# Women and the draft



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

A while back there was some brouhaha about getting females to register for Selective Service, aka the draft. 

I am all in favor of this, as women are reaping many benefits and not bearing the same risk that men are. However, women in no way belong anywhere near combat and I can certainly explain why if anyone does not find the reasons immediately obvious.

Should not women be required to sign up for the draft?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Yes they should. Women should serve in support and combat support roles but not in direct combat roles. 

They are simply not strong enough and cannot tolerate the rigors needed to be in frontline combat positions.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

They should also have the same physical standards as well. I really bugs me that they have different standards than men when it comes to the physical fitness test. The physical fitness standards are there to ensure everyone is physically capable to maintain during combat. If our opponents aren't going to take it easy on women, why should we? Darn you tempest, I was staying away from the interchange so well!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don't necessarily have a problem with different physical standards. 

A male sailor doesn't have to meet the same physical standards serving as a fleet sailor as does a male in the SEALS. 

My problem is applying different standards and then letting women serve in frontline combat units. If they cannot meet that physical standard, to the rear you go. It frees up the men from having to do garrison duty or administrative tasks.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

I will have to disagree. I am talking about the basic physical standards for all military. SEALS, Rangers, Green Berets, Pararesque, and the like are in a class all their own and have a higher physical standard. I have seen it time and time again regarding women in the military. The lower standard makes a difference. The standard should be just that, the standard. The male admin clerk has the same physical standard as a light infantryman. It is the basic standard to handle the riggers of combat no matter what job one has. Women don't have that same standard. It is plain wrong. Just like the draft, if women want to be able to do everything a man can in the military, they should be held to the same standard as men.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

No.

Actually, no one should have to sign up for the draft; the likelihood of ever needing a draft is vanishingly small at this point.

We have a professional military service which is well-enough* suited to the kind of international security environment and micro-engagement model we face in modern warfare; beyond that, the demographics of the USA is quite different from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, and generally provides a larger willing population of soldiers (funny, I was just discussing this yesterday!)

If somehow we ever actually became the kind of nation which again needed a draft, though, no, I don't think women should be required to register.

DH

* I can think of loads of improvements to American military power, but a draft isn't one of them.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I see your point. But short of barring women from military service, there has to be some accommodation made. 

Women simply cannot perform at the same physical level as men. Perhaps a small percentage could but they would be the exceptions. 

Seen in that light, the physical standards for women must be different. But, their job assignments should also be different. They should be in non-combat support roles.


----------



## expressingmyself (Jun 16, 2010)

immanuelrx said:


> If women want to be able to do everything a man can in the military, they should be held to the same standard as men.


Given that they want to participate in all the same sports (and for the most part, do), I assume you would also be in favor of women competing against men in Olympic games qualifying?


----------



## expressingmyself (Jun 16, 2010)

Tempest said:


> A while back there was some brouhaha about getting females to register for Selective Service, aka the draft.
> 
> I am all in favor of this, as women are reaping many benefits and not bearing the same risk that men are. However, women in no way belong anywhere near combat and I can certainly explain why if anyone does not find the reasons immediately obvious.
> 
> Should not women be required to sign up for the draft?


What are these "benefits" that women are receiving without taking appropriate "risks?" As far as I know all non-enlisted women AND men benefit from the work of our distinguished service members. There is effectively no risk to a man who registers for selective service in the modern era, so I hardly see a reason to single out women here.

Conscription is a relic and adding women to a relic would serve no practical purpose, other than a massive expenditure of funds for all the necessary paperwork. I would rather that money be spent more wisely.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

expressingmyself said:


> Given that they want to participate in all the same sports (and for the most part, do), I assume you would also be in favor of women competing against men in Olympic games qualifying?


No, since life and death isn't heavily dealt with regarding the olympic games.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> I see your point. But short of barring women from military service, there has to be some accommodation made.
> 
> *Women simply cannot perform at the same physical level as men*. Perhaps a small percentage could but they would be the exceptions.
> 
> Seen in that light, the physical standards for women must be different. But, their job assignments should also be different. They should be in non-combat support roles.


Exactly my point. War and the military isn't about being far, it is about combat. It is about defending one's country. No enemy is going to give women a pass during battle, so why allow them a lesser standard. If you want to make a lower standard, do it for non-combat jobs regardless of gender. That would make more sense. That would not work out very well since all jobs are still soldiers and can be called to battle the opposition.

I am not anti-women in any way. I think women should be allowed to do pretty much anything and everything they want to as long as they meet the same standards as men.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> I am not anti-women in any way. I think women should be allowed to do pretty much anything and everything they want to as long as they meet the same standards as men.


The very fact that this issue even exists is a matter of wording - the military standards are less "male standards" than they are simply "soldier standards". Assuming that even a modicum of thought and experience has gone into setting them, they're based on the needs of a soldier schlepping his gear around (it's something quite heavy, a hundred pounds or so) under a variety of unfriendly conditions (until we have the luxury of warring in, say, the English countryside in Springtime, we have to factor in hellish deserts and the like).

