If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Girls and the military
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Just a general thought, what do you think about girls in the military?
I never really thought of. I mean if guys can, then why not girls?
But obviously some people are really against it. If someone here is, I would like to know why?
The only thing where I dont know if it is wise for a girl, is if she gets to batteling(sp?) ground, and gets taken by the enemy. Cause in that case most chances are that they are going to rape her. At least it is, by what I have heard.
So what do you think?
I never really thought of. I mean if guys can, then why not girls?
But obviously some people are really against it. If someone here is, I would like to know why?
The only thing where I dont know if it is wise for a girl, is if she gets to batteling(sp?) ground, and gets taken by the enemy. Cause in that case most chances are that they are going to rape her. At least it is, by what I have heard.
So what do you think?
0
Comments
Unfortunately the bar has been lowered for the womens training so it appears that they can compete when they cant.
Ill dig up some numbers in a bit.
And thats where I wonder why some people are against girls even entering everythings thats connected with the military.
Source - Brian Mitchell "Women in the Military: Flirting With Disaster"
% women fail
% male fail
Before/After training
Stretcher carry, level
63
38
0
0
Stretcher carry/up, down ladder
94
88
0
0
Fire hose
19
6
0
0
P250 pump, carry down
99
99
9
4
P250 pump, carry up
73
52
0
0
P250, start pump
90
75
0
0
Remove SSTO pump
99
99
0
0
Torque engine bolt
78
47
0
0
From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.
"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."
Firstly, there is a great deal of physical exertion required.
Infantry have to be able to march upwards of 20 miles with a full battle load, which includes Bergen, Weapon, tent, sleeping bag, Rations for 3-4 days and water and then fight a battle at the end of it.
Secondly there is morale. If a woman fell in battle, it would have a much deeper pyschological effect on the male troopers than if a man fell. Male troops are also more likely to fall back to help a female, jeopardising the mission.
Enemy troops can also use this to their advantage, by deliberately targetting the female troops and injuring them.
Thirdly....how many women have you ever met who would have no qualms in killing? All the girls I know, and I know a LOT have told me how they'd stop talking to me if I joined the army and killed someone.
but like everybody here said , most women dont have the physical strengh for infantry and many other combat forces, though there are some women with lotsa male hormons that are almost a man.
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I think that in combat you dont think of the fact as you have killed someone, but rather that you have gotten rid of one more enemy.
I would stop talking to my friend if he killed someone intentionally I mean for personal reasons. But if it was in war, I would worry much more about his state of mind, than the fact that he had killed someone out of military reasons.
Some girls cant kill, but if it is for saving lives, then I dont think that it is wrong. Of course it depends on the circumstances...
I have no problem with women in the military, but a DEFINITE problem with women in combat arms.
Simple example > look at the women's world records in track and field. No woman has EVER run a mile as fast as a fair high school boy. No woman has EVER pole vaulted as high as a good high school boy.
The US women World Championship soccer team was sounding thrashed - repeatedly - by the U16 boys team.
Are you ready to carry a 120lb. ruck for days on end, miles on end?
War is a physical activity, and there are no factoring for the politically correct mindgames. "Mr Hussein, there are women in the forces opposing you, so you are limited to attacking with no more than 87% capability, and your right arms must ALWAYS be tied behind your backs." Right.
Health and hygiene issues: Cuts and scratches in Vn got infected, and STAYED that way for months. I wore my sleeves down to the wrist to protect against scratches ~ none of that "sleeveless" crap here. Crossing streams meant any open wound would be infected quickly by the filth; women come from the "manufacturer" with what amount to an open wound for infections and filth to enter.
A friend of mine who drove an armored unit (glorified tracked "tow-truck" for disabled armored vehicles) in Desert Storm tells about a pack of wide dogs that chased his unit for miles. One of his unit was a female, and she had her period while they were on a three week detail. The wild dogs followed the smell from miles away. The inside of the armored unit smelled as if a carcass of meat had been rotting in there.
Battle groups were not combat capable because of the number of females who got pregnant rather than be deployed, got pregnant when the rocket attacks started, got pregnant when forces grouped to engage.
Military service is about denial of self for the mission, the squad, the platton, the company, etc. Self comes LAST!!! Women who want to serve in combat units are about "rights of self", and are putting themselves first. Unit cohesion is destroyed. Esprit de corps becomes non-existent.
Military service is not about individual rights, but acceptance of responsibility.
No nation with a military worth a damn still utilizes women in combat arms. That is an experiment which failed.
I have nothing but respect for active duty and veterans who are women, but nothing but disgust for those who clamor for women in combat arms.
And what do you think happens to men?
Equal opportunity on that one...
Unless they have no other choice. i believe Israel uses female combat troops, however only when the shit really hits the fan.
I dont think that women in general were made for combat.
But it pisses me off when I hear people who think that women should totally get banned from the military.
A woman can be just as much of a patriot as a man can.
