require sexual harassment awareness/prevention be added to the line infantrymen's skillset.
PS It's not being stuck in one place, it's the problem of wet feet and being able to air out your footsies and change some undergarments.
Every Marine a rifleperson.
The Combat Infantryperson's Badge.
Fred Reed has some good statistics on the general subj matter here: Link
There's no possible way that women soldiers could remain in the trenches for 30 days - how would they be able to shave?Peter
I don't have lady parts, but I did spend time in Vietnam, were everybody had skin problems and particularly in the crotch area and anybody who doesn't think it would be much worse for females in the same assignment doesn't have a clue. The USMC grunt article from yesterday said that the march to Bagdad in 2003 was dry, but similiar.as for showers, there weren't any. If you were lucky/unlucky to fight in a wet war, the solution is to strip, grab a bar of soap and stand nude except for your boots and shower in the rain.
Periodic rotations are classified.
As I said yesterday, re:Major Hasan, it won't be the rules, it won't be the majority who are capable and qualified, it will be the unwillingness or inability of the system to deal with those who aren't capable or qualified. I suppose I'm too close to the day to day realities of the way the Army operates but there will be exceptions to and a lowering of, the standards, and the only ones who will have to deal with that won't be at the Pentagon or the Head Shed.
Is the timing of this announcement related to the bad press Obama has gotten for not hiring women for top jobs? I haven't heard that women are getting bizarre infections after 30 days in the Whitehouse.There must be some other reason.
Personal experience says this is an issue. I spent a couple of my younger years exploring archaeological sites (respectfully) in remote desert wilderness. My male partner and I would be out a couple weeks at a single spot with just the water we brought in, etc.I wanted to be as lean on our resources as he could be, wearing the same clothes as long as possible, keeping our water for washing to a minimum, etc. And lemme repeat: this was the Desert. Oy! Haha. The stink! Haha. Men are well-made for the great outdoors. Their outie is so efficiently sanitary (relatively), and they have not that extra wet aperture in the middle to muddle stuff up.Our first such 2week outing got me straight, but it did mean the use of more of our precious resources, and my time and attention in order to be fit and perform. Sorry to expose myself to smirkers, but there it is.
"What kind of a man is it who can send women off to kill and maim? What kind of society does that? What kind of men sharing a fire-team foxhole with a woman and two other men don't treat the woman more gently?"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578262013186376352.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
Your request for additional scent candles in denied.
As my friend edutcher notes (with respect to "jungle rot"): yes, exposure to harsh climatic conditions, in the absence of basic hygiene, leads to all sorts of unpleasant diseases. Basic hygiene is one of the most important things a commander can provide to his men--and you have to make time available which is often difficult. A good first sergeant and NCO chain is the best way to handle this. In viet nam, our steel pots (helmets) were our our basic sanitation.
I'm sure there are problems endemic to a desert condition, as well. I seem to recall the Afrika Korps and Eighth Army having some issues over 2 1/2 years.
I guess they cannot get the idea of men in foxholes out of their mind. Maybe it is a turn on. But I do not think we really dig trenches anymore and I would trust a woman to press a button as much as I would trust a man, maybe more. My wife has better reflexes than I do.
Women's bodies have a way of dealing with "legitimate" trench warfare.
Edutcher: there have been many new conditions manifest in soldiers returning from the mideast--in particular a condition caused by biting flies. Have even seen small pox. The issue was important enough that when I was working in public health we got periodical updates from the military on these medical conditions that were unknown in the states--Many docs had never seen them and had to be informed.
that said, however, I have little faith that our civilian leadership will make the right decisions. Likewise. I have no idea about ditchwater and ladyparts -- it sounds like BS though who knows -- but the whole females n combat idea seems driven more by ideology than anything else.The military is already using different physical standards for men vs. women. This isn't about having the best military; it's about having a fair military. This is going to get Americans killed.
rhhardin said... I'd imagine the women would do the cooking and cleaning necessary in the trenches, so that they can invite people over.That was good. Real good.
FMF Corpsman Shannon Crowley out on patrol with Marines
Again, I'll defer to the vets, but I do believe every man in the field is issued what's called an entrenching tool and the importance of digging is still stressed.The smaller silhouette you provide the less a target.
Women do get more bladder infections than men because they have shorter urethras.
