• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hollywog said:
Hardly misogny.

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

Segregation of blacks is racism.  Segregation of women is misogyny.

There's no need for me to discuss it further; if you feel this strongly about it, write your MP.  But it won't change the fact women are out there, right now, training and going on operations as infantrymen.  

Setting them up for failure...well, they did that with blacks in the Civil War.   Once they finally twigged to the idea of outfitting and paying them like white troops, they did the job.  The ones that met the standards, that is.

Gunnar's points below are excellent and well stated.
 
Just analyze the argument for a bit, and see if it makes sense...

Infantry standards should be higher
It is mostly men who can meet these higher standards
Therefore, it is mostly men who should be in the infantry


OR

Infantry standards should be higher
Only men can meet these higher standards
Therefore, only men should be in the infantry

The problem with argument #2 is that there are a few women who CAN meet the higher standards...and that makes them qualified soldiers, full stop.

Argument 2 is also supported by an implicit belief that men are somehow superior to women in physical activity...that isn't true in the least.  There is a gender-based preponderance towards superior behaviour in physical activity... but that doesn't make the fat slob in the XXXXXL Cadpats somehow superior to GI Jane.

And if you're willing to admit that you're just plain biased, what are you worried about?  Under higher standards, you'd rarely, if ever meet a woman infanteer...and if they save your life, you'd rapidly stop caring about that too...

As with firemen, I prefer that the person doing the job can do the job.  If the fireman holding up the roof with one hand and throwing me to safety out the window with the other happens to be female, I don't give a d*mn...just that they can hold the roof up with one hand and save my life.
 
Nice logic-izing; you're good at that.  :)

An interesting case can be made for segregated basic training - the Marine Corps uses it.  Since females often start off at a different level, it allows women to train together and to be hardened both physically and mentally (and to look up to) by all female Staff.  As well, since the institution of Basic Training is about forming an outlook and "tearing down a civvie and building a Marine", it allows female recruits to better socialize to the norms of the Marine Corps without all the BS that accompanies putting men and women together in an especially charged environment like Basic.  Once, and only when, the recruits have been fully transformed into Marines (and met the same standard) are the merged together in the Corps.

One has to wonder if Canada even has the critical mass to consider something like this.  It would be interesting to see an all-female Basic run and to compare the success rates within it to an mixed course.
 
Infanteer said:
Nice logic-izing; you're good at that.   :)

An interesting case can be made for segregated basic training - the Marine Corps uses it.   Since females often start off at a different level, it allows women to train together and to be hardened both physically and mentally (and to look up to) by all female Staff.   As well, since the institution of Basic Training is about forming an outlook and "tearing down a civvie and building a Marine", it allows female recruits to better socialize to the norms of the Marine Corps without all the BS that accompanies putting men and women together in an especially charged environment like Basic.   Once, and only when, the recruits have been fully transformed into Marines (and met the same standard) are the merged together in the Corps.

One has to wonder if Canada even has the critical mass to consider something like this.   It would be interesting to see an all-female Basic run and to compare the success rates within it to an mixed course.

Or even segregated trades training; would make it easier for everyone to concentrate.  There is logic in that.  I don't see a need to employ them seperately though.  We did that until the 1960s and the demise of the CWAC.  Would be a step backwards now - a major step backwards.
 
Michael Dorosh said:
Would be a step backwards now - a major step backwards.

I think if you billed it the right way, it could be seen as a step forward.  Forget "seperating women because they slow men down"; that's a step backwards; how about "giving women their own environment to succeed at the unique challenges that Basic Training provides (or at least should provide)."  It would be interesting to see the difference of how a female course, run by female staff, would do.

Of course, the CF doesn't take Basic Training seriously enough anyways, so I don't think the impact of socialization is very huge anyways.
 
Hollywog said:
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?

Hollywog,

This is my last post to you as you're obviously set in your ways.   Nobody has advocated 50% quotas or filling up the ranks with (insert group here) except you.   All the article stresses is that standards have to be high and uniform - power to those who can make the cut.   Physiological factors and self-selection are going to make it a fact that women will always be a very small minority, but to those who step up to the plate, their help is welcome.

Other than that, come back after you've been awarded the Silver Star; most people in these parts don't agree with you or Ms Kay.

