Do Women Make Better Soldiers Than Men?

Isn't it illegal under your constitution to have allegiance to another country? I know when our folk become American they have to revoke their allegiance to us. Only fair I suppose but then they become American. But we are way off topic now.

 

Victor, with all due respect it is not a "Moot" point. I am in no way denigrating the sacrifices or job that women in the military do. Most jobs within the military are open to them. If dedication, or intelligence, are the only prerequisites for doing the job and physical capability is not a big deal let them have at it. If their lack of physical ability compromises the combat performance, or endangers the lives of others, then they are a liability. Most of you here obviously do not understand how the military works. If Congress says, "Women will serve in the infantry, but we will not lower the standards." The military will make sure women serve in the infantry. If too many women wash out the military will attempt to find a way to prevent this, rather than have Congress accuse them of discriminating against the women. If it means that the male soldiers/Marines have to march shorter distances, or hump a larger proportion of the gear, or whatever, they will make sure it happens until people start getting killed. Then they will initially hide the fact that the deaths were due to policy changes. The military does not say no to Congress, the military says Aye, Aye sir, then tries to find a way to make it happen. When I was in the Army going through the 91A basic Medic course, we had things occur that were a perfect example. There were three of us there that were in the SF pipeline. We were scheduled to do the 91A course, then the 91B course, return to Ft. Bragg for phase 1, then return to Ft. Sam for the 300F1 Special Operations Medical Sergeants Course. One of the guys with me was a former Ranger, was a smart guy, but struggled with the academics. I breezed through it almost never studying. He would occasionally struggle, boot a test and have to retest. We'd stay up all night cramming, me doing my best to help him, he'd retest and pass. There were a number of females in the class that wouldn't study either, would fail the test, fail the retest and were dropped from the course. Because so many had dropped, (and there were a lot of males that were dropped for the same reason also) they were on the verge of having failed too high a percentage of the female students. What did they do? Uphold the academic standards. No. Force them to study harder like the Ranger I was helping? No. If they failed the test they took them into the classroom, closed the doors and gave them the answers. Then they let the males come in that needed to retest and retested them all. I questioned the Sergeant First Class that was instructing us and said, WTF. These people don't know their stuff and people will die because of it. He said, nothing he could do, it came down from higher up, and not to worry, they would probably be working in a hospital where they could learn the skills. Is that fair?

After, I graduated the Course, they kept me around waiting for the 91B class to start. I was working with the same instructor and helping him as his RTO and helping him supervise the final little field exercise they had to certify these people as Basic Combat Medics. Females more often than not could not lift and carry the simulated casualty to the extraction point. Females more often than not were not strong enough to lift the casualties upper torso to grasp them under the armpits to drag them. One thing that really sticks in my mind was one guy lying there with a simulated open fracture of his humerus (upper arm bone). They started throwing artillery simulators and yelling that they needed to move the casualties to the extraction point. I saw this female struggling to lift the casualty, but couldn't, she then proceeded to drag him by the arm that had the open fracture. I looked at him and said, "you believin' this? Guess she's a no-go." Nope, he signed off on all of them. Can't let attrition get too high. They will probably only be serving in a hospital anyway. All I could think of was man I wish I was back in the Marine Corps.
All sacrifices should be respected, male or female, no difference. You gave your life for your country, you gave your all. The highest of honors are due that service member, race, religion, sex, have no bearing on what they gave. I hope we agree on that. The following statistics are from iCasualties. com OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) and OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan).
Iraq
Total US deaths-4486
Total deaths due to hostile action-3545
Total female deaths from hostile action-63

Afghanistan
Total US deaths-2038
Total deaths due to hostile action-1622
Total female deaths from hostile action-20

Females make up 14.4% of the US military, seems that the males are already paying the lions share of the casualties. What's another few hundred male deaths because the soldier beside them couldn't keep up, or couldn't hump the extra machine gun or mortar rounds, so what if they died because there wasn't enough IV fluids to save them because the female soldiers couldn't hump the extra weight. So what if she couldn't drag him out of the line of fire, he died for her Constitutional Right to serve and was sacrificed on the alter of political correctness. They're willing to die for their country, do you really want to ask them to die so we can be politically correct?
In a perfect world. If Congress said we want to open the Combat Arms branches to females, we will not lessen the standards required. If a female can do the job let her, (we agree on this ole' wise and powerful Urgh), if it's one woman in 1000 so be it. If nine out of ten women can do it even better. That is not how it works though. If 30% is determined to be the acceptable attrition level, 70% of women will be allowed to serve, regardless of if they can do the job or not.

