One man's opinion of women in the military

[+DoctorQuest 125]

I ran across an article by some guy named Tom Kratman. The article is called "Training for War." I don't know the guy's background but this statement really hit me the wrong way. (Italics are mine.)

 

"It would be nice to be able to say that everything here will apply as much to women as to men. Sadly, I’d be lying if I said I believed that. I don’t. I do believe that it might, if we approached the subject of women in combat with half a grain of sense (see, e.g., my previous article for Baen, The Amazon’s Right Breast, as well as my novel, The Amazon Legion). But c’mon, that’s not going to happen, not with the PC lunatics having control of the keys to the asylum. What I rather expect to happen, though, is that woman are going to volunteer to stay away from combat arms in huge and overwhelming numbers, that most of those very few who do go combat arms will be – shall we say, charitably – a bit on the masculine side, and that they might well become just one of the guys, with as much interest in, say, chasing girls are any male grunt, ever."

 

I have never served myself (for good or ill) but I know there are others here that have. That being said, I have had the honor of meeting some service women and, um, I got a MUCH better impression of them than Mr. Kratman. My impression is that women have wanted to serve for years and for many of the same reason as men. Sense of duty, love of country, a chance to better themselves... 

 

Thoughts?

Edited September 28, 2014 by DoctorQuest

[+Brain32 265]

I'm against female infantry, pilots yes, navy(ships and subs) yes, radars, tactical, strategic, logistics etc.etc. - yes, but foxhole with an M4 - sorry, no. Not even saying they are not or would not be capable but that's not even the point.

[macelena 1,070]

Whatever they can take, they are welcome, pretty much like anyone else.

[+Nightshade/PR 7,957]

They can do the job(s) just as well as men. In the 2+ decades that my military career lasted, I never saw women that can't do whatever they put their minds to.

Of course they serve for the same reason men do, and speaking for myself, we can share a foxhole, tent, crappy bivouac in bumf**k nowhere, and whatever else is thrown at us anytime, anyplace, gender be damned. And if they want to carry an M4, M60, M240, or M-whatever, carry on.

[+dtmdragon 2,704]

I agree with the above two statements. However the physical and academic standards need to be the same for both genders. That is simply so what ever gender the individual happens to be they are able to do the job to the same standard as every other individual. I have not served in the military but I am a Career Firefighter in a disciplined service. What it brakes down to is when the shit hits the fan you need to know that the person next to you can hold their own and if things really turn to shit they can bail your ass out to lol. The biggest argument against women in the services I believe stems from having scaled standards based on gender. This gives rise to the argument that they aren't strong/ good enough to do the job on their own merits and shouldn't be there. In some cases this is ture. There have been times at work when the Firefighter next to me is a 60kg/ 130Ib female Barbie doll that doesn't stand a hope of dragging me out if I go down. On the other hand I've worked alongside female Firefighters who are competing bodybuilders and could bench press me with one hand! My point is some females are more than capable mentally and physically but they should have to meet the same standards as their male counterparts, which should be the standards required to do the job. If they can met the standards, do the job and perform under pressure then they have every right to be there.

Edited September 29, 2014 by dtmdragon

[+Dave 2,322]

I'm sure my wife with 20 years in the Army disagrees with that dude. With all the deployments, time in the field, carrying an M-16/M-4 on patrols, she was doing it like every other man.

[+dtmdragon 2,704]

That's my point Dave, she can do the job so she doesn't need an easier physical standard than a male so why have two standards? I'm only speakeing from my own experience in admitadly a non military service but neither-the-less one that relies on physical and mental performance under extream conditions. I personly don't care about gender as long as whoever it is can do their job correctly to the required level. I think there is a minimum standard required for certain jobs or roles and that should be the standard for all regardless of gender. I also think with one standard for all those that would try and argue a female can't physically do a job or role lose that argument. And at the same time we have the right kind of people doing these jobs regardless of their gender.

[+Muesli 2,161]

-Women in every branch of the armed forces? YES!

-Double standards? NO!

[+Brain32 265]

I never questioned raw physical capability I question overall unit functioning and tactical decision making under fire. When sh** hits the fan and "fight or flight" subconscious state of mind kicks in, instincts go primal, very primal.

One of the primal instincts of a male is to protect a female tactics be damned, gender ideologists (essentially, people that couldn't graduate on something useful) can try to dance around that fact all they want but it still remains a fact. I think pushing such things is messing with peoples brains and their very nature.

[+Dave 2,322]

I never questioned raw physical capability I question overall unit functioning and tactical decision making under fire. When sh** hits the fan and "fight or flight" subconscious state of mind kicks in, instincts go primal, very primal.