For the Record: MPs Outgunned but Win
Editor's Note: This is an After Action Report on the combat incident on March 20, 2005 near Salman Pak, Iraq, between a squad of ten soldiers from the 617th Military Police Co. (Kentucky Army National Guard) assigned to the 18th MP Brigade, and a group of between 40-50 armed Iraqi fighters. The report was written by the brigade intelligence officer. Names of the troops involve have been deleted, and the text has been slightly edited for clarity.
AFTER ACTION REPORT: Raven 42 Action in Salman Pak

Over the next few days you will see on the television news shows, and in the print news media the story of a Military Police squad who are heroes. Through those outlets, I doubt that their story will get out in a truly descriptive manner. I can't express to you the pride, awe, and respect I feel for the soldiers of call sign Raven 42.

On Sunday afternoon, in a very bad section of scrub-land called Salman Pak, on the southeastern outskirts of Baghdad, 40 to 50 heavily-armed Iraqi insurgents attacked a convoy of 30 civilian tractor-trailer trucks that were moving supplies for the coalition forces, along an Alternate Supply Route [ASR]. These tractor-trailers, driven by third country nationals (primarily Turkish), were escorted by three armored Hummers from the COSCOM [Corps Support Command]. When the insurgents attacked, one of the Hummers was in their kill zone and the three soldiers aboard were immediately wounded, and the platform taken under heavy machine gun and RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] fire.

Along with them, three of the truck drivers were killed, six were wounded in the tractor-trailer trucks. The enemy attacked from a farmer's barren field next to the road, with a treeline perpendicular to the ASR, two dry irrigation ditches forming a rough L-shaped trenchline, and a house standing off the dirt road. After three minutes of sustained fire, a squad of enemy moved forward toward the disabled and suppressed trucks. Each of the enemy had handcuffs and were looking to take hostages for ransom or worse, to take those three wounded U.S. soldiers for more internet beheadings.

About this time, three armored Hummers that formed the MP Squad under callsign Raven 42, 617th MP Co., Kentucky National Guard, assigned to the 503rd MP Battalion (Fort Bragg), 18th MP Brigade, arrived on the scene like the cavalry. The squad had been shadowing the convoy from a distance behind the last vehicle, and when the convoy trucks stopped and became backed up from the initial attack, the squad sped up, paralleled the convoy up the shoulder of the road, and moved to the sound of gunfire.

They arrived on the scene just as a squad of about ten enemy had moved forward across the farmer's field and were about 20 meters from the road. The MP squad opened fire with .50 cal machine guns and Mark 19 grenade launchers and drove across the front of the enemy's kill zone, between the enemy and the trucks, drawing fire off of the tractor-trailers. The MPs crossed the kill zone and then turned up an access road at a right angle to the ASR and next to the field full of enemy fighters. The three vehicles, carrying nine MPs and one medic, stopped in a line on the dirt access road and flanked the enemy positions with plunging fire from the .50 cal and the [m-249] SAW machine gun (Squad Automatic Weapon). In front of them, was a line of seven sedans, with all their doors and trunk lids open, the getaway cars and the lone two-story house off on their left.

Immediately, the middle vehicle was hit by an RPG knocking the gunner unconscious from his turret and down into the vehicle. The Vehicle Commander ... , the squad's leader, thought the gunner was dead, but tried to treat him from inside the vehicle. Simultaneously, the rear vehicle's driver and TC, section leader two, open their doors and dismount to fight, while their gunner continued firing from his position in the gun platform on top of the Hummer.

Immediately, all three fall under heavy return machine gun fire, wounded. The driver of the middle vehicle saw them fall out the rearview mirror, dismounts and sprints to get into the third vehicle and take up the SAW on top the vehicle. The squad's medic dismounts from that third vehicle, and joined by the first vehicle's driver (CLS trained [combat lifesaving] who sprinted back to join him, begins combat life-saving techniques to treat the three wounded MPs.

The gunner on the floor of the second vehicle is revived by his TC, the squad leader, and he climbs back into the .50 cal and opens fire. The squad leader dismounted with his M4 carbine, and two hand grenades, grabbed the section leader out of the first vehicle who had rendered radio reports of their first contact. The two of them, squad leader staff sergeant and team leader sergeant with her M-4 and M-203 grenade launcher, rush the nearest ditch about 20 meters away to start clearing the natural trenchline. The enemy has gone into the ditches and is hiding behind several small trees in the back of the lot. The .50 cal and SAW flanking fire tears apart the ten enemy in the lead trenchline.