In 2003, I went from May 8 to September without access to any kind of shower facilities.You could jump in the river, or at my little outpost we had a garden hose we got running after a while.Everyone crapped on open-air latrines in an orchard... basically half a barrel with a piece of plywood with a hole cut through it. A bit later we made "stalls" out of plywood, but wood was generally in short supply in Iraq for military and civilians alike.A short distance away, at Combat Outpost in Ramadi (it wound up in the news quite a bit if you google it) they didn't even have a garden hose. That environment was extremely austere for months and months. We had a company plus there, including a big chunk of my company.Fresh water was a very big concern. Everything had to be trucked in, twice a day... sometimes three times. I had one water trailer and they ran out regularly.I know this because I was acting as the de facto support platoon leader for a light infantry headquarters company at the time. Small unit logistics was my life. We could possibly have rotated a few women over to the garden hose every few days. They could hop on board one of my trucks when I dropped off the water trailers and come back on the next run. A day later. Risking their lives on the most dangerous stretch of road in country for a while, right through central Ramadi.While someone else pulled their guard duty for them.See how this goes?
Female FMF Corpsman talks about what it means to be in a war zone
While someone else pulled their guard duty for them.As long as no one else pulls their promotions for them, the DOD won't care.
Inga, you clueless twit:That female Navy corpseman was attached to Marine Wing Support Squadron 273’s Incident Response Platoon.Do you see the word "infantry" in there anywhere?I don't either.FAIL.
Women deserve to serve in combat because they grew up fighting on the school yard just like boys, sure.I'm bet all the homes across the country feel safer because there is a woman in the home to provide home protection.
Jason, you ass, we are not talking ONLY infantry here.
Shawn Levasseur said... In the trenches for 30 days?Does modern warfare even use trench warfare? If so, does one really stay in them for long?In trenches, not so much. But have you ever watched the documentary <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1559549/>Restopo</a>? Those men endured some harsh and primitive conditions for months on end while under very frequent attack. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it.
Trying again.In trenches, not so much. But have you ever watched the documentary Restropo? Those men endured some harsh and primitive conditions for months on end while under very frequent attack. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it.
In war or peace, what's the one thing that tops interest in survival?Right. Seeing a person of the opposite sex.
Jason, you ass, we are not talking ONLY infantry here.Exactly. Infantry AND Armor, Artillery, and Air Cav. None of which was mentioned in that link.
Women in combat roles consists of MORE THAN JUST INFANTRY.
Women in combat is ALSO women going out on patrols in a war zone, they bleed and die, same as men.
Maybe the military could issue big corks to combat ladies and they could just plug up that gash while they're in the trenches.
"Women in combat is ALSO women going out on patrols in a war zone, they bleed and die, same as men."And yes, its a bad thing.
Women in combat is ALSO women going out on patrols in a war zone, they bleed and die, same as men.Except women bleed a bit more frequently than men.
Inga...serious question, not baiting. The left always said the our armed forces was racist as there were too many African-Americans in it. That serving our country is bad, so we need to have more well off white folk in the branches.Now the left says that serving in the armed forces is great, so we need more homosexuals and women in there.Which is it?
Chuck, here's what it is,You don't really know what the left is saying.
Now infantry combat is not like being on a ship or aircraft (unless the ship or aircraft is on fire or sinking...)But there differences between male and female. Sorry it's just fact.PMS?Periods?Cramps?Pregnancy?I mean these are facts.So what does one do about these when you have to stay for months in a real war where you don't have huts or bases or showers or well think of Guadalcanal or Bastogne or the Chosin reservoir. Or go back to WW1 and the Somme!Like I said before in another thread here, one day we are gonna fight someone who can FIGHT and fight hard. It won't be no Arab idiots who don't have a clue.Then what?
In retrospect I'm thinking having women in front line combat roles is a positive thing. The social change this engenders will be a positive for men. Just think, harrassment suits will go right out the window now. See below:"Hey, women now are in frontline combat roles and are subjected to the horrors of war and the possibility of capture, torture or violent death. So don't go crying to HR or the EEOC because I told you that you have nice tits. Man up and grow a pair."
Roger, I was going to mention everyone watch Restropo the other day on a different thread about the same subject. Good luck to women Infantry attached to The Herd.
When the "numbers" don't come out right, the standards will be lowered. Check out affirmative action admissions at the military academies.The U.S. women's soccer team, arguably the best in the world, scrimmages against 16 year old boys for practice and they lose big. The physical differences are that great.
Women bleed every month whether you shoot them or not.