So, that's what soldiers have to do. It's not what "men" have to do, but a requirement for anyone who's going to potentially be in combat. I can certainly think of a couple of women who could do it (I know a couple of crossfitter women who are absolute beasts, fitness-wise), but obviously they're exceptional.

So it shouldn't even be framed as a gender issue, but simply as a fitness and strength issue. Period!

DH


----------



## expressingmyself (Jun 16, 2010)

Provided the standards are high enough that no one who surpasses them will find themselves ill suited for the position for which they qualify for (which is the entire point of a standard), nothing else matters (what women want, what the enemy will do, etc.) 

A standard is a minimum qualification that is above the maximum expectation required.


----------



## expressingmyself (Jun 16, 2010)

Dhaller said:


> So it shouldn't even be framed as a gender issue, but simply as a fitness and strength issue. Period!
> 
> DH


I have a feeling this is how the military sees it as well, and would not at all be surprised to see more competitive standards (in terms of % who are capable of meeting them) on the womens' side vs. the men as there is less wiggle-room for a woman of average fitness to qualify, they must be exceptional.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Dhaller said:


> The very fact that this issue even exists is a matter of wording - the military standards are less "male standards" than they are simply "soldier standards". Assuming that even a modicum of thought and experience has gone into setting them, they're based on the needs of a soldier schlepping his gear around (it's something quite heavy, a hundred pounds or so) under a variety of unfriendly conditions (until we have the luxury of warring in, say, the English countryside in Springtime, we have to factor in hellish deserts and the like).
> 
> So, that's what soldiers have to do. It's not what "men" have to do, but a requirement for anyone who's going to potentially be in combat. I can certainly think of a couple of women who could do it (I know a couple of crossfitter women who are absolute beasts, fitness-wise), but obviously they're exceptional.
> 
> ...


You are correct. I was referring to the standard that men are held to and could have worded my comments better. It should just be the standard, not men's standard.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Leaving aside the anachronism of conscription, there are many front-line equivalent positions that women are easily capable of performing. There's no reason, beyond their personal ability, why a woman could not fly military aircraft in action, for example. The USSR had whole fighter squadrons where the pilots were female, as well as ground support squadrons, which were very successful against the Germans in WW2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches. My maritime role could easily have been carried out by women, given the training, aptitude and experience, and indeed is in the contemporary RN, or it would be if they had any ships capable of operating at sea......


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I am reminded of that old adage, "be careful what you wish for...you may get it!" At this juncture, of course women should be subjected to the same registration requirements as are our young men. As for the physical differences (relating to strength) between men and women, but there are similar differences in strength (physical and emotional) within the ranks of both sexes. Fitness and military training standards, at this point should be based strictly on mission requirements and should have nothing to do with the sex of the training candidate. Otherwise we in the military are simply pandering to the political whims of each services civilian overlords.  

And while we are at it, bring back the draft as our primary way of filling our military ranks, eliminating the damned deferments. Every citizen should get an equal chance of serving in uniform!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm a big believer in a volunteer army. I could see in times of war bringing in a draft, but during peacetime it should be left to a volunteer basis. 

This is what happens to country when it faces no existential outside threats; it's institutions become corrupted because people are sitting around twiddling their thumbs and looking for places to stick their noses. 

The introduction of women can only serve to degrade the combat readiness of front line units. Training, unit cohesion and readiness don't just appear as though from the head of Zues. It takes training, living together and being in one another's company. Men and women will inherently need to be separated and therefore a key element of cohesion will be lost.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> I am reminded of that old adage, "be careful what you wish for...you may get it!" At this juncture, of course women should be subjected to the same registration requirements as are our young men. As for the physical differences (relating to strength) between men and women, but there are similar differences in strength (physical and emotional) within the ranks of both sexes. Fitness and military training standards, at this point should be based strictly on mission requirements and should have nothing to do with the sex of the training candidate.


Indeed. Where a woman is capable of serving, she should be able to serve, in whatever role that might be.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Training, unit cohesion and readiness don't just appear as though from the head of Zues. It takes training, living together and being in one another's company. Men and women will inherently need to be separated and therefore a key element of cohesion will be lost.


I can't speak for the USN, but women have served on HM ships for some years now, including my niece, and there has been little to argue against it. Women have served at sea, in action, during both world wars, sometimes in a position of authority, so I see no reason why they should not continue to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Drummond


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Ships are like floating cities and in that sense I could see how they could operate on board, provided the normal dynamics between men and women don't affect readiness and operations. 

In the USN, too, women have been on board surface vessels for some time. My issue is with frontline infantry and other frontline ground units.