 

Biak...Hoooorarrr..or whatever you yanks say....Apart from the beret bit...My beret was quite nice...Monty wore a beret...patton didn't...I rest my case...I think...

Again the only thing I am concerned with on the female side of things is their ability to pass the tests necessary for the job..It seems to me and is proved in Brit forces that they can indeed do most. Infantry is still to be judged. But I would not think they are far off...If both sides of the pond dumbs down the male requirements anymore then the women will not have a problem anyway and will pass as well as the men. Its going to happen.

 

I am not arguing physical differences........I am just saying I view them as heroes who dreamed to serve and did so.....between men and women, and types of people, there most certainly are differences. I said "FOR ME" it is a moot point. The military will just have to find new ways to "SKIN A CAT" so to speak. For every man who can't be picked up by a woman there are larger guys some guy can't pick up either, it is not the end of the world although it may be the end as "we knew it".

 

Its raining...its muddy...yer egg banjo is dripping oil...the scram is orrible...the dobie will have to wait...the hole is fast filling with water...its cold...dark and you can hear voices in the distance...your radio net is on silence so they've put you in a hole with proper soldiers...The one next to me needs his mates to give him a brush and broom bath...If the boyo's on the other side playing the enemy cant smell him they defo don't need rdf detection or recce patrols...They can smell him back with sunray and his desk jockey's..Its the third night out...Good job I learned to clean the old slr with a blindfold on...can't see a bugger but can hear em...spring back...cock..working parts forward...What was that...No don't worry just the Jesus jockey checking we are all having fun...and now the guy in the hole with me makes smells that his mum would hit him for....I close me jeepers weepers and think...If Clem can shoot a rifle then I'm bloody sure I'd rather have her in here making the char Nato standard 2 sugars and watching my back than this bloody great big Rock Ape.

 

Anyone who has served knows the answer to this question. There are a few women who would make good combat soldiers but they are very few. Women are physically inferior. It's a fact. They can not make it through Ranger school unless they get their hand held through it and exceptions are made. Like I mentioned I was around very few who could actually shoot but they were still wearing sharpshooter badges. Women who could not hold up a M-16 in a firing position more than five seconds because they lacked the strength to do so. Because someone was hoping to get "a favor" if they gave them a better qualification score than what they actually earned. There are alot of politics in the American military. There is not even a debate here, imo.

 

BBC - Podcasts - One to One

If anyone is interested...Although not infantry, if you link to the BBC site and scroll down to Chantelle Taylors story she gives a good female insight into soldiering as a woman. Her views on killing will upset those that think women are pink and fluffy. And she has killed in action. Taken incoming and given outgoing and in doing so has probably done more than most British forces guys in history. And bless her little cotton socks...she was able to lift her rifle up and fire back too...But and its a big but..she aint infantry. But as to serving...killing...as tough mentally and physically her own words speak for themselves. And I particuarly love her statement on doing something that many guys probably couldnt do anyway. Kill.

 

She is a rare exception and not the norm. Some of you can keep grabbing all you want. This is a rare exception. Just like the half of dozen outstanding Soviet female snipers of WW2. They were exceptions. The Russians are also a tougher people than most. Their women are no exception.

 

I'm grabbing nothing...if your bother to read my posts I never once state they should be infantry. But I tell you what I am not..and thats a sexist. If thats being pc so be it. In one of your previous posts you put them down with your wanting to protect them remarks...What a load of old crock. They don't need your protection. They don't need anyones platitudes. They input as much to today's warfare as any man does. And no not in the infantry but you try fighing your wars without them today mate in whatever job they do. Its too late...The sexist bar room attitude of old and I've seen it and lived it is dead and long may it remain so. As I've already stated...I'd be more worried if I was you by the lowering of accepted standards of old in todays forces. The girls will not have to try much harder to be infantry if the standards keep getting lowered...they will slot in next to tomorow's males before this decade is out.

Pink and fluffy my right buttock..and some of you...I use that line because you imply the same...some of you will have to get on and lump it buddy.