The thing about the raping is, that if a woman is lucky enough to get out alive, she could end up being pregnant with the enemys baby. That would give one MAJOR psychological effect. As far as I know men can't get pregnant. So it would be just as degrading for a man, but he doesnt have to deal with the fact of a VERY unwanted pregnancy.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseam at military.com http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=cfrm&s=78919038
I will yield to those within the SpecOps community that state unequivically that there is no front line military in the world which currently has females in combat arms. That female are given infantry training so as to be able to join the fight when "the shit hits the fan", that does not mean that they are regularly deployed in infantry units. Difference there...
Suppose you're right. Women being in the armed forces in anything other than a support role is idiocy and endgangers the lives of others.
p.s.that link only takes you to the main page, not the specific topic.
Women in the military
Nah... couldn't have.
I agree with both of them. Women are physiologically different, and that makes for additional weaknesses which cannot be afforded in combat troops. I have no qualms about women serving in the Forces, but I think frontline combat troop is beyond the question.
I had this conversation with my dad. He's a mounted police officer and regularly is in a riot or crowd control situation. He said something like this:
'In an incident last year, he was riding down the street line abreast with about 20 other police cavalary. It turned out that there was a WPC near the outside of the line. I found it distracting because it is human nature to worry about the woman and to try and protect her, no matter how good she is at her job. It affected my capability and almost all of the men in our section. As a fighting force, we were weakened by this ne woman just being there.'
I have no doubt that there are certain women who can pass the fitness test to get into certain units. A while back, 3 women were allowed to attempt the Royal Marine Commando selection and they all did ok, but dropped out.
I realise its different in combat, but the same rules still apply and the combat effectiveness could be jepaordised and that isn't acceptable.
"The three reasons why women should not be allowed in combat"
The topic has been talked out over, and over, and over, on many of the forums there.
Do a search on HillaryC2004... she was demanding that women be included in the US Army Rangers...
http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=78919038&f=65819558&m=3921991561
[ 27-04-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
You WHAT!?!?!?!? Instructors!? You have to be kidding me! War is far too serious a business to be taught be amateurs, and anyone who's never been to the front lines definitely qualifies as an amateur, 100%.
Bloody hell, if I were going into the fire, I would want my comrades to have gone through a proper training course run by someone who knows what the hell he's on, or else!
MacKenZie... the sensitivity training obviously was a failure. You are to report for remedial classes.
oh, btw... the instructor will be ...a woman. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Would you actually prefer that your drill instructors be the likes of ME? <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Combat training instructed by combat veterans? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Either you got it right, got your sh*t wired tight, or I would PT you to f*cking death! Not exactly an equal opportunity, touchie/feelie politically correct perspective, what? <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 29-04-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
If there's one thing I've come to appreciate over the past year and a half it is that those things that are acquired without effort are largely worthless. There is an important sense in which "no pain, no gain" is true.
I'm no masochist, and I don't enjoy feeling pain. However, I know that hard training has brought me on, made me harder and better; I could quote examples. I dare say I wouldn't enjoy being put through hard PT and the rest -- but I'd do it. If you were my instructor I would have to trust that you knew your stuff and that there was a reason for each and every exercise. Training for war is too important to leave it to bullies or amateurs -- only professionals who know what they're on about will do.
Not easy to make the transition from prey to preditor... even the smart ones were Darwined away from us.
Which is precisely my point: the only ones truly qualified to teach combat are those that have been there and done it. Classroom and parade ground drill is an essential beginning, but it is not the completion -- not for the ordinary soldier and certainly not for a would-be instructor.
I am hoping to become an Educational and Training Officer in the British Army when I finish my degree. Before I am even eligible to start my training I have to not only have a degree but also a post-graduate in teaching. This will clearly give me the basics for being able to pass on knowledge in the most effective way. From there I go on to RMA Sandhurst where I will have to go through a year of Officer training, which I know will not be easy. After this the theory is that I get thrown in at the deep-end as a Second Leuitenant (sp?) to gain proper experience out in the field. I know that some of you here (the majority even?) don't agree with women being involved in the training of soldiers but this is something that is put into practice.
I fully agree with everyone here that women should definitely not be put on the front line (despite the fact that female soldiers have to remain fit enough so that they could do so in theory) ... medical studies have proven that women are not as 'fighting fit' as men and also their psychological and hormonal make-up makes them more likely to suffer from depression etc etc. A further problem which has already been pointed out is that of menstrual cycles. As a female this means that hygiene is that little bit more important ... *assumes detail is unnecessary here*.
As for the relationships between the two sexes, it does seem that men are more protective of women through natural human instinct, hence, weakening a unit as a whole if it contains a mixture of the two sexes.
The British Army does not allow women to join the Infantry or any other front line corps and I for one, truly believe that they are justified in this decision. If your country is at war then the people you want at the front are the ones that are most likely to survive, not the ones that are just there to prove a point about equal opportunities. I'm all for women joining the military (as I said, I plan to) but only in particular positions where they will be of use rather than a mere hindrance.
I'm sick of explaining it over and over again...even though I am an female in the United States Army. Do not put me on the front lines. (though I wouldn't mind it, cause I'm too hooah for my own good), its not the best choice. It has to do with sex, it has to do with body structure, it has to do with combat situations and moral society. All this and war would clash, and in the long run, kill us all. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">