Meanwhile, the two treating the three wounded on the ground at the rear vehicle come under sniper fire from the farmer's house. Each of them, remember one is a medic, pull out AT-4 rocket launchers from the HMMWV and nearly-simultaneously fire the rockets into the house to neutralize the shooter. The two sergeants work their way up the trenchline, throwing grenades, firing grenades from the launcher, and firing their M-4s.

The sergeant runs low on ammo and runs back to a vehicle to reload. She moves to her squad leader's vehicle, and because this squad is led so well, she knows exactly where to reach her arm blindly into a different vehicle to find ammo-because each vehicle is packed exactly the same, with discipline.

As she turns to move back to the trenchline, Gunner in two sees an [Iraqi fighter] jump from behind one of the cars and start firing on the sergeant. He pulls his 9-mm, because the .50 cal is pointed in the other direction, and shoots five rounds, wounding him. The sergeant moves back to the trenchline under fire from the back of the field, with fresh mags, two more grenades, and three more M-203 rounds. The Mark 19 gunner suppresses the rear of the field.

Now, rejoined with the squad leader, the two sergeants continue clearing the enemy from the trenchline, until they see no more movement. A lone man with an RPG launcher on his shoulder steps from behind a tree and prepares to fire on the three Hummers and is killed with a single aimed SAW shot through the head by the previously knocked-out gunner on platform two, who now has a SAW out to supplement the .50 cal in the mount. The team leader sergeant â “ she claims four killed by aimed M-4 shots. The squad leader â “ he threw four grenades taking out at least two [Iraqis] and attributes one other to her aimed M-203 fire.

The gunner on platform two, previously knocked out from a hit by the RPG, has now swung his .50 cal around and, realizing that the line of vehicles represents a hazard and possible getaway for the bad guys, starts shooting the .50 cal into the engine blocks until his field of fire is limited. He realizes that his vehicle is still running despite the RPG hit, and drops down from his weapon, into the driver's seat and moves the vehicle forward on two flat tires about 100 meters into a better firing position. Just then, the vehicle dies, oil spraying everywhere.

He remounts his .50 cal and continues shooting the remaining of the seven cars lined up and ready for a get-away that wasn't to happen. The fire dies down about then, and a second squad arrives on the scene, dismounts and helps the two giving first aid to the wounded at platform three. Two minutes later three other squads from the 617th arrive, along with the CO, and the field is secured, [and] consolidation begins.

Those seven Americans (with the three wounded) killed in total 24 heavily armed enemy, wounded six (two later died), and captured one unwounded, who feigned injury to escape the fight. They seized 22 AK-47s, six RPG launchers with 16 rockets, 13 RPK machine guns, 3 PKM machine guns, 40 hand grenades, 123 fully loaded 30-round AK magazines, 52 empty mags, and 10 belts of 2500 rounds of PK ammo.

The three wounded MPs have been evacuated to Landstuhl. One lost a kidney and will be paralyzed. The other two will most likely recover, though one will forever have a bullet lodged between second and third ribs below his heart. No word on the three COSCOM soldiers wounded in the initial volleys. Of the seven members of Raven 42 who walked away, two are Caucasian women, the rest men â “ one is Mexican-American, the medic is African-American, and the other two are Caucasian -the great American melting pot.
They believed even before this fight that their NCOs were the best in the Army, and that they have the best squad in the Army. The medic who fired the AT-4, said he remembered how from the week before when his squad leader forced him to train on it, though he didn't think as a medic he would ever use one. He said he chose to use it in that moment to protect the three wounded on the ground in front of him, once they came under fire from the building.

The day before this mission, they took the new RFI bandoliers that were recently issued, and experimented with mounting them in their vehicles. Once they figured out how, they pre-loaded a second basic load of ammo into magazines, put them into the bandoliers, and mounted them in their vehicles â “ the same exact way in every vehicle-load plans enforced and checked by leaders!