 

Victor..You are quite right matey...and no they are not infantry but they die as well as any man before them or will in the future..Hero's? Yes I agree mate.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Cumbria | Funeral for killed woman soldier

Funeral of Capt Lisa Head in Huddersfield - YouTube

 

Here's the one area of your post I would disagree with. I am not up on the current status of the British Forces. I do know that with American Forces the actual standard of the infantry soldier is not and has not been lowered. Their level of physical demand has actually increased. As I stated earlier, the way the Marine Corps has dealt with the individual initial recruit is to train them up prior to leaving for recruit training. This allows the recruit to be trained up to standard once they arrive at the recruit depot because he has been improved up to the required entry level. The level he leaves Boot Camp at is the entry level of fitness required when he arrives at the School of Infantry, where they again build on that level. Support type troops then PT to maintain a level of fitness required for their job. Combat arms types will continually PT to maintain a very high level of fitness. In the US Army as a whole, they have dropped entry level fitness requirements to meet numbers. They try to remedy this during basic training, if you are not going to a combat arms MOS you will likely be less fit than what a soldier was 10 years ago. It does need to be stated that a US Army 10 years ago was more fit than his Vietnam Era forbearer and the Vietnam Era Vet more fit than his WWII predecessor. You people say WHAT? Everyone forgets that many of the WWII generation grew up in the Great Depression and lack of proper nutrition as a child had long term health effects. Soldiers are larger and stronger today than in the past, but their load has also increased correspondingly. Back on topic. Combat arms soldiers are then subjected to a much more strenuous level of PT while in infantry training and an even higher level once in their units. Army wide the poor fitness and lowered standards are an issue, at the pointy tip very much less so. Lack of fitness can be remedied with proper training, you can, with proper motivation, be trained up to very near your maximum individual capacity.


One thing I do not understand, and I wish someone could explain it to me. Why can everyone here readily accept that it is acceptable to separate mens and womens divisions in sports because there are differences in physical capacity, but completely ignore the difference when discussing military combat arms, where physical capability is one of the most crucial components? Every male, in fact the majority of males, in the military lack the physical ability to serve as an infantryman. They can and do serve honorably and well in various supporting roles. One of the primary focuses of many infantry exercises and the PT program in these units is to weed out those males that lack the ability to perform to standard. To eliminate the weak so that the strong have a better chance of survival in combat.

 

- Im with you USMCPrice...i cant understand why people cant make the obvious connection either...and i agree that as an infantryman, the requirement is MUCH higher than in sport...If anybody has witnessed or actually BEEN in a life and death struggle (warfare or on the street) they would know that tiny percentages count...massive amounts of aggression count...a killer instinct, not a defensive instinct COUNTS! You will be close enough to smell their breath, feel the stubble on their cheeks...and feel a week spot in the defence...a woman against a man in this situation? (I know USMC doesn't agree with me here but Pffft!)

 

urgh do you need a hug?

 

What exactly were you suggesting I didn't agree with?

 

The Pffft! You argued against it at the beggining of this thread when i said it then...

 

Well when you first replied with Pffft! Post#21 I had yet to post on the thread.

Now my first reply was in post#47. Now if you go back and READ what I wrote:

Post#52 I again mentioned the same issues when replying to Victor Gomez:

In post#66

I feel that I have remained consistent in my arguments. Please provide a quote where I argued against what you wrote in post#113.

 

And here i was thinking we agreed on everything except the Pfft! My apologies USMCPrice...i looked and looked and didnt find the line i remembered...so went back over everything just to make sure i wasnt going mad...

"It may very well be that being able to run a joy stick may triumph over muscles and guns. It may very well be the delicate touch that accomplishes the victory. Perhaps a "pfft" is all the thought that one may have towards imagining these qualities in the opposite sex. I think this reasoning by those who oppose women is much like that reasoning after the civil war that thought economies would fail with the loss of slavery. Ultimately the only thing that failed was the owner that failed to know how to do his own work. We need more of the ladies as soldiers and we need more of them in politics to help fix the mess the dominant group has made of things. There has been a lot of testosterone in congress and very little done to do the people's business. - Vicor Gomez

Sorry mate! This was below a comment you made on page two...i think i must have scrolled down too quick and missed the new post. Glad we dont disagree then! : )

 

The truth is surely that SOME WOMEN make better soldiers/spies whatever than SOME men. But not all given the vast diversity and inequality of human strenghs and weaknesses within each gender and across each gender.
British agent Odette Sansom/Churchil survived having her toenails pules out one by oneand red hot poker drawn acroos her back by her Gestapo interrogators in World War Two -Some male agents cracked up under similar duress
as did some women.
You can't generalise across entire genders.

 

Facepalm...