I love the way liberals like Inga throw a bare link into a discussion like it proves something. Given how poorly they manage their arguments when they bother to try, perhaps it's not surprising.Aside from Jason's excellent point that the female in question was not infantry, there's this from Inga's article:The average male weighs 180 pounds. Now add on approximately 80 to 100 pounds of their gear and then 80 to 100 pounds of your own gear, and you have a near impossible task ahead of you.Luckily, biologically, our bodies find the motivation and strength to pull our buddies out of harm’s way.If I'm an 180 lb. soldier w/ 80-100 lbs. of gear and I have to be dragged out of peril, maybe I don't want to trust to "luckily" that some female corpsman will find the motivation and strength to pull me to safety. Maybe I'd rather go with the odds that another 180 lb male soldier who has qualified based on higher strength standards is more likely to save my life.
Jason: - Plainly and unequivocably states the considered professional insights of a combat infantry veteran with nearly 25 years of experience in uniform.Inga: "You ASS!"LOL!The libtard mind at work.
Now that the military is deciding which officers to keep based on their willingness to fire upon US citizens, I say that the only place women are being considered for combat units is in the US. Female casualties would draw sympathy away from the "rebels" and would make harsh retaliation easier to sell in the Media. The Feds didn't buy billions of rounds of ammunition for nothing.
Does anyone remember a YouTube video floating around years back from a unit in Iraq where a bunch of guys were duct taping a female soldier to a post and she's laughing her ass off the guys are laughing and there was public OUTRAGE and the Pentagon said such behavior is not acceptable and they would be looking into the actions of the men.Now we are putting the darlings on the front lines. You've come a long way baby.
Just imagine being stuck in a ditch with Inga for 30 days.
The U.S. women's soccer team, arguably the best in the world, scrimmages against 16 year old boys for practice and they lose big. The physical differences are that great.That's interesting because I flipped through a women's soccer game once and didn't realize they were women at first.
Don't say that!
Just imagine being stuck in a ditch with Inga for 30 days.Is that when surrendering becomes a viable option? ;-)
Inga said... FMF Corpsman Shannon Crowley out on patrol with MarinesInga, you prove my point. I look at your females and see a group of men planning to patrol for 2 hours max. no camel packs, no claymores, no grenades (maybe 1), no NVS, NO PACKS.The females? no armor, no water, no weapons, no helmets...just a stroll into the village and back for chow.
The U.S. women's soccer team, arguably the best in the world, scrimmages against 16 year old boys for practice and they lose big. The physical differences are that great.The world record for the mile run is 3.43.13 for men. Roger Bannister broke the 4 minute barrier over 50 years ago. No woman has broken that barrier yet. The woman's world record is 4.12.56. The American high school record is 3.55.3 set by Jim Ryun in 1963. Strength differences are similar. The world record in the shot put for men is 23.12 meters and for women is 22.63 meters. Doesn't seem like much of a difference until you consider that the men's shot put is 16 pounds and the women's is 8.8 pounds. The men's shot is nearly twice as heavy and the men still throw it further. (The U.S. high school record is greater than the women's world record in shot put also.) Physically in appearance and performance the differences in masculine and feminine are completely obvious to anyone who admits the truth.
No trenches?What do you think all these Platoon combat outposts are?Berms, bunkers, trenches and sand bags. The tech is 100 year newer, but any doughboy would be right at home behind a M-2somebody that says no trenches remember 1991, when we bulldozed Iraqis in their trenches as we crossed the LD?Cover is cover, trenches are a grunts friend...
Sorun said... Just imagine being stuck in a ditch with Inga for 30 days.One of us would get shot, and I'm guessing it would be Inky.
Inga said... Jason, you ass, we are not talking ONLY infantry here. You don't have one utter fucking clue was is being talked about here, you silly broad.Now go makes some sandwiches and bring along some cold beer!
FMF Corpsman Shannon Crowley out on patrol with MarinesActually, no. That isn't a picture of anyone 'out on patrol' much less that woman.Men and women are not the same, they are not equal in biology, they are not interchangeable units. In a combat situation, the men will likely be killed because the women are there, can't keep up are a distraction.The other alternative is that in combat situations, the women will be given the cushier, safer, less physically demanding roles, while the men are left to the grunt work, dangerous situations. Acting in the role of cannon fodder for the women. I see a lot of resentment between men and women happening. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't some of the women being grudge raped or mysteriously being injured (fragged).Look. I've been hunting and can (or used to when younger) keep up with the guys in most terrain conditions. I can (and have done so) shoot a deer. I can even field dress the deer (gag). What I CAN'T do is carry a 120 pound mule deer back to camp over rugged lava terrain. So.....When deer hunting, I had to do the 'buddy' system, which meant that my 'buddy' was disadvantaged an unable to solo hunt. Fortunately, my 'buddy' was also my husband and had a vested (sexual) interest in helping me.We were NOT in a combat situation, so it didn't matter. In combat.....it WILL matter.
