Responses to Sorry, we don't agree: "Fighting is for Men"

[Mike Bobbitt]

Please post all replies to the Sorry, we don't agree: "Fighting is for Men" Editorial here.

 

[BKells]

Well said! Are you submitting that to the National Post?

 

[ZipperHead]

Well written, and logical. So, it will be relegated to page 18, somewhere after Britney Spears' (the REAL one....) latest escapade, and somewhere before a laxative advert. It needs more controversy, more drama, more innuendo for the average person to sit up and take notice. Maybe a picture of Britney in CADPAT to help sell it.....

Maybe somebody in a position of power will take notice. It should made into an election issue (hopefully Jack Layton and/or Stephen Harper lurk here......)

Al

 

[ZipperHead]

Wasn't it Mel Brooks who had the 2000 year old man shtick?? Maybe he can help..... Man, "History of the World, Pt I" was classic. If a movie ever demanded a sequel, that was it. "The peasants are revolting!!!" "I love my people. PULL!!!!!"

Al

 

[3rd Horseman]

ahhhh.....how come no one has pushed the issue of "Time to Trigger"? Back to that old adage cant change 50,000 years of evolution.

 

[long haired civvy]

A very simple solution would be to "re-establish" the rigorous physical fitness standards that "used" to exist. Standards that had been set not by arbitrary means, but from actual operational experience. If that were to be done, in an honest, non discriminatory way, most women would not meet the standard. A lot of serving soldiers would not meet the standard. So be it. All male Battle School platoons in the past used to have brutally high failure rates because the training was hard, and that was the point, to weed out those who could not hack it, physically or mentally. The CF(combat arms) should not be a showcase for gender equality. What it should be is an institution that welcomes anyone who can meet the standard.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

ahhhh.....how come no one has pushed the issue of "Time to Trigger"? Back to that old adage cant change 50,000 years of evolution.

Hmmm....evolution & man

http://www.alldumb.com/item/17494/

 

[Hollywog]

Send a battalion of just women overseas by themselves to Darfur or whereever.

I mean if they are just as good and not riding coattails it would let them prove themselves beyond a doubt.

When I was in the forces they were starting the grand experiment and one came up to me sarge I broke my nail.  I bet there was a good look of shock on my face.

It was such a scam they would always be alongside men.  So I've seen women let guys carry backpacks, then guys get to dig trenches.

Never saw a woman carry a guys backpack, etc.

And one time we snuck up an entrenched hill on exercise because the male and female sentries were having sex.

Besides most women don't want this if they did we could send brigades of them overseas. How many women as part of the grand experiment are actually in the infantry. Thats a lot of miles of liberal propaganda without ever caring about whether they can fight. If they were worth the effort the physical standards would not have been dropped.  Course how many would be left 1? 5? Who knows.


I mean if they cry in peace time when emotionally distraught what would your mom be like in war?  If I was 5 I think I could have disarmed mine if she had a bayonet. 

The real question is could our politically correct canadian army with the low physical standards today have taken Passchendale.

Honestly I don't think we are as good as our forfathers.  The Israelis dropped this when it was proven to fail in battle.  And if anyone wants a big combat arms it's them.

 

[Infanteer]

Honestly I don't think we are as good as our forfathers.   The Israelis dropped this when it was proven to fail in battle.   And if anyone wants a big combat arms it's them.

Remember, the Israeli's dropped them from their conscript army.  Self-selection, when combined with high standards, should be an important factor.

 

[Hollywog]

Remember, the Israeli's dropped them from their conscript army.   Self-selection, when combined with high standards, should be an important factor.

I agree, they tried it in battle and found it to be a disaster.  The only way the canadian army should use it is if they are never ever looking at going into battle. If they do it will cost more lives than the ross rifle.  You also have to look at working together as a team which was one of the areas where the Israelis had real problems.

If people want Female assault troops send a Bn of just women to Afghanistan to see how they do.  And that's hardly a hot environment like any WWI or WWII battlefield.

I can't think of one battle that females won ever in any army, hmmm.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The real question is could our politically correct canadian army with the low physical standards today have taken Passchendale.

That Canadian Army had been indoctrinated by three yars of war.  We have a peacetime army now.  If there was sufficient cause to get guys away from the parking lot at 7-11 or the sports bars, we would do it.  This is nothing new in Canadian history.  Unfortunately, just as in 1914 or 1939, any combat field force would have a steep learning curve.  We saw that at Second Ypres when 6000 men of the First Division were wiped out.  We saw it in Normandy when the 2nd and 3rd Divisions were getting their feet.  Or 4th Armoured, when on the first day of battle they lost an entire tank regiment that went up the wrong hill.  The 5th Division broke and ran in their first major attack in the Arielli Valley in early 1944.  Only the 1st Division seemed to have done well from the getgo.