----------



## ouinon (Jun 28, 2015)

I'm not sure I understand the need for anyone to register for the draft, but I don't see any reason for women to be excluded from combat.

In the Canadian Armed Forces all members are expected to meet the same standards of physical fitness regardless of age, gender, or occupation. On an annual basis they are tested using components modelled after common tasks like sandbag fortification and stretcher carries. This is called the F.O.R.C.E. Evaluation.


There is a fitness test to determine whether recruits are suitable for basic training (in the Reseves, I believe the process is different in the Regular Forces). It measures things like hand grips and chin-ups and has four different sets of standards separated by both age and gender. This seems reasonable to me as it is simply evaluating whether one is in good shape. A 20yo female body in good shape is different to a 50yo male body in good shape. But once they are a member everyone must demonstrate that they can meet the same minimum performance level.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Ships are like floating cities and in that sense I could see how they could operate on board, provided the normal dynamics between men and women don't affect readiness and operations.
> 
> In the USN, too, women have been on board surface vessels for some time. My issue is with frontline infantry and other frontline ground units.


I have a cousin who served two tours in Afghanistan as a platoon commander in the infantry in the New Zealand army. Having left the Army, she is now one of those people who wish to "suck in taxpayer money" as a teacher. To quote another member (nearly) she "like most teachers it would seem, actually wants to do something valuable".


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

That's wonderful about the Canadian and NZ military. I mean that sincerely. 

I cannot speak of the need for military readiness in NZ and Canada, but I do think I have insight into our need given our status in the world. 

Let's assume we kept standards the same and allowed women to compete for positions in such units, even elite units. Setting aside the enormous cost of trying to train women when such a large percentage will wash out and setting aside any possible unit cohesion issues, let's assume a handful here and there are able to pass the physical standards and join combat units. 

So what? I could understand if we were talking about some kind of super soldier, but what purpose does it serve. The military is a purpose built institution. It really only has one purpose. This has been the case throughout history. 

What possible advantage does it give our combat readiness? Likely none. 

This notion of women in combat units has been a liberal and Hollywood wet dream for years. Realistically, standards would have to be lowered for everyone and then perhaps women could meet the physical requirements.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> That's wonderful about the Canadian and NZ military. I mean that sincerely.
> 
> This notion of women in combat units has been a liberal and Hollywood wet dream for years. Realistically, standards would have to be lowered for everyone and then perhaps women could meet the physical requirements.


Yet it is a reality in the Kiwi Army, as I've explained, so hardly a liberal wet dream. Front line as well.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Yet it is a reality in the Kiwi Army, as I've explained, so hardly a liberal wet dream. Front line as well.


A wet dream in the U.S. Forgive me for my myopic and nationalist views.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> A wet dream in the U.S. Forgive me for my myopic and nationalist views.


But why a "wet dream" in the US, if women have been shown by other countries' armed forces to be capable of serving as front line infantry? Are American women somehow inferior to those of other countries?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I can't speak for why other countries do it. That is for them to decide and choose how to organize their society and their institutions. I can only guess that the same forces that have tried to push it through here are at work there. 

Why not? Because they simply cannot withstand the physical rigors. Regardless of your cousin's particular experience, I'm not ready to put something as critical as the defense of the nation in the hands of people who are not able to physically perform up to par. Again, their may be a few women who are able to, but the vast majority cannot. 

Besides, why? I'll ask the question again as it bears repeating. Why the urgency? Of course it feeds some sense of self congratulatory progressivism but how does it enhance readiness?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Gender is really not the issue. Many would be shocked at the number of "manly men" taken into the military who end up being washed out due to psychological as well as physical realities. Not everyone, and I'm referring to men here, has what it takes to get the job done. Sadly not every psychologically or emotionally mismatched candidate gets screened out during Basic and/or follow-on individual training and we send them off to war to become permanently scared emotionally, psychologically and some, physically as well. For those not sufficiently equipped to handle/overcome such challenges, we have permanently disabled both men and women, who should never have been put there in the first place! Focus on our emotional, psychological and physical screening/selection processes to insure we bring people with the "right stuff" into our military services, be they men or women.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

This is a good point. Obviously not everyone is going to get screened and filtered out before it's too late, but perhaps the likes of Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley, aka Chelsea Manning would be working in a telemarketing sweat shop instead of endangering lives and national security.


----------



## ouinon (Jun 28, 2015)

It makes more sense to take issue with your military's screening process rather than an entire gender's ability to serve in combat.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

ouinon said:


> It makes more sense to take issue with your military's screening process rather than an entire gender's ability to serve in combat.


We're talking about 2 different things.

Do women add anything of value to the combat efficiency of a unit?


----------



## ouinon (Jun 28, 2015)

Yes, they add just as much value as male soldiers do.

Are you saying that women should only do things that some aspect of their biology makes them EXTRA good at and stay away from all the rest? Aside from childbirth and breast-feeding I'm struggling to think of examples.