Leadership under fire â “ Once those three leaders (NCOs) stepped out of their vehicles, the squad was committed to the fight.

Their only complaints in the AAR were: the lack of stopping power in the 9-mm; the .50 cal incendiary rounds they are issued in lieu of ball ammo (shortage of ball in the inventory) didn't have the penetrating power needed to pierce the walls of the building; and that everyone in the squad was not CLS trained.

Yesterday {Monday, March 28, 2005] was spent with the chaplain and the chain of command conducting AARs. Today, every news media in theater wanted them. â Å“Good Morning America, NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, Stars & Stripes, and many radio stations from Kentucky all were lined up today. The female E-5 sergeant who fought through the trenchline will become the anti-Jessica Lynch media poster child. She and her squad leader deserve every bit of recognition they will get, and more. They all do.

I participated in their AAR as the BDE S2, and am helping in putting together an action report to justify future valor awards. Let's not talk about women in combat. Let's not talk about the new Close Combat Badge not including MPs. Footnote: The 9-mm round was a terrible decision for the Army to make. The 9-mm pistol replaced the .45 caliber pistol just as I was leaving the Army. Believe me, one round from a .45 would have done more than wound the enemy soldier. Special Forces, Seals, Rangers, etc, and all those who engage in CQB (Close Quarters Battle) are being issued or buying their own .45s. There is an old adage: â Å“Never go to a gun fight with a handgun that uses ammo that doesn't start with a '4'.

Note this is not a â Å“defense against attack. Nor a true meeting engagement, the [Iraqi] forces were carrying out an ambush from prepared positions. This is an assault on a prepared position carried out by a numerically overwhelmed but superbly trained force. In hard numbers the [Iraqi fighters] even had the advantage in weight of firepower. The casualty ratio and casualty severity ratio are incredibly disproportionate.

www.sftt.org

 
Infanteer said:
I think if you billed it the right way, it could be seen as a step forward.   Forget "seperating women because they slow men down"; that's a step backwards; how about "giving women their own environment to succeed at the unique challenges that Basic Training provides (or at least should provide)."   It would be interesting to see the difference of how a female course, run by female staff, would do.

Of course, the CF doesn't take Basic Training seriously enough anyways, so I don't think the impact of socialization is very huge anyways.

No, I agree with your idea about Basic - just don't extend it to employment in units.
 
Michael Dorosh said:
No, I agree with your idea about Basic - just don't extend it to employment in units.

Then we agree.  :)

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

The Romans most disliked the terrifying war spirit of the Celts, especially the fact that women fought alongside the men, indistinguished in honor and strength. The Roman Diodorus Siculus wrote of Celtic women, saying, "Among the Gauls the women are nearly as tall as the men, whom they rival in courage." The historian Plutarch stated this while describing a battle in 102 B.C. between Romans and Celts: "the fight had been no less fierce with the women than with the men themselves... the women charged with swords and axes and fell upon their opponents uttering a hideous outcry." Because Boudicca -- a woman, a Roman subject, and a Britannic royal -- led the rebellion, Rome felt even more disgraced and outraged.

Boudicca is believed to have had amassed an army of over 100,000 when she led her first attack at Camulodunum Colonia (Colchester), a colony of retired Roman officers and their families. Inside the city, a fifth column of rebels made sure the attack occured without warning or problem. The battle lasted somehow for a few days, long enough for messengers to flee to Londinium (London) to the Procurator (since the Governor was out of reach). The Procurator responded by dispatching merely 200 men, who were quickly engulfed in the battle.

Tacitus cites Roman and British religiosity that foretold of the coming Roman misfortune:

    Meanwhile, without any evident cause, the statue of Victory at Camulodunum fell prostrate and turned its back to the enemy, as though it fled before them. Women excited to frenzy prophesied impending destruction; raving in a strange tongue, it was said, were heard in their Senate-house; their theater resounded with wailings, and in the estuary of the Tamesa had been seen the appearance of an overthrown town; even the ocean had worn the aspect of blood, and, when the tide ebbed, there had been left the likenesses of human forms, marvels interpreted by the Britons, as hopeful, by the veterans, as alarming.

Boudicca's revolt, 62AD, pretty tough chick in my book....
 
look up Granuaile(Grace to the sasanach) O'Malley. Another hard woman.
 