Hey I watched Battlestar Galactica and they shared all the combat duties and had shared quarters and showers and restrooms, so I'm sure it will work out.
Drill, I also looked at Inga's link and saw the men dressed like they were going outside the wire. The two women were not "suited up", in fact, one seems to be holding a camera. The writer of the article might be making shit up.
Here you go, female Marines with their gear on, after a patrol
Heck, the Kentucky and Ohio boy's high school records for the 100 meter dash is faster than the women's world record.
Inga said...Jason, you ass, we are not talking ONLY infantry here.On the other hand, I could see Inga serving as a Virtual Annoyance Officer... her duties would include driving the enemy crazy.
The comparison to sports is dumb because sports are frivolous pastimes where split second decisions are of little consequence. Of course men's teams will be superior in strength, speed, endurance, etc. That tells us nothing.There are women who are extraordinarily fit and can pass muster. Even so, the more important consideration is unit fitness, i.e., cohesion, discipline, morale, respect for authority. Will introducing women into combat (which will always be dominated by men) enhance unit fitness, degrade unit fitness, or have no effect at all?Training can only do so much to overcome instinct. When bullets start flying, most people scatter and chaos ensues. If they stop to think, they die. So, to prevent these things, the military trains men to do certain things without thinking, to trust their training and their comrades. What happens to the effectiveness of that training when the overwhelming male instinct to protect a woman must also be overcome?
More females out on patrol
Lem, troglodytes are annoying.
No, Inga, they are not pictured "after a patrol."Staged photo op. Doesn't count. When you post some photos similar to Allen S. Actual patrols. Get back to us.
We're living in a bizarro world when we pretend that women can be as capable as men in combat zones.
Inga: Stop throwing bare links at us. What is your point and what is your reasoning?
"Female Marines unload their rifles after a patrol with Afghan soldiers in Helmand province in June. The Marine Corps leadership has started an experiment to determine whether female Marine lieutenants have what it takes to become infantry officers and lead on the battlefield."Alan do you know how to read?
Seriously Creely, you can't figure it out?
Inga. No rucks. FAIL.
creeley23 said... Inga: Stop throwing bare links at us. What is your point and what is your reasoning?She doesn't have a point.She's not capable of "reasoning"That's the entirety of her existence here.
See, the problem is that you cannot predict whether or not your Infantry will be always on the move or get bogged down in a defensive position, sometimes for months at a time. Thinking WW1 trenchlines and "we don't do that anymore" is to confuse the issues. We still will have the need to go into long defense at times, whether its to establish a perimeter after taking ground or to defend against a sudden attack.Ask the 82nd Airborne Division guys in WW2 that had the Nazis on the run, until they counter attacked near Bastogne, where the US Forces thought they'd beat back the Germans before winter set in. SO, they sent in the 82nd with no wonter gear and short on ammo. They then got stuck for 5 weeks, completely cut off, except for air. That they were not in WW1 style trenches does not change the very harsh environmental factors of military defensive and offensive operations. They will have built trenchline conduits to get from position to position, so it really would be the WW2 equivalent of living in trenches.We have been very lucky to have fought our last few wars using our 1990s-2010 technology against the 1950-1970s technology used by Armies of what are little more than 3rd world societies, trained and equipped by a broken down Communist Empire, whose scariness evaporated with each one shot tank kills of their vaunted top-line armor back in 1991. Do not make the mistake of always fighting the last wars. You have to expect anything, including getting your ass thumped and the possiblity that you may have to occupy nasty terrain for months and years.If they keep the standards truly equal I'm ok with women in combat if its enforced by equal standards. But what many fear will happen is that, rather than keep the standards high, they will relax them so that marginal women candidates "succeed" and can be paraded for manufactured positive PR of the "lookit us, we're so inclusive!" preening. The men will keep their mouths shut, because orders are orders. This is what happened with women going from the Auxiliaries to regular Enlisted and Commissionned ranks. Too many women failed out in the Army because of the PT test, so they made a 2 tiered set with lower requirements for women in order to graduate more and please the politicians. My gut says they will lower the standards to please the pols that control the flow of money.