If I'm understanding you correctly your argument seems about a hundred years out of date.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

ouinon said:


> Yes, they add just as much value as male soldiers do.
> 
> Are you saying that women should only do things that some aspect of their biology makes them EXTRA good at and stay away from all the rest? Aside from childbirth and breast-feeding I'm struggling to think of examples.
> 
> If I'm understanding you correctly your argument seems about a hundred years out of date.


How about hand to hand combat with bayonets against a man who weights 60-70 lbs more? Or better yet, no bayonet?

How about having to put a comrade over her shoulders and carry him to safety when he weights 70-80 lbs more than she does?

Yes, there are some things that men are just better at than woman. Biology matters.

Those scenarios are not out of date and a reality that ground troops still must deal with. They can certainly contribute to combat operations in a way that doesn't jeopardize our readiness.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Gentlemen:
The USA does not have a draft now nor will have one any time in the foreseeable future. The military arms are pushing out trained individuals at all ranks to reduce the size of the the forces and have been for sometime. The fiction of a draft registration ought to be disposed of for men as well as women. Bringing up drafting women was a political ploy to no other real purpose; Not needed and will not be. 
Our allied forces always follow along where we as a nation go in martial matters. We are all together as one. It is not reality that women do not serve in combat roles now. These are distortions that are again political in origin and without factual basis. The front and the rear bleed together. There are no safe zones. Women serve along side their male counterparts in every branch now, but they are not accorded the recognition of their actual service to the nation.
Also, once you are in, there is no out , and the volunteer may be returned to duty from civilian life as required. They only have to want to have you back, which is not often necessary.
If you were an obsolete air frame, they would keep you around longer.
regards,
rudy


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

RM Bantista said:


> Our allied forces always follow along where we as a nation go in martial matters.


Really? Are you sure? On reflection, yes, they probably do. If one looks at Britain's armed forces, for example, they seem to ape everything American, my pet hate being the universal wearing of what I can only describe as variations of some kind of "combat uniform" by all branches of the armed forces in just about every setting and occasion, excepting only ceremonial parades, with those idiot name patches.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> How about hand to hand combat with bayonets against a man who weights 60-70 lbs more? Or better yet, no bayonet?
> 
> How about having to put a comrade over her shoulders and carry him to safety when he weights 70-80 lbs more than she does?
> 
> ...


What about a man in hand to hand combat with a man who weighs 60-70 pounds more? Or no bayonet? What about a man having to carry a man weighing 70-80 pounds more than he does?

The fact that women have served, and are serving, in mixed units on the front line in combat, seems to be continually escaping you. If a woman, like my cousin, has successfully commanded a mixed platoon of infantry in combat in Afghanistan on two tours, then this evidence rather refutes your arguments. You appear to be determined that your feelings on this are more of a guide to reality than the actual reality.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Gender is really not the issue. Many would be shocked at the number of "manly men" taken into the military who end up being washed out due to psychological as well as physical realities. Not everyone, and I'm referring to men here, has what it takes to get the job done. Sadly not every psychologically or emotionally mismatched candidate gets screened out during Basic and/or follow-on individual training and we send them off to war to become permanently scared emotionally, psychologically and some, physically as well. For those not sufficiently equipped to handle/overcome such challenges, we have permanently disabled both men and women, who should never have been put there in the first place! Focus on our emotional, psychological and physical screening/selection processes to insure we bring people with the "right stuff" into our military services, be they men or women.


I am very glad to hear the opinions of someone who actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to military matters. Thank you once again eagle2250, for your factual and sensible contribution to a highly contentious issue.

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> I am very glad to hear the opinions of someone who actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to military matters. Thank you once again eagle2250, for your factual and sensible contribution to a highly contentious issue.
> 
> Gurdon


Your assumption being that no one else has ever served in the military.

There are physical standards for men in the military, particularly infantry and other front line combat units. While I'm sure there will be situations where one trooper will find himself outweighed by an enemy, pound for pound men are stronger than women and able to train harder and develop strength better than women.

Also, odds are more likely that such physical disparities will exist between men and women vs. men and other men. So while women can and do serve with honor and distinction in all of our armed forces, there are functions and duties that physically they are not up to task on.

Tell you what, you obviously have a dogmatic view of this so I'll kindly now out.

God forbid we ever find ourselves in a ground war against a large, conventional army again, but if we do I invite you to volunteer to lead an all female assault battalion into an urban environment.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Your assumption being that no one else has ever served in the military.
> 
> There are physical standards for men in the military, particularly infantry and other front line combat units. While I'm sure there will be situations where one trooper will find himself outweighed by an enemy, pound for pound men are stronger than women and able to train harder and develop strength better than women.
> 
> ...


You seem to be the one with the dogmatic views.

