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

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Men like William Calley?  What, Me Lie?

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.

Or sometimes out of conviction that what they're doing is important, regardless of the consequences.  I don't see that as genetically hardcoded...

 

[3rd Horseman]

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. (no argument, there still built different)

We are a different beast then women built and designed different for different jobs or are you one of those creationists? I have no argument that the current women in I or A are not doing well, read my post I said the Russian women units had great success.

Quote
When it is time to kill men go to trigger faster.
balderdash and poppycock. A person goes for the trigger according to their training,(I'm talking about the decision to trigger inside the brain not the actual trained decision to pull trigger, subtle difference but enough to keep you alive) as proven conclusively in the American and British militarise right now in Iraq, and the various LEO agencies across North America (that proves nothing). 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.




Quote
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.(well you would be wrong)  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.


Quote
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 (by what country, Russians were very successful). That's why the Israelis folded theirs. (Thats not why they folded theres) 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% (in canada I was part of the study the study does not prove your point it is out of context). 

If you read the whole argument I think women can fight and very well just not as well as men pound for pound on equal comparison yes yes there are always exceptions to the rule we are not talking about the 5% that are built capable and have the drive we are talking about the entire group. The issue is not enough of the equal ones to fill an army thats the problem and the point.

 

[Infanteer]

It's a bell curve - naturally, the requirements of the job are going to allow more men from the center of the curve than women.  However, you're making some claims and disputing some things paracowboy put up 3rd Horseman; lets see some facts to prove it.

 

[paracowboy]

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. (no argument, there still built different)

You stated that women are not "built to fight as well as men". I asked you to show me how. You still haven't done so, and now have attempted to 'downgrade' your arguement to "there still built different". Well, they're certainly built differently, thank heaven, but you originally said they are not "built to fight as well as men". Prove it.

We are a different beast then women built and designed different for different jobs or are you one of those creationists?

my opinions on the creation of life, and how it got to this point, have no relevance to the topic.

I have no argument that the current women in I or A are not doing well, read my post I said the Russian women units had great success.

so how, then, are they not doing as well as men? After all, that is the crux of your argument, is it not?

(I'm talking about the decision to trigger inside the brain not the actual trained decision to pull trigger, subtle difference but enough to keep you alive)

what on earth are you babbling about? "the decision to trigger inside the brain not the actual trained decision"? What is that supposed to mean? There is no "decision to trigger inside the brain" in a properly trained individual! Nor is there an "actual trained decision to pull trigger"! There is a threat and the trigger is manipulated.

as proven conclusively in the American and British militarise right now in Iraq, and the various LEO agencies across North America (that proves nothing).

so, lemme get this straight: the fighting women in two Theatres of War, and the women who are fighting on the streets of our continent, prove nothing about the abilities of women to fight? Sure, makes sense. If I beat myself over the head repeatedly with a blunt object, anyway.

I would argue that having a woman present to posture for, would cause a young alpha-male fight harder.(well you would be wrong)

  how so, Oh Dispenser of Wisdom? You state that young men will posture more for each other than for a woman? When science (and innumerable bar fights) says the exact opposite?

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 (by what country, Russians were very successful).

were they now? But, I thought you say that women are not built for fighting?

That's why the Israelis folded theirs. (Thats not why they folded theres)

So, then, why did they fold them? The reports I read, released by the Israeli army, state other-wise, but edify and enlighten me.

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% (in canada I was part of the study the study does not prove your point it is out of context). 

How is it out of context? Were we not discussing the effectiveness of women in battle? Were we not debating the effectiveness of all-female units?

And this study you were a part of, was it before or after your Deep-Combat Experience where you were the envy and awe of SpecOps? And was it despite, or because of, your suffering from Depleted Uranium Poisoning, PTSD, and Agent Orange Poisoning?

If you read the whole argument I think women can fight and very well just not as well as men pound for pound on equal comparison yes yes there are always exceptions to the rule we are not talking about the 5% that are built capable and have the drive we are talking about the entire group. The issue is not enough of the equal ones to fill an army thats the problem and the point.

you have no point. You have argued for and against both sides of this issue, and neither very well. Stop back-pedalling. Make a point and stick with it. Then, try to debate that point in a common-sense manner. Or else, go put your big red nose and floppy shoes back on.