I mentioned before that men have an instinctual reaction to protect women particularly in violent or dangerous situations. This is why you will routinely see a man stop to help a women with a flat but never stop to help another guy. It's just how we are wired. In my opinion, I think this now puts men in the position of risking mission objectives because of the impulse to protect the females in the unit. Hell I could be wrong cause I'm a bit old fashioned, holding doors open for ladies,.pulling out their chair, all that stupid stuff I guess. It just seems like we are on a path of feminizing men and 'masculinizing' women.
Jason, rucks or no rucks, they are equally out in the line of fire, why does this not matter to you?
Lem said... On the other hand, I could see Inga serving as a Virtual Annoyance Officer...Maybe our military will eventually evolve to include political officers whose duties can include ensuring soldiers don't think less of low performers - if they're women, gay, or minorities. If they're white male heteros they can apply carefully calibrated social pressure to improve performance.
Inga said... Women in combat roles consists of MORE THAN JUST INFANTRY.Inga, you are arguing past folks, either by intent or ignorance. In short, there are three definitions in play.1. In combat, e.g. somewhere in the war zone. Lawyers are in combat as they drive down a road in Iraq and by definition, since that get 'combat pay' they are in combat. Lots of 'women in combat' 10% of the force or so.2. in a combat unit. meaning assigned, or attached to a unit designated a "combat arms" unit. e.g. Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, Cavalry, SOF, and some add combat engineers. Note the word assigned versus attached. Men are assigned to the units, up till now, support elements (men and women) were 'attached' to for specific missions over limited periods. Navy Corpsmen are attached. Maintenance teams may be attached. Both now have women, doing the same MOS jobs that some men in the combat unit have. They reinforce, for a period. supporting attached elements tend to be in the rear of the unit. Today none assigned, some attached, soon to change At the simpliest level, what the Panetta rule does is allow women mechanics, who till now, could only be attached to an infantry unit, can now be assigned to a unit. indefinitely.3. , However, Panetta's rule also makes every 'combat arms' position in the combat unit , also open to women, unless and until, the Army requests and a waiver is approved. This is the area of huge contention. We macho experts (e.g. combat vets), can concede women mechs in a tank battalion, but frankly, doing the job is back-breaking and tank bn mechs must also double as tank crew. As a Tank unit commander, short staffed, I crewed more than one tank with a gunner who was a turret / fire control mech in his day job. We are certain, that nearly all women are not capable of doing the jobs required of an infantryman for a sustained period, and know that attempting to make that work will get more than the women killed...Civil Rights versus Force Effectivness
Carefully calibrated like this:Oh that's right, Private Pyle, don't make any fucking effort to get to the top of the fucking obstacle. If God would have wanted you up there he would have miracled your ass up there by now, wouldn't he?
Things will definitely have to change now. For instance, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles do not come standard with coin-operated maxipad dispensers. This will probably have to be a factory upgrade - I'm not sure depot level maintenance can handle installation. How will this compare to the $500 toilet seat? Discuss.IMHO, this is a great step forward - we now need to bring womyn's equality to the selective service, making registration a condition of federal student aid.Go gyrls!!!!
Maybe our military will eventually evolve to include political officers whose duties can include ensuring soldiers don't think less of low performers I thought the Army JAG Corps already does this?
Jason, rucks or no rucks, they are equally out in the line of fire, why does this not matter to you? Are you truly this stupid?If you are out in the line of fire and one of you is packing a hundred pounds on HIS back and the other person is not because SHE is not physically strong enough to keep up.....do you REALLY consider this equality?
Seriously Creely, you can't figure it out? Inga: I've been reading you for a while now. My impression -- what I have tentatively "figured out" -- is that you can't make a coherent argument for your position, so you substitute with emotional noise, counter-attacks, and bare links.If you can't make your point yourself, it's not up to me or anyone else to "figure it out."
"IMHO, this is a great step forward - we now need to bring equality to the selective service, making registration a condition of federal student aid."1/25/13, 11:44 AMYes.
To be fair, tho, our women were right there outside Karbala in 2003. We had bath by water bottle for about 30 days before the SeeBees built showers. At first everybody got one shower a week. We were an MP Company attached to the 3/7 Marine Infantry BN of the 1st MEF. I don't recall any ladyparts causing undue hardship or not being able to handle duties in camp or outside the wire.
Creely, you've said and done this before, you attack the messenger, how's the Impeachment plans going for ya?