Instead of blathering about some fantasy combat scenario, address the well-informed observations of eagle2250 and Chouan, individuals with considerable military experience, who often disagree on political matters, but agree on the ability of women to serve in combat roles.

RM Bantista's comments on the politics underlying the discussion, as well as his informed discussion of the reality of women soldiers' involvement in combat, suggest that your assertions are at odds with current reality.

My view, as stated in my post, is that I was glad someone who knew what he was talking about was contributing to the discussion. Bow out if you will.

Gurdon


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Last I heard Israel has taken women out of combat. The "experiment" changed their mind. 

No doubt there are a few women who are as tuff as nails. The ones that don't respect women hood....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Greater physical strength is not necessarily indicative of superiority in combat. Quick wits, opportunism, rage and a capacity to endure punishment are traits which may often succesfully overcome larger foes. If a fellow imagines that females are lacking in these particular qualities then they may not be paying close enough attention.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> You seem to be the one with the dogmatic views.
> 
> Instead of blathering about some fantasy combat scenario, address the well-informed observations of eagle2250 and Chouan, individuals with considerable military experience, who often disagree on political matters, but agree on the ability of women to serve in combat roles.
> 
> ...


How about the views of someone who has actually served as an infantryman?

I'm not blathering on about anything and honestly for someone who is a moderator using the term "blathering" to describe my point of view simply because it disagrees with yours is a bit rich.

I'll let my earlier comments about the physical differences between men and women stand. You do agree, I presume, that men and women are different? I would hope that this simple fact can at least be acknowledged and at least form the basis for any discussion moving forward.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67

The differences between the genders are not at issue. There are some males and some females suitable for combat tasks and some of both genders, probably many, who are not. 

I asked you to address your comments to three posters who have the experience and perspectives of active duty and first hand knowledge military policy issues.

You correct about my intemperate language. My apologies.

Gurdon


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> How about the views of someone who has actually served as an infantryman?
> 
> I'm not blathering on about anything and honestly for someone who is a moderator using the term "blathering" to describe my point of view simply because it disagrees with yours is a bit rich.
> 
> I'll let my earlier comments about the physical differences between men and women stand. You do agree, I presume, that men and women are different? I would hope that this simple fact can at least be acknowledged and at least form the basis for any discussion moving forward.


In the First World War the British Army had what were described as "Bantam" battalions, of men all under 5 feet 3 inches in height, who proved themselves to be just as effective in combat as normal battalions.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Again....they were men. Inch for inch, pound for pound men are stronger than women.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> SG_67
> 
> The differences between the genders are not at issue. There are some males and some females suitable for combat tasks and some of both genders, probably many, who are not.
> 
> ...


I do have experience of active duty military; I was a Marine infantryman. And toward then end of my service I served in the first Iraq war. Therefore I think I have some insight to offer as to not only the rigors of frontline combat units but also said military policy. Therefore the scenarios I've described are not fantasy. These are things that infantry still do. Infantry still fight hand to hand and with bayonets.

Gender IS the issue. Not all men are suited for combat, either by physical or psychological deposition. But the fact is that men are better suited than women for those types of physical rigors.

I'm sure if we comb through the general population, we will find some women who are able to meet those demands and requirements. Odds are, however, that we will have much more success of filling the ranks with men than women.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^

SG 67, the best way to address the questions you raise is not to preclude the ladies from participating in combat specialties, but rather to subject them to the same physical, emotional and psychological selection and training standards that the male candidates must meet. In one of the air base ground defense units I was responsible for, in the later years of my military career, I had the good fortune to have a female M60 gunner in my unit that was the absolute best machine gunner in the unit and that was one tough job and she was one very tough airman! I won't presume to speak for you, but she could have (physically) kicked my a**, clearly a woman who had the right stuff!  

PS: Thank you for your service.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Again....they were men. Inch for inch, pound for pound men are stronger than women.


But they were, obviously, much less strong man for man, than men who were 5 feet 10 or taller. Strength depends upon the individual, not on the gender.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

expressingmyself said:


> What are these "benefits" that women are receiving without taking appropriate "risks?"


As males sign up for Selective Service on their 18th birthday in able to vote, that. We let women vote, which is a topic for another thread, without letting them take the risk. Being at any risk of conscription is a gravely higher one than zero.

Anyway, as much as I'd like women used as cannon fodder in a fair manner as men (oops, I must note that I am personally opposed to a standing mercenary army of any sort), the reality is that we consider women differently. When they get hurt, it is a deeper psychic wound and we get angrier. I'll simply point out the propaganda that we were fed about Jessica Lynch and ask why this lie was fostered on us to make my point. Wounded women warriors become an impediment to limited war and a means to eternal, absolute war.