And for the love of all that is sacred and profane, man: use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. You write like a junior high school kid. The occasional typo is to be expected, but you have claimed to be an Officer of The Crown (and a very Rambo-ish one, at that, the epitome of professionalism). At least attempt to get your points across like someone with a degree. If I can do it, with my Alberta Grade 12, I'm certain that you can, as well.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Feel better now,

 

[paracowboy]

No. You still haven't answered any of the points with any logical rebuttals, and you still can't master simple English.

I'm going to briefly hi-jack the thread for a minute to expound: We spend a lot of time here, imbuing the concept of Quiet Professionalism into the wannabe's and FNG's. We do this so that they understand what it truly means to be a Canadian soldier. Your first post here was a boastful pile of hooey.

We also spend a great deal of time pushing the idea of proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation on the newer, younger members. We do this so that they will do better in school, and later, in professional life. Your barely literate posts detract from that.

You have claimed to be an Officer, and an extremely high-speed one, at that. Your behaviour has been directly opposite to that expected of a professional soldier, whether commissioned or not. You are not setting the proper example, and it annoys the crap out me.

Now, do you have any valid points to add that may support your arguements?

 

[3rd Horseman]

Im thinking......best I not comment at this point...... :rage:....MCPL...... ;D

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Certainly looks like she could do the job to me. I'll let her be my fireteam partner.

 

[armywoman]

Oy, definitely I well built soldier.  Her biceps are bigger then most men I know.

And I like how she has coordinated her diamond drop down earrings so nicely with her do-rag and uniform.  If we bring nothing better to the army we will at least decorate it nicely. 

 

[paracowboy]

Oy, definitely I well built soldier.   Her biceps are bigger then most men I know.

And I like how she has coordinated her diamond drop down earrings so nicely with her do-rag and uniform.   If we bring nothing better to the army we will at least decorate it nicely.  

li'l tip: that there is not a soldier, and she brings nothing to the Army. That is a Marine, and she is devoted to the Corps. Never call a Marine "soldier" or refer to them being in the Army. Especially a Marine with pipes like that.

Gawrsh, she shore is purty, though.

 

[armywoman]

Good to know.

Thanks

 

[Strike]

Geez, once again I miss all the excitement.  Can't you guys plan these wonderful debates when I'm NOT working?  I'm on nights and get home at about 2200, in case you do.

WRT the Marine, notice her well manicured nails too.  All I do is fly a helicopter and I can barely get mine to grow HALF that length.

Oh, and paracowboy, thank-you.  You are keeping me very entertained.  You are a helluva lot more literate than I could ever hope to be.  Of course, I got my degree in engineering.  That's my excuse.

 

[paracowboy]

Of course, I got my degree in engineering.  

I gotta get me one a' them things. It sucks bein' all unedjikated an' stuff. You can know ever'thang they is ta know, but if'n you ain't gotcherself a piece o' paper sayin' ya do, well...ya don't.

 

[Pte. Bloggins]

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.

From my limited experience, the opposite is true: when some guys see a female doing well at something it motivates them to do it better. After all, no one likes being beaten by a girl. 

 

[Acorn]

Im thinking......best I not comment at this point...... :rage:....MCPL...... ;D

Well sir, I'm not sure how you'll take the advice of a WO. However I will counsel you that though the MCpl's comments are inappropriate in relation to the difference in your ranks, every point he made appears valid to me. You have an opportunity to correct your unprofessional conduct. I strongly recommend that you do so.

 

[starlight_cdn]

My opinion has flip flopped on this issue for many years now. Do women belong in combat roles?

To compare Modern Canadian Women to WW2 Russian women or female members of the IDF is a mistake. Apples and Oranges. Different culture and values. Different time.   Both groups were fighting for there existence. Both groups had endured long years of hardship prior to the wars they fought. Both groups believed in what they were fighting for.......

These things can rarely be said about most Canadians period. We all know exceptions......I mean as a general rule. Most Canadians don't know were Khandahr is.....let alone the safe end of a rifle.

However, I am becoming sidetracked......I have thought long and hard about this issue for many years. I have taught QL3   to infantryman, LET to medics and IBTS to units of Cbt Support types in that time. I have deployed with female combat arms, medics and cbt supports in leadership roles, both reserve and regular. I have treated both males and females in the UMS. These are my conclusions:

1. There should be one standard throughout the CF for all. Pt, Wpns Handling, Marksmanship, Battlecraft, First Aid, Feildcraft, Driving , Leadership.....etc. All these standards should be focus on the mission. (Check out the defence policy review) Why should there be one standards. Simple, 'cause the animals we are fighting don't care if you are black, white, yellow or purple. They don't care if you are male or female, gay or straight; they will do horrible things to all prisoners. They do not follow the Geneva Convention.