An obvious first step to answer the question: In a very humid climate, what is the frequency of UTIs in women, and how does it differ from the frequency in colder, dryer climates?How about some actual data?
Thank you Sgt Ted!!!!!
rucks or no rucks, they are equally out in the line of fire, why does this not matter to you?Actually Inga, it does matter, to me. I dont want the women in the line of fire, I want them safe and secure. Like I said yesterday, I don't want to see men coming home in bags and I sure as hell don't want to see women. Like I said above, I'm somewhat old fashioned, I am protective of women. I do believe in woman and children first. But now it seems like its only children first and the women can go sink with the men in the spirit of equality. I'm not expecting to change your mind but I think you should also consider other reasons why some people think this is a bad idea.It's one thing to be caught in a combat situation, its another thing to up the ante and go looking for it.
Inga said... Creely, you've said and done this before, you attack the messengerNotice how you won't write a clear, coherent sentence on whether or not women should be in combat.Why do you think that is?
Creely, you've said and done this before, you attack the messenger, how's the Impeachment plans going for ya?Inga: I asked you to state your point and support it. That's standard in debate. Your response: emotional noise and counter-attack. As I said.If you have anything more to offer, now would be a good time.
The Drill SGT said... Inga, you are arguing past folks, either by intent or ignorance.Of course she's missing the point on purpose. If she doesn't she can't portray everyone's comments as a general attack on already women serving. And if we're not attacking women serving how can she set herself up as the heroic martyr defending those serving our country against sexist neanderthals?
The Marine Corps leadership has started an experiment to determine whether female Marine lieutenants have what it takes..I a problem related to fair working conditions.In a boat you have the acoustical advantages of the hum of the engines and the gentle rhythms of the waves.What does a soldier and a soldierette have in a ditch?
What happens to the effectiveness of that training when the overwhelming male instinct to protect a woman must also be overcome?When the mortars were falling I wasn't thinking about protecting the girls. I was thinking through getting to cover and getting ready for attack/counterattack. The girls were doing that too, because thats what they are trained to do. They were combat MPs, with a little salt in their hat by that point. When you are thinking about how your buttons are getting in the way of being lower to the ground, the last thing on your mind is chivalry.That argument, that "big strong man will push little lady behind him in time of danger and disregard his mission and training" is so Hollywood it is laughable. It is not supported by my experience.
Thank GOD a real live Marine is telling the truth of the matter here.
SGT Ted said... What happens to the effectiveness of that training when the overwhelming male instinct to protect a woman must also be overcome? When the mortars were falling I wasn't thinking about protecting the girls. I was thinking through getting to cover and getting ready for attack/counterattack. The girls were doing that too, because thats what they are trained to do. They were combat MPs, with a little salt in their hat by that point. When you are thinking about how your buttons are getting in the way of being lower to the ground, the last thing on your mind is chivalry. That argument, that "big strong man will push little lady behind him in time of danger and disregard his mission and training" is so Hollywood it is laughable. It is not supported by my experience.I didn't say anything about "mortars falling" specifically. I also didn't ask about you specifically. Perhaps you lack certain instincts of a normal man, or somehow managed to suppress them.The protective instinct is but one consideration that seems to compromise effectiveness. Another is the distracting "drama" that typically ensues when the sexes are integrated in a workplace. Not just romance, but also women hating other women, especially when they're around other men. In my experience, since you and I are both being anecdotal, is that women have trouble working with other women, and no amount of training or leadership can overcome that.
There will be a new movie "Janey got her gun".