Also, servicewomen have a nasty habit of getting pregnant when they don't want to be around any more. This unreliability becomes a larger burden than it is worth.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Tempest said:


> As males sign up for Selective Service on their 18th birthday in able to vote, that. We let women vote, which is a topic for another thread, without letting them take the risk. Being at any risk of conscription is a gravely higher one than zero.
> 
> Anyway, as much as I'd like women used as cannon fodder in a fair manner as men (oops, I must note that I am personally opposed to a standing mercenary army of any sort), the reality is that we consider women differently. When they get hurt, it is a deeper psychic wound and we get angrier. I'll simply point out the propaganda that we were fed about Jessica Lynch and ask why this lie was fostered on us to make my point. Wounded women warriors become an impediment to limited war and a means to eternal, absolute war.
> 
> Also, servicewomen have a nasty habit of getting pregnant when they don't want to be around any more. This unreliability becomes a larger burden than it is worth.


Wow...it took a bit longer than normal after your latest "vacation", but your misogyny eventually made a grand reappearance. At one point I thought you posted this garbage just to stir things up, but it appears that it truly reflects your opinion. Sad.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

smmrfld said:


> Wow...it took a bit longer than normal after your latest "vacation", but your misogyny eventually made a grand reappearance. At one point I thought you posted this garbage just to stir things up, but it appears that it truly reflects your opinion. Sad.


Indeed; he's never been one to let evidence get in the way of his opinions!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Please keep this thread to intelligent discussion and not juvenile taunting, good sir!

Whoops, this referred to a post above the previous, as Chouan posted whilst I typed. However I am not inspired by the unsupported passive-aggressive hooey contained above either. I daresay it approaches the taunting forbidden on this good forum.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Young men do not register for the draft in order to be able to vote. One of the arguments for lowering the voting age to 18 was that young men who were subject to the draft ought to have the right to vote. This is the opposite of what you wrote. 
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> I do have experience of active duty military; I was a Marine infantryman. And toward then end of my service I served in the first Iraq war. Therefore I think I have some insight to offer as to not only the rigors of frontline combat units but also said military policy. Therefore the scenarios I've described are not fantasy. These are things that infantry still do. Infantry still fight hand to hand and with bayonets.


You do have active duty experience. Thank you for serving.

In the course of my life I have met a number of women capable of serving as combat soldiers, including one who did. There are, as you wrote above in #47, "some women who are able to [do so]." That having been said, where is the argument?

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> You do have active duty experience. Thank you for serving.
> 
> In the course of my life I have met a number of women capable of serving as combat soldiers, including one who did. There are, as you wrote above in #47, "some women who are able to [do so]." That having been said, where is the argument?
> 
> Gurdon


My point was in reference to the training.

There may be women here and there who are able to withstanding the training. But they are quite the exception and for every one, I'd venture that there are dozens of men who are able to.

It's one thing to be able to undergo the training. It's another to actually serve with the unit and yet quite another to serve in the field during combat operations.

They will be slower, weaker and less physically able than their male counterparts. What will happen during their menstrual cycle? There are real physiological changes which occur.

I could understand if in a time of total war there are a shortage of recruits and the country is invaded. But otherwise, why?

Women can serve honorably within other military occupations. Even mission critical ones such as intelligence, pilots. There is no need, beyond satisfying some political motive, to have women serve in combat roles.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> My point was in reference to the training.
> 
> There may be women here and there who are able to withstanding the training. But they are quite the exception and for every one, I'd venture that there are dozens of men who are able to.
> 
> ...


What, all of them? 
As has been indicated before, women have served successfully in action as infantry. Why do you persist in denying the evidence?



SG_67 said:


> I could understand if in a time of total war there are a shortage of recruits and the country is invaded. But otherwise, why?
> 
> Women can serve honorably within other military occupations. Even mission critical ones such as intelligence, pilots. There is no need, beyond satisfying some political motive, to have women serve in combat roles.


But, as has been shown, women have successfully served as infantry. Why will you not accept that they have proved that your opinion is wrong?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> What, all of them?
> As has been indicated before, women have served successfully in action as infantry. Why do you persist in denying the evidence?
> 
> But, as has been shown, women have successfully served as infantry. Why will you not accept that they have proved that your opinion is wrong?


I will make the same offer to you as I did to another in this thread; God forbid we ever find ourselves in a bloody, Stalingrad type of house to house urban warfare situation, but if we ever do, I invite you to lead an all female assault battalion into the city to clear it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-marines-women-20150912-story.html

https://sistersinarms.ca/history/women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/6...ntline-Cameron-Colonel-Richard-Kemp-Lord-West

https://nation.time.com/2013/07/25/the-cowardly-push-to-get-women-into-combat/


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I will make the same offer to you as I did to another in this thread; God forbid we ever find ourselves in a bloody, Stalingrad type of house to house urban warfare situation, but if we ever do, I invite you to lead an all female assault battalion into the city to clear it.