The Canadian Army in September 1939 could not have taken Passchendaele, nor could the Canadian Army on 1914 or even 1915.  It's not a fair or intelligent comparison.

Mobilize us for war and - in the words of several WW II veterans I've talked to, after I told them "my generation couldn't do what you guys did" - "you never know what you can do until you try."

Of course we could take Passchendaele.  We would need a year of hard war service to limber us up and teach us the right lessons, first.

Sure, we could keep a standing army of 1 million men in Canada.  And watch our highways disintegrate, our health care system bottom out, our death rate climb.

Do you want guns, or butter?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I can't think of one battle that females won ever in any army, hmmm.

Misogynists like you never gave them a chance...

You're actively promoting segregation?   Why?  

Segregated units have historically been successful.   Negro troops in the American Civil War, World War I and World War II performed - for the most part - very well (one black division in Italy was poorly led and performed terribly apparently).   The Nisei performed very well in WW II also.

I suspect with heightened expectations, an all female battalion would acquit themselves excellently.

Someone point this dude to the earlier comments on women in Afghanistan, it was a thing of beauty.

 

[George Wallace]

Did the Russians, during WW II, not use Women as Combatants in formed units.  We have the Legends/History of the Amazon warriors.  Women have been documented throughout history as being Warriors.  Look at the French Revolution, or earlier with Joan d'Arc.  There are thousands of examples.

 

[Hollywog]

The Canadian Army in September 1939 could not have taken Passchendaele, nor could the Canadian Army on 1914 or even 1915.  It's not a fair or intelligent comparison.

The point is to get the soldiers to the point where they were in 1917 we would have to first eliminate females from the infantry.  Like we did the ross rifle. I could just see my mom or any of the females I've known in uniform in the mud carrying the duckboards.


If its such a good idea why did the Israelies remove them?

Awaiting your more intelligent answer than mine to point out how we overcame all the issues they had.  I must have missed that part.

As I see it we haven't and some will take nothing short of the ross failing at Second Ypres which as you point out there were about 6k casualties to wake up.

Remember a lot of those troops need not have died if the useless weapon they had worked do we need to have the same thing with women in combat to stir you?

 

[Hollywog]

Did the Russians, during WW II, not use Women as Combatants in formed units.   We have the Legends/History of the Amazon warriors.   Women have been documented throughout history as being Warriors.   Look at the French Revolution, or earlier with Joan d'Arc.   There are thousands of examples.

Yes the russians did use them in low quality units when in dire straits but, they didn't have a lot of female infantry during the cold war did they.  They knew better.

As for the Amazons aren't they part of mythology?  Like Zeus? Romulus being suckled by wolves?  ;D

And did joan of arc ever have to use a bayonet?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

In the words of one who was there (PM to infanteer inbound)

As a company commander ... during Op APOLLO, I had a female infantryman under my command. We did the Army PT test and I had to tell her to stop at 350 sit-ups because it was becoming pointless. She had proved the point, and then some. We had another female infantry soldier who was equally hard. Neither of these PPCLI soldiiers who had met all of the "hurdles" ever let me or their fire-team partners down. They did the job, full-stop.

When we air-assaulted into the Shah-i-Kot Valley, both of those infantrymen were there. The ultra-fit soldier who had done the sit-ups twisted a knee disembtarking from the helo and had to be evacced. It was a legit injury. The other soldier did the business just like anyone else. She was later involved in a mine-strike during a routine KAF patrol that wrote-off the armoured Hummer her patrol was riding in. She got bruised and battered, but soldiered on. I give full credit to her and the soldiers that she served with in B Coy 3 PPCLI. Full-stop.

Those here who demean or otherwise question the role of female soldiers on combat operations are fundamentally wrong. I have served on combat ops with female infantrymen, and I am here to tell you that they can do "the business" just like any man can. The truth of the matter is that that most "men" don't have the parts to soldier at the sharp end. Just as most women don't have that particular inclination. But those that do have the gumption to get on a helo when they're told that that there are determined enemy awaiting them at the far end? They are genderless. A soldier, is a soldier. And I had the distinct honour of serving with genuine soldiers regardless of gender.....

When certain ladies step up to the plate, they are good to go. When we were staging for Op Torii into Tora Bora, as the acting 3 PPCLI CO I had a male Cpl from A Coy (Para) refuse to muster. He would not Air-Assault a second time, and I therefore had to send him back to Kandahar and then home. He had failed to rise to the occasion. So much for gender superiority....