In other news, does anyone else get the impression that Hollywog (who registered today) holds opinions about women in the military strikingly similar to those of Daniel H (who was baned today for being a bigoted troglodyte)?  May be conincidence, but is there any mechanism here to prevent banned people from re-subscribing under a different alias?
 
They are different wingnuts of the same ilk,......in fact one is chomping to log in as I type this.
 

Beat me to it, don't mess with Ms. B.

It's one thing to say that there aren't going to be many women in an infantry role because the fitness standards are such as they are, logic dictates that, but it's an entirely different thing to say that women can't be in the infantry because of fitness standards.
To me the latter is just a warped reverse form of poliical correctness.
 
The Russians and Israelis did it out of self preservation not because it was a good or fair idea. Figure the Brits were getting ready to do it also when the box heads were so close to invasion. The Russians had massive amounts of women fighting in all female Divs, they even had a fighter wing of all fems. It would appear they fought very well and very successfully. Problem is not that women cant fight when they have to its about other issues; such as:

Women are not built to fight as well as men thus you need a larger mass of them in the population to get the correct amount recruited, we don't have the mass.

When it is time to kill men go to trigger faster.

Men go forward under fire not for flag, god or country but the guy next to them out of a false bravado of not being seen to be weak. I would suggest that men do not have a desire to prove that when next to a woman.

The only solution if you want women in combat IMHO is to form all female units, they will fight and will do well. 

 
3rd Horseman said:
Men go forward under fire not for flag, god or country but the guy next to them out of a false bravado of not being seen to be weak. I would suggest that men do not have a desire to prove that when next to a woman.

Have you ever been to a bar?
 
I proposed this years ago.  We could call the Pre-Menstrual Battalions, and only put them in the line 4-5 days a month.  They would be devastating fighters.  The only drawback is speedy rotation out of the line, as they will spend the next 4 weeks apologizing to the enemy for being such bit ches................. :warstory:
 
Kat Stevens said:
I proposed this years ago.  We could call the Pre-Menstrual Battalions, and only put them in the line 4-5 days a month.  They would be devastating fighters.  The only drawback is speedy rotation out of the line, as they will spend the next 4 weeks apologizing to the enemy for being such bit ches................. :warstory:

Normally, my first response would be to pummel you, but right now I'm laughing too hard...

:rofl:
 
3rd Horseman said:
Women are not built to fight as well as men
explain. I would argue that the women currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (on both sides) seem to be built well enough to fight. After all, they're doing it.

When it is time to kill men go to trigger faster.
balderdash and poppycock. A person goes for the trigger according to their training, as proven conclusively in the American and British militaries right now in Iraq, and the various LEO agencies across North America. Some women react very poorly, as their training failed them, as well as their male counterparts. Some women are hell on wheels because they trained to be. Read Grossman's work for specific examples.

Men go forward under fire not for flag, god or country but the guy next to them out of a false bravado of not being seen to be weak. I would suggest that men do not have a desire to prove that when next to a woman.
I would argue that having a woman present to posture for, would cause a young alpha-male fight harder. Further, the last vestiges of chivalry amongst us older types would further cause us to fight harder to prevent the ungodly form getting their stinkin' hands on our wimminfolk.

The only solution if you want women in combat IMHO is to form all female units, they will fight and will do well.
this has proven to be a disaster. That's why the Israelis folded theirs. Numerous studies conducted in the '80s and '90s have shown that the best mix of male to female front-line soldiers is 70% to 30%.
 
Hollywog, just a couple of questions for you up on that mighty high perch of higher morality that you sit on.

1. What exactly is your MILITARY  background? Your profile offers no info.
2. Where exactly did you see all these female troops getting the males to carry their kit and weapon?
3. When exactly did you come across two troops having sex while you were launching the second battle of Vimy Ridge?

Some of your terminology strikes me as the rantings of a man who has not served a day in ANY military, let alone the Canadian Army. I have never heard anyone in 23 years refer to their rucksack as a PACK, and if I, when I was a young private, was ever to refer to a Sergeant as SARGE he would probably have ripped my head off and sh!t down my neck.
Sorry buddy, but I'm going to have to call BS on ANYTHING you write from here on in unless you can authenticate it for me. :tsktsk:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top