Home OpinionWomen fight for respect in the military, earn leadership skillsStoryCommentsPrintCreate a hardcopy of this page"Life in the Navy was an experience that changed my life. When I look back on my career as a Navy Corpsman, I can recall countless friendships and opportunities to refine leadership skills. Navy Corpsman are the United States Navy’s medical personnel, who are in charge of ensuring every service member is healthy and medically fit for combat deployment.A corpsman may serve as either a Navy Corpsman stationed with Navy commands, or Fleet Marine Force (FMF) Corpsman attached to Marine units. A Corpsman can be found in a military clinic, battle-ready ship or alongside our brave Marines in the field.Fortunately, I was stationed with the Marine Corps Air Wing as an FMF Corpsman and had the opportunity to fight for my country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.As an FMF Corpsman, I was first trained in basic medical care and then sent to a specialty school which trained me in Tactical Combat Casualty Care, emergency medical skills and basic Marine Corps training.The Navy was just like a regular job. It had a hierarchical rank system, rules, institutional values, work uniform and the opportunity to progress up the ranks. I couldn’t complain. I was given housing and food allowances, free medical and dental, and a base pay, which afforded me a comfortable living.Being a female corpsman in a Marine unit wasn’t easy though. Trying to make a stand and earn respect as a woman in a male-dominated institution proved to be a difficult task. The usual gender distribution in the average workspace is approximately one woman to every 50 men. In mine, I was the only woman in a platoon of 45 Marines.As a corpsman, I had to be ready to respond to anything, and I couldn’t afford to lean on my gender as a crutch.If I wanted to be in this line of work, I had to toughen up and be prepared. A female combat corpsman would have to be able to haul an injured Marine in full gear out of a dangerous situation. To complete those tasks, I had to ensure that my physical conditioning was high and intense.The average male weighs 180 pounds. Now add on approximately 80 to 100 pounds of their gear and then 80 to 100 pounds of your own gear, and you have a near impossible task ahead of you.Luckily, biologically, our bodies find the motivation and strength to pull our buddies out of harm’s way. I was fortunate enough, though, when I was deployed to Iraq with Marine Wing Support Squadron 273’s Incident Response Platoon not to have to respond to any combat casualties.I loved every minute of being a Fleet Marine Force Corpsman! Now that I am out of the military and attending the University, all the skills and experiences I have acquired have helped me greatly in many ways.Elizabeth Ambros is a sophomore in AHS."
It's a sign of a sick country that we prefer to use the military as a social experiment instead of a honed killing machine that it's supposed to be.
Of course if they're butch lesbian types that changes everything.
Inga said... Thank GOD a real live Marine is telling the truth of the matter here. SGT Ted is talking about an MP unit in combat, not Infantry in combat. As i noted the other day, MPs are a combat support element, that typically engage the enemy for short periods, either mounted or within feet of their vehicles. Then they return to base for the night. That is not the same as wearing a 100 pound ruck, headed dismounted to the top of a mountain and stay there for 30 days.That is not to say that SGT Ted isn't a warrior, but in that job, he's not an infantryman...YMMV
Military Families...For too long they have been splintered and sidelined to the corners and shadows of our Military.Its high time...wait... that line is for the weed speech.
Drill SGT,Women may be exempted from the Infantry, after all is said and done, all the yelling about women in the Infantry may be for nothing. As I said all along here and in the other threads, women in combat consists of MORE than women in Infantry!
THAT is my fucking point, Creely.
Give it up, O She-Wolf of the SS.PS I remember when Renee Richards wanted to play pro tennis and my sister, good little feminist that she was, went wild saying how unfair it was because he/she still had the musculo-skeletal structure of a man.
Actually I cant believe I didn’t think of this solution sooner... I cant say it was staring me in the face but its so so simple... bulletproof.Free condoms.Unless the point of the exercise is to secure the recruits of tomorrow.In which case I withdraw my modest proposal.
My point is that "overriding instinct" is nowhere to be found in in my experience and in many others experience. So, its not a very valid argument to me.Your experience with the women not getting along has merit; I've seen the same dynamic in play.
Watch out Creely you've gotten her to the f---ing point.
Women may be exempted from the Infantry, after all is said and done,For every woman who is exempted from the military and put into a less strenuous and less DANGEROUS role, that means one MORE man who is going to be channeled into the 'cannon fodder' front line position and one less MAN who might have been able to fill the position that the women are taking.This results in a two tiered military. One: men in the grunt work, dangerous positions. The other: women in the less dangerous, less strenuous positions. All in the name of the false God of diversity. Just so feminists can feel like they are equal.....when they are not and can never be in these types of situations.It would be the same things as having a two tiered military where Blacks are put on the front lines and the White guys get the support roles. It might be diverse in the total make up of Blacks to Whites. Is this FAIR? Is this going to create an efficient military. Can anyone see some problems with this scenario?
That argument, that "big strong man will push little lady behind him in time of danger and disregard his mission and training" is so Hollywood it is laughable. It is not supported by my experience.Point taken. Like I said, I'm a bit old fashioned. Maybe I should disregard that anachronism known as chivlary and start treating women with the type of deference they evidently want.
I mean exempted from the INFANTRY....not the military.Doh!
My point is that "overriding instinct" is nowhere to be found in in my experience and in many others experience.Heh.I was in Uncle Sugar's Army - when my tank battalion deployed with female combat medics we had a saying: "When the ambulance is a-rockin', don't come a-knockin"But, this was the Army, and we all know Marines are pure as the wind-driven tampon. And I'm sure sex when you have prickly heat isn't very comfortable. Even for a Marine.Heh.
