Okay guys, do you want to hear something totally sexist, and gender based? And like it or not still a truism? And while I think it is silly, I do see how it could be used in combat. Put this together in your own male head, a female "suffering" from P.M.S., give her a multi-shot rifle and point her toward the "male" enemy. Now here is the cute part almost like the Skinner response to input for other fauna. It has been documented, but not understood exactly that females who are kept in close proximity begin to have similar menstrual periods in time. There isn't anything sexist involved here, simply an observation and a truth. Now, here is my concept. Keep a battalion or a regiment of females together for the necessary time so they are all in one state or the other. Put together twelve of these female groups on a staggered basis so one is always available for deployment in combat. It isn't a fool-proof concept, but hey who wants to face a lady with an attitude and a semi or full automatic weapon? I myself have been intimidated by one with a Louisville Slugger and a gleam in her eye. And it was my damn bat!
Yes Soldier, the issue of fitness. When my wife delivered our daughter, not only was it all over in barely two and a half hours, were it not for some placental bleeding, Arlene would have been outta there. This relates to our nomad ancestors, in the days when it was an absolute survival essential to be able to give birth and be ready to move almost immediately. Theories run about the number of children that were put to death almost as soon as they were born because they would be too much of a burden to the group trying to make the next feeding ground before winter set in or some other reason. So, women do have certain aspects of their fitness that makes them better performing in terms of ENDURANCE. They respond better to G-Suits, for instance, and as infantry, may well be able to stay on the move for longer, or deprive themselves of sleep and still stay alert. The day will come when a battle will be won or lost by the differences between the sexes manifesting themselves in the outcome somehow.
brndrt1, I wouldn't want my troopers crazy, they'd make bad decisions. But having lived with three wives who had/have PMS I think they'd just be a little more eager for combat.
If they can pack the gear then they can serve. Law of averages being that for every woman who can not measure up to the rigor of infantry life there is at least one male who can't hack it either. Public perception has more to do with women not serving in combat than ability. Short version: Women may not make better soldiers, but, they would make just as good of soldier as a man. I have met a lot of men that had no business in the Infantry.
One other point. Women doing hard physical activity tend to skip menstrating, so PMS would drop off in the boonies, I think.
Therein lies the problem, completely objectively one must look at that subset as a group to be exploited for that trait. There are many ways to walk around that, still.... (just kidding guys and gals).
This whole arguement harks back to the fallacy that men and women are the same except for genitalia...If they were the same, there would be no need for gender...There is 200 years of accumalated knowledge that PROVES in everyones faces that men are BUILT for combat (and not with animals, but EACH OTHER!) An Ibis's horns, and elephant's tusks...they are designed to be used against each other...then a predator. Even Dinosaurs have evidence of attacking each other...usually for space or females...Theres a REAL good reason males are bigger than females in almost every species...its not an accident people...This arguement annoys the heck out of me...The blind leading the blind...round and round, when the answer is and always has been staring at us.
I didnt say anyone proved it (although i could)...i said "it proves"...so you can, with intelligence, open eyes and mind prove it to yourself. Anyone doubting me might want to watch the upcoming olympics...check the times, the speed, the weights lifted, the distance travelled by the men, and then by the women...and then come back me.
I think that women are not better than men; but they are different. I think any woman who wants too serve, should. Any man who wants to serve, should. Those who choose not to, should not. Females, generally, may be smaller, but that alone should not exclude them from any MOS, including infantry. If they can pass an unnmodified test, why not?
I think you are mixing apples and oranges. I bet you couldn't match any of the women in the Olympics.
Of course im mixing oranges with apples...thats my arguement. And you are the one putting in a red herring saying because i couldnt beat a professional athlete my view must be flawed...poor arguement. The logic flows that BOTH are professional athletes...BOTH at the top of their game/s...compare me to an ordinary woman an i could beat them in 99% of ALL physical tests (But i AM exceptional : ) When this argument comes up i think about combat...REAL combat...not a bunch of guys firing on a spot behind a concrete wall...but the sort of combat experienced in the Pacific and to a lesser extent Europe at the end of that time...This combat is hands on...bayonet in hand, pumped to the max with adrenaline and using anything possible to overcome the enemy who wants you dead and bleeding before him...face to face combat (which will ALWAYS occur). I'd put my money on ONE man in a room FULL of women in that situation...Ive seen men and women fight...it isnt pretty.
Did you really say "keep a battalion or regiment of females together for the necessary time so they are all in one state or another" and suggest that they could then be used as part of of combat strategy? Is it any wonder she has that gleam in her eye? Or a Louisville Slugger in hand?
Clem I am naturally very protective of women. The other day a 16 year old girl was stranded where I work. Her transportation from the hospital, where I work, did not work out. She had no money. I called and paid for her cab. She cried over my generosity and I almost teared up myself because I was not expecting that type of response from her. I made sure she got in the cab and I felt totally responsible for her. I am certain I am not the only man wired this way. In combat it would be a detriment because I would go so far out of my way to protect some female.
Interesting you should say that...ANOTHER problem i have with this is exactly what you have eluded to...but it gets worse...I had my fair share of army girlfriends when i worked for Defence...some where gorgeous, and naturally i had genuine feelings for them...I think of the scenerio where a soldier gets hit by a sniper (in an urban environment)...what that sniper wants is for people to come to that soldiers aid (he doesnt shoot the first to kill but wound)...as they com sprinting out to help the yelling, screaming mate...he pops them off...one by one...it takes DISCIPLINE to ignore the cries and do things the slow way. Now...translate that to a woman, espescially one you have "feelings" for...especially a really good looking female soldier (shouldnt matter but it does)...how many men will get sniped? Its for this reason i say women should fight in women only units...and then only as a desperate measure...i'd be going to 15 and 16 year old boys before i'd put a woman in uniform.
CAC is making convincing press.... Sorry Clem. Maybe we are wirede differently for a reason, a reason so old we have forgotten the motivation behind it. We are all operating with primitive survival instincts INTACT....so maybe CAC is on to something. I wonder what Army studies have revealed? girls more prone to infection in the field? Men more likely to die of shock with a wound? Anyone that can fill us in on the Army studies of this problem, feel free to post!
The vikings had Bezerkers....We could do same...1st regiment of bezerkers..attached 82nd Airborne....forget the packin...we really are packin...unit motto....Then again the Brits had a great name that could be used for our version....the Forlorn Hope...I'll finish there.
Ooops...we all risk being barred here....Clem has a gang....But I take your point Clint...no chicken farmer wants his 1000 chickens to have 500 of em brooding at any time...so they errr...don't...