The female infantry soldiers that I had the benefit of serving with in 3 PPCLI were an admitted minority. Having said that, those that did make the grade and join the unit were exceptional soldiers. They met the standard, and were good to go. Full-stop. They went on to soldier on combat operations, and did the Regiment proud. What more could one ask?

I would soldier alongside those female Patricias any day of the week. They got on the helo's when the forecast called for "pain". They got off at the other end, prepared to do the business. Most did the same, but there were some "men"who flinched to the point of refusal. Neither of the female Patricias flinched when it came time for mulitiple combat air assaults.....

The "hard men" here can spout all they like. At the end of the day, you've either faced deliberate combat operations, or you haven't. You've either encountered an unexpected life or death situation while "peace-keeping", or you haven't. If you haven't, then you have no right to comment upon the ability of female infantry soldiers to do the buisness. Am I hearing a thundering silence from the peanut gallery? I thought so.....

My thoughts on the matter of "gender equality".... for what it's worth.

 

[midgetcop]

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The point is to get the soldiers to the point where they were in 1917 we would have to first eliminate females from the infantry.   Like we did the ross rifle. I could just see my mom or any of the females I've known in uniform in the mud carrying the duckboards.

I couldn't see myself carrying a rifle either til I did the training.  Same with females.

If its such a good idea why did the Israelies remove them?

How would I know? You brought it up.  I could think of a few reasons that have nothing to do with their suitability for combat.

Awaiting your more intelligent answer than mine to point out how we overcame all the issues they had.   I must have missed that part.

What issues do you refer to?  I don't think creating an army that did well at Passchendaele had anything to do with prohibiting women from participating.

As I see it we haven't and some will take nothing short of the ross failing at Second Ypres which as you point out there were about 6k casualties to wake up.

It didn't - the war winner was artillery not rifles.  The Ross is a red herring.  Riflemen didn't kill each other; machineguns and artillery did the work.  Wirecutting fuzes won the war, not Lee Enfields.  Hand grenades and the Lewis Gun did the job at the platoon level.  Most riflemen could have gone into action with broomsticks for all the difference it made.  Marksmanship was poor - in WW I and WW II. Read Strome Galloway.  The same was true in WW II - Galloway said most riflemen could have fought onto the objective armed with pitchforks. Rifles were security blankets, little more.

Remember a lot of those troops need not have died if the useless weapon they had worked do we need to have the same thing with women in combat to stir you?

Your Ross analogy is useless.  It wasn't that important.  Your women example is moreso.

We need good women, not just any women.  Most women can't be bothered to join - attitudes like yours are one reason. Those that do, can obviously do the job.  We just need more of them, that's all.  Don't need to segregate.  Just find them, nurture them, get them working.  I doubt we'll find them. Women ARE smaller on average.

On average they're also much smarter and can't be bothered to live the life of a rifleman.  Kudos to them.  If men felt that way we'd have no more wars.





[/quote]

 

[Hollywog]

Misogynists like you never gave them a chance...

You're actively promoting segregation?   Why?  

Segregated units have historically been successful.   Negro troops in the American Civil War, World War I and World War II performed - for the most part - very well (one black division in Italy was poorly led and performed terribly apparently).   The Nisei performed very well in WW II also.

I suspect with heightened expectations, an all female battalion would acquit themselves excellently.

Someone point this dude to the earlier comments on women in Afghanistan, it was a thing of beauty.

Oh yeah lets resort to name calling sorry I'm just using reason to show why a bad policy is doomed to fail.

And As for some officer making comments on women in afghanistan do you think it will help him get whisked into a generals job in the PC Canadian Armed Forces?

I promote segregation because I have seen men have to cover for them whether it's digging slit trenches, carrying backpacks,

I want segregation to prove 2 points, I contend they can't do the job, nor do they want to.

1 There are not enough after years of demasculating the military to make even 1 bn.  So women don't even want to join up,

2 if there was throw them to the wolves and let them prove themselves.  Men have fought thousands of terrible battles and misogny has nothing to do with it.


I'm willing to give them a chance to prove themselves with their own blood misogny has nothing to do with it.  I'm saying give them a chance instead of letting them hide behind some guys coattails.

Hardly misogny.

It would be called an experiment.  Why does finding out the truth scare you?

 

[Infanteer]

And As for some officer making comments on women in afghanistan do you think it will help him get whisked into a generals job in the PC Canadian Armed Forces?

:rofl:

If you only knew....