Sgt Ted, you're.right about the ""protective instinct." It's a silly argument.But "girls?" C'mon--"girls?" I suspect the females you were around had been grown women for some time.
Am I the only one who thinks its ironic that the left who were demanding all the troops be brought home are now frothing at the mouth to get women on the front lines of combat?This sudden militarism from the folks that brought us Code Pink and ANSWER is intriguing.
DBQ, your comment makes absolutely no sense. Women are exempted from the Infantry NOW. That's the way these guys want to keep it. And if the females can not hack the physicality of the Infantry, they don't belong in it.As Ive said and commenters here keep ignoring, is that combat roles for women consist of MORE than the INFANTRY.
"infections??" LOL.Ever hear of trench foot? Crotch rot?Let's hear some love for the guys.
I was fortunate enough, though, when I was deployed to Iraq with Marine Wing Support Squadron 273’s Incident Response Platoon not to have to respond to any combat casualties..So she admits she never had to find out if she could fulfill her duty?
And Drill Sergeant is correct. Combat MPs are not infantry. While we do some infantry missions, we are not infantry and we don't have the same load-out or manning. The closest we come to operating like infantry is MOUT. Thats Military Operations, Urban Terrain.We are more like Dragoons, using mounts to get to contact then dismounting to fight, but we also fight mounted if need be. And that is usually in response to threats in the rear area. Even our MOUT mission presumes that the main front has bypassed a town or city that is not important enough for the infantry to take, but can be reduced using MPs.
And FMF Corpsmen are not infantry either, they still get shot at as do combat MPs.
Gentlemen, as I said earlier upthread, perhaps we should embrace this change since after all, some good natured guy banter and ass grabbing should not be a big deal anymore now that the ladies are one of the guys. ;-)I'm kidding of course. Naturally after a tour of combat, I'm sure the ladies will still want you to hold the door held open and pick up the tab.
I called my guys, both male and female "the boys" so it is meant in that spirit; one of the boys. Quit taking offense at the female version of 'boys". Men don't care about the word "boys" when they are comrades. The girls should get with it.And I'm not knocking chivalry in the civilian world. What I am saying is that it doesn't get in the way of the mission, not as described as an "overriding instinct". In my mind, inattention to hygiene reducing combat effectiveness is the greater issue.
DBQ, your comment makes absolutely no sense. Women are exempted from the Infantry NOW. My comment makes perfect sense to those who understand math, statistical distribution as well as have some logical thinking. If you increase the number of XX (women) in the universe (in the mathematical sense set theory and the foundations of mathematics, a universe is a class that contains (as elements) all the entities one wishes to consider in a given situation.) to the proportion of XY. AND you assume that there is a corresponding sub universe of jobs or occupations. AND you assume/declare that the XX portion of the universe is going to be prohibited from occupying a portion of those jobs---->INFANTRY. Then you have to conclude that the XY portion of the universe is going to be over represented in the prohibited job class.I've tried to explain it in several ways. I'm quite sure that this is all going to go wooooosh....over your head.
Why not read the opinion of a female Marine officer with combat experience?
And FMF Corpsmen are not infantry either, they still get shot at as do combat MPs.Getting shot at doesn't require ongoing physical strength and stamina. It just involves being where someone is pointing a gun and firing.
And I was career Army, just wound up attached to the Marines for a time in Iraq. The Marines don't have a combat role for their MPs.
Men don't care about the word "boys" when they are comradesnor- old man- son- popsThough SGM Plumley apparently didn't like 'Grandpa'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WArAyjr8dRA
Another account of a female Marine officer in combat
Palladian, you ignorant slut. I personally think women in combat is asinine, but there are hormones women can take to stop all periods indefinitely. Perhaps you should direct your concern at soldiers keeping their out-in-the-field-dirty pee-pees out of warm, moist places?
Scott, why are you so stuck on physical strength for women in combat roles, that are NOT infantry? When you are being shot at, you are in combat.
As I said all along here and in the other threads, women in combat consists of MORE than women in Infantry!Inga: If that's your "fucking point," it isn't much of one. It is at best a technicality in a general discussion of women in combat for the long haul, as the infantry are, not in short bursts.However, thanks for clarifying. No, I don't see how I could have figured that out from the bare links you were throwing into the comment box.
Palladian thinks women's pee pees are icky.
Post a Comment