2. Training is training. From my own operational experience, you fight how you train. A properly trained soldier will kill. This goes back to my first point.

3. Leave the policy to the planners and the operations to the operators. One standard, solid training, good kit and get the hell out of our way!!!!

I care about the J-O-B. Not what gender my fireteam partner is.....................

The real question is ......Are Canadians ready to have their mothers and daughter killed in action? I could be wrong but I believe the last time a women was killed in war was sixty years ago. I don't think Canadian society is as committed to the GWOT as the USA. I think there will be a political backlash as soon as one female soldier comes home in a flag draped coffin. Opinions???

 

[TCBF]

"Certainly looks like she could do the job to me. I'll let her be my fireteam partner."

- The girl show offs are just like the boy show offs - they fold when you really need them.  The quiet ones who just do their jobs keep doing their jobs.

Tom

 

[Michael Dorosh]

li'l tip: that there is not a soldier, and she brings nothing to the Army. That is a Marine, and she is devoted to the Corps. Never call a Marine "soldier" or refer to them being in the Army. Especially a Marine with pipes like that.

Gawrsh, she shore is purty, though.

when the photo was taken, she had left the Marines IIRC and is a professional bodybuilder now.  So the nails probably didn't look like that when she was "in" - and the earrings that annoy Allan L. probably weren't worn with her uniform.

 

[muskrat89]

Yeah - bodybuilder, model, website gal... so it appears

http://www.lisamariebickels.com/

 

[Hollywog]

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

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.

err 200 men vs 100,000 men & women hardly sounds like a fair test.

And you missed the best bit her first and last real battle,

http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/defeat-of-boudicca.php

Hammering the Celts with javelins, Suetonius followed up with waves of brutally effective auxilia and regular infantry charges. By the ancient accounts, the Roman assault was overwhelming, and the Britons were crushed in the onslaught. Perhaps as many as 80,000 of Boudicca's rebels were killed in the immediate aftermath, with the Romans killing women and children indiscriminately. By contrast, Tacitus reports that only 400 Romans were killed, and an equal number wounded, in the battle.

So some one who led a battle where 80,000 of their troops died and took out 400 romans is the proof in the pudding eh.



1. What exactly is your MILITARY  background? Your profile offers no info.
I was in a mere 9 years and got out in 1989
Most of the time with reserves, but I did go to Norway and Germany and some did call me Sarge,

Yes I may have been too familiar with the troops.

I used to be able to pick up a 106 too if any old timers remember what that was.  Doubt there is one female in the infantry who can do that.  Even the one with the cute biceps.


2. Where exactly did you see all these female troops getting the males to carry their kit and weapon?
Wainwright Alta, Dundurn Sask

Course way back theyn they were never "combat arms" types so most never thought much of it,

3. When exactly did you come across two troops having sex while you were launching the second battle of Vimy Ridge?
Ha Ha, and like I said I doubt it would happen overseas but sometime in the late 1980's.  

Someone on this site might recognize the nickname, ... and deny they know me  ;D


So yes I was in and if I seem too opinionated well shucks.  I just want to explore the issue because one day it might cost lives. And if lives are saved and my precious feelings get hurt I'm ok with that.  The best example out there is someone 2 millenia ago who in her only real battle took 80,000 casualties to cause 400 dead and the same wounded then to extrapolate the size of the Canadian Armed Forces well the size of units we should tackle would be very diminutive indeed.  

I always believe in experimenting to prove a point and to my knowledge there has been none to prove this will not degrade performance.  I'm still hoping to be proved right or wrong.  

I am not saying they should not be in however if they are in units of their own the reasoning behind a lot of the issues disappears.  If men risk themselves to rescue them well who cares if they are in their own units.  So what I propose takes most of those factors out of it and surely the onus is on the woman to prove they can do this.  I mean there is a slight possibility that some seem hesitant to acknowledge that reality is misognystic.

However if they land at Dieppe and are sold into the sex trade for german soldiers or Japanese at hong Kong are you ready for that?

Because we better be course all the people for this integration have asked that question right. Or will we just never go to real battle so it'll be ok.

I mean it isn't just about filling goldfish bowls with dogtags,