Stalingrad types of house to house urban warfare happens all the time, of course......
In any case that is irrelevant, you persist in disregarding evidence of views contrary to your own. Not opinions contrary to your own, but evidence. As has been pointed out to you by me, and other members, women have served as infantry, in action, in places like Afghanistan, with success, yet you continue to blithely disregard that evidence and continue to further your own opinion, with no evidence whatsoever. The irrelevancy of size and body weight has also been pointed out to you, yet you continue to pursue your stereotyping assertions. Do you honestly believe that all women "*will be slower, weaker and less physically able than their male counterparts"*? Really?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-marines-women-20150912-story.html
> 
> https://sistersinarms.ca/history/women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/
> 
> ...


Quoting senior military people who agree with your particular views doesn't really add anything to your argument, such as it is.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Stalingrad types of house to house urban warfare happens all the time, of course......
> In any case that is irrelevant, you persist in disregarding evidence of views contrary to your own. Not opinions contrary to your own, but evidence. As has been pointed out to you by me, and other members, women have served as infantry, in action, in places like Afghanistan, with success, yet you continue to blithely disregard that evidence and continue to further your own opinion, with no evidence whatsoever. The irrelevancy of size and body weight has also been pointed out to you, yet you continue to pursue your stereotyping assertions. Do you honestly believe that all women "*will be slower, weaker and less physically able than their male counterparts"*? Really?


Yes...they will. Do you want to risk your life, the life of your men and the security of your nation on some type of social experimentation.

And if you think for a moment that house to house, street to street fighting is a thing of the past, please look to the battle of Fallujah.

War is still a dirty business that comes down to killing, hand to hand if necessary, and the occupation of land.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
....But your continuing concerns are effectively muted if the same training standards/evaluation criteria are applied to trainees of both sexes. Will a greater percentage of male candidates succeed, than do female candidates? Perhaps so, but the females that succeed will be equally competent as their male counterparts! It is when we make exceptions for members of one sex or the other that problems begin.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ What will invariably happen is that different standards will be applied or the standards will be lowered overall. 

Still, training and performing are not the same. Better yet, performing in an actual theater of combat on the frontlines face to face with the enemy is a wholly different thing. On any given football team, there's the team you field and then there's the practice squad. You don't play the practice squat just out of a sense of social justice.

There is absolutely ZERO reason for women to serve as frontline combat troops. None. Political posturing is a poor substitute for military readiness.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I believe the recent wars have provided ample examples of women who found themselves in combat. Many have acquitted themselves quite well. Perhaps most women don't have what it takes to be riflemen or lug mortars, but some do, and there are plenty of "combat" jobs that might be more suitable. 

I believe there was a woman .50 machine gunner in the Danish contingent in Helmand in 2006 who earned a reputation for stony efficiency (Anna, aka "Combat Barbie"), and women soldiers in Afghanistan in general had real value when it came to reaching out to the civilian population. They were able to enter 'female' spaces in Afghan homes and interact with women in ways men absolutely could not.

I've watched lots of French news reports on the fighting in Afghanistan and Mali in 2013, and more than once one finds French women soldiers in the thick of it, just doing their thing. A quiet revolution. Today's French Army, by the way, doesn't mess around, meaning the women aren't there because someone's being PC and insists on including them. Their Army wants doors open to women because it increases the recruitment base, but beyond that they're not going to send someone to the Adrar mountains of Mali who can't hack it.

I agree with Eagle that tinkering with standards can lead to problems. It was my understanding that what the USMC was doing was reviewing the standards to ask if certain strength measures really mattered. it's a legitimate question.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> ^ *What will invariably happen is that different standards will be applied or the standards will be lowered overall.
> *
> Still, training and performing are not the same. Better yet, performing in an actual theater of combat on the frontlines face to face with the enemy is a wholly different thing. On any given football team, there's the team you field and then there's the practice squad. You don't play the practice squat just out of a sense of social justice.
> 
> There is absolutely ZERO reason for women to serve as frontline combat troops. None. Political posturing is a poor substitute for military readiness.


By the way, this is already the case with the services physical fitness tests, at least in the USMC.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As I understand it virtually all of our special forces training programs report routinely high attrition rates, many of which are self initiated eliminations. The problem is not always linked to arm, chest and shoulder strength, but rather what the candidate brings with them between their ears! Most eliminations from our services toughest training programs occur due to emotional/psychological deficiencies of the candidates, not physical deficiencies. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Young men do not register for the draft in order to be able to vote.


This is very odd, but true. That would make more sense. It's worse than that.
Currently, almost every able-bodied man in the country of fighting age is required to register regardless of whether they vote, or are even a citizen. Women have no such duty. However, a non-registering man risks fines and imprisonment, and is ineligible for federal student aid, governmental employment and all kinds of other things that are a gross double standard.
https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Register/Benefits-and-Penalties


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The whole notion of registering for the selective service strikes me as an anachronism and a terrible waste of money seeing as how there's an actual government agency with an operating budget. I'm not really sure what their function is except to provide a dumping ground for patronage jobs and political favors. 