One of the primal instincts of a male is to protect a female tactics be damned, gender ideologists (essentially, people that couldn't graduate on something useful) can try to dance around that fact all they want but it still remains a fact. I think pushing such things is messing with peoples brains and their very nature.

 

That is what training like you fight is for. That is why the US military trains, trains, and then trains some more. It becomes 2nd nature so that "fight or flight" does not kick in.

[+Gepard 11,323]

A woman can do nearly all things which a man can do, some things they can do better. Perhaps not pee while standing ;-)

 

But there is only one good reason not to bring women into combat units. Its a biological reason. Young women are biologically to valuable, because they are biologically inefficient.

What does it mean? A comparision. How many children will you get if you couple one man and 100 women in one year? If all went good a little bit over 100. But how many children you will get if you couple one women with 100 men? 1 perhaps 2.

Thatswhy a people can endure the loss of a lot of young men, but not the loss of a lot of young women without to risk the own future. Its a simple question of reproduction. I know this sounds technically, but this is the only reason to deny women to serve in combat units. We need them to save the future.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Gepard

[+Dave 2,322]

A woman can do nearly all things which a man can do, some things they can do better. Perhaps not pee while standing ;-)

 

 

very true. 

[JediMaster 451]

A woman can do nearly all things which a man can do, some things they can do better. Perhaps not pee while standing ;-)

 

But there is only one good reason not to bring women into combat units. Its a biological reason. Young women are biologically to valuable, because they are biologically inefficient.

What does it mean? A comparision. How many children will you get if you couple one man and 100 women in one year? If all went good a little bit over 100. But how many children you will get if you couple one women with 100 men? 1 perhaps 2.

Thatswhy a people can endure the loss of a lot of young men, but not the loss of a lot of young women without to risk the own future. Its a simple question of reproduction. I know this sounds technically, but this is the only reason to deny women to serve in combat units. We need them to save the future.

 

Eh, with the population having grown by 1 billion in under 20 years I don't think that's a compelling reason anymore. There is literally zero chance of negative population growth due to war losses unless it's a nuclear war, and then it doesn't matter if you're on the front or not!

 

Now I don't think it makes sense to force women onto the frontlines, but if they want to go to say they can't is dumb.

If a service is genuinely that worried about a woman not being as capable as a man, make all-female units so the ability to carry one off or fight-or-flight are not involved. However, only the most chauvinistic forces would do that I think.

[+Gepard 11,323]

If you live in a country with 200 million or with 50 million inhabitants i will agree with you.  But there are a lot of countries which are much smaller. Take the baltic states for instance. For such small countries a heavy loss of young women would have tremendous effects for the development of the population.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

A woman can do nearly all things which a man can do, some things they can do better. Perhaps not pee while standing ;-)

 

But there is only one good reason not to bring women into combat units. Its a biological reason. Young women are biologically to valuable, because they are biologically inefficient.

What does it mean? A comparision. How many children will you get if you couple one man and 100 women in one year? If all went good a little bit over 100. But how many children you will get if you couple one women with 100 men? 1 perhaps 2.

Thatswhy a people can endure the loss of a lot of young men, but not the loss of a lot of young women without to risk the own future. Its a simple question of reproduction. I know this sounds technically, but this is the only reason to deny women to serve in combat units. We need them to save the future.

Modern wars let nobody out of harm's way. Any place can become a battlefield before evacuation is decreed. And on a battlefield, the ones who survive are the ones with loaded weapons and training and will to use them.

 

"World War One: one civilian killed to one hundred soldiers.

World War Two: one civilian killed to one soldier.

Vietnam War: ten civilians killed to one soldier.

Now you know how to survive the next war: ENLIST !"

(Pierre Desproges)

[Dave63 13]

Over the years I have been privileged enough to serve with a few that were quite good. Three in particular I would take with me into harms way without hesitation. In lieu of or in addition to men, makes no difference.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Gep, population is a neat topic. Interesting that some self described "islamic" terrorists groups have used female suicide bombers, not often so far, but it has happened.

 

During this hot HOT Ukraine summer I saw a vid of women in Nova Russia militia, snipers most likely, not sure, but I can't find it now.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Oh, yea...

 

Gep::

 

A woman can do nearly all things which a man can do, some things they can do better. Perhaps not pee while standing ;-)

 

Ask *anybody* who has cleaned pubic restrooms. MEN can NOT pea properly while standing.

 

They can't do it. So-called "men"©® need to sit and pea properly like everybody else.

 

Think of Teh Janitor hehe