There are ample opportunities for the government to identify people if a draft ever became necessary


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I'd much prefer to have local volunteer militias myself. I am sure that the SSS costs are a pittance compared to what is spent on any random election anywhere, or really any other facet of military spending. I can also confirm that the budget for actual training and all of current board members is meager.
Lots of money for worrying about tranny bathroom rights in the public schools...


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Registration without the draft is indeed squandered money and government is not to have any part of it, since that is stealing from the tax payers.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tempest said:


> Lots of money for worrying about tranny bathroom rights in the public schools...


We need a "potty" Czar.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

WA said:


> Registration without the draft is indeed squandered money and government is not to have any part of it, since that is stealing from the tax payers.


Well, the standing mercenary army in peacetime is stealing from the taxpayers IMHO. But one is for a state of readiness or not. You make it sound as if your cell phone does not have stored contacts ready to be dialed when necessary.

Did I not state the "They're killing our women" argument well enough before? Nobody seems to have mentioned it. Basically, we are relatively fine with our service_men_ being killed and maimed, but when an enemy harms a female we get all protective and a massive white knight overprotective chest-beating begins. Having women near harm practically sets the stage for war atrocity propaganda.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Tempest, right about being ready. WWll millions joined without being asked. Today's young men, so I've read, are very different and a Registration may be needed.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Indeed, the 'what's in it for me' generation is not by a long stretch anything like the "The Greatest Generation," as described by Tom Brokaw. Today's men and women are frequently looking for that free ride they have been hearing about from so many of our politicians. Very few seem interested in what they should or could give back to this troubled Country of ours!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Can you blame them? There are plenty of people volunteering for the services. Good, honest and decent men and women. 

Our civilian leadership on the other hand, really should hang their heads in shame. In particular this administration. The culture as a whole for that matter. 

Movies extolling the virtues of the military are jeered. On the flip side, those that cast the military in a poor light are cheered and held up as "great art". Just look at the last 20 years of films dealing with the military and I think my observation will bear out. 

The VA administrator recently compared wait times for VA hospital services to wait times at Disney; as long as you get to ride, then the wait is worth it. 

The major theme of this thread is an indication that the civilian leadership has absolutely no respect for the services. The service chiefs are ignored. The Behghazi debacle and tragedy is another fine example. Military resources are used as a prop in the middle east. No wonder when polled, active duty military seem to have a preference for the GOP over the Dems.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I agree with almost everything you typed in the post above, but in answer to the question you posed, yes I do blame them for seemingly always seeking the easy path of self interest rather than investing just a bit of energy into efforts that promote the common good! or will serve the long term best interest of our country. Frankly, if a citizen, man or woman, fails to serve in some capacity (The Civilian Conservation Corps, the Job Corps, the Peace Corps, the war corps, etc.) they should not be allowed to vote. Just because they were born here doesn't make them that special! The right to vote should have to be earned and then it just might mean something! Just one mans opinion.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I never served. What was happening in the Vietnam war towards the end changed my mind. Otherwise I would have. 

Something about the "Greatest Generation". Didn't they vote higher taxes, so they wouldn't have to go out help people. They are the ones that created the thumb sucking government dependence programs that I have been voting against before Reagan was President.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^WA:

If the military services didn't meet your need(s) for self-actualization, why didn't you join the Peace Corps or get involved in some other voluntary pursuit(s) that would have enabled you to give back in, perhaps, more humane ways?

As to your comment about higher taxes, it was not the "Greatest Generation" that voted for the higher taxes, but rather the "give them everything they want that could serve to buy their vote" Democrats!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Oh wow, it happened!
https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt537/CRPT-114hrpt537.pdf


> Section 528-Application of Military Selective Service Registration
> and Conscription Requirements to Female Citizens and Resi-
> dents of the United States Between the Ages of 18 and 26
> This section would amend section 3802(a) of title 50, United
> ...


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^WA:
> 
> If the military services didn't meet your need(s) for self-actualization, why didn't you join the Peace Corps or get involved in some other voluntary pursuit(s) that would have enabled you to give back in, perhaps, more humane ways?


Didn't see this till now. 
Peace Corps? Around here it was kinda laughed at. Not considered to be serving the country. Actually, I would have liked to have been in both of them. Two different view points to make the world a better place. Dad was in the Navy and since elementary school that was the plan.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Tempest said:


> Oh wow, it happened!
> https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt537/CRPT-114hrpt537.pdf


It doubles the pool of available recruits, meaning that the military, in case of necessity, can be more selective. So even if one doesn't put women in combat positions, there are a large number of non-combat posts that women can fill, leaving the combat stuff to not just men but to better men.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ now you're thinkin'


----------

