• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army to commission first 22 female officers into ground combat units

JoeTrumps

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,346
Location
Memphis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Feminists won this battle like they win every other battle. Half of the time they make no sense when making their fight, but since they're women and they want something men give in and go along with it. There really isn't much more to it.


As for the opposition, like anything else concerning liberal goals, it doesn't matter. If people oppose them they will just call them bigots and pretend as if their opinion is wrong by default.
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Now we just have to wait until they start coming home in body bags. :roll:

Female infantry officers are actually a bit more problematic than regular soldiers, to be honest. If a grunt gets broke, or can't hack it, the mission can continue, albeit at reduced strength. If you lose leadership, that's when **** truly starts to hit the fan.

Infantry officers are also supposed to be some pretty damn tough MF'ers, setting the example for the troops, and even scaring the piss out of them to help keep everyone in line, if need be. That's going to be difficult for a woman to pull off. Female commanders, in my experience, tend to more often fall somewhere between "motherly" (which is fine, and all, but not really useful in combat), and "obnoxious overbearing bitch everyone hates." The latter is more likely to result in fraggings, than obedience, when you're dealing with a troop of trained killers.
 
Last edited:

Reformedfindlay

cynical class clown
DP Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
3,409
Location
CONNECTICUT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Oh quite the experiment, let's watch. Should they succeed, so be it, allow them to stay. Should they fail, then rip em all out and keep em out.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,183
Reaction score
21,308
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
All I can say is that I am glad it did not happen during my time in service, and also happy I am not a young trooper in today's politically-correct Army.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Now we just have to wait until they start coming home in body bags. :roll:

Female infantry officers are actually a bit more problematic than regular soldiers, to be honest. If a grunt gets broke, or can't hack it, the mission can continue, albeit at reduced strength. If you lose leadership, that's when **** truly starts to hit the fan.

Infantry officers are also supposed to be some pretty damn tough MF'ers, setting the example for the troops, and even scaring the piss out of them to help keep everyone in line, if need be. That's going to be difficult for a woman to pull off. Female commanders, in my experience, tend to more often fall somewhere between "motherly" (which is fine, and all, but not really useful in combat), and "obnoxious overbearing bitch everyone hates."

This is going to sound sexist as hell, but that's not all that different than female leaders in general.

Ok people, feel free to blast me for that comment. :mrgreen:
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
26,649
Reaction score
13,555
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Females have a place in military leadership positions. I have worked for many great female Chiefs and Officers, and I regret that I have lost contact with most them over the years. But, the Navy female officer position is very different than a battlefield type command position.

There is no GI Jane out there that can stand up what the average Seal or Grunt go through. She hasn't been built yet.

The only exception to this reality, is in the minds of the liberal academia types who are taking over the military.
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Now we just have to wait until they start coming home in body bags. :roll:

Female infantry officers are actually a bit more problematic than regular soldiers, to be honest. If a grunt gets broke, or can't hack it, the mission can continue, albeit at reduced strength. If you lose leadership, that's when **** truly starts to hit the fan.

Infantry officers are also supposed to be some pretty damn tough MF'ers, setting the example for the troops, and even scaring the piss out of them to help keep everyone in line, if need be. That's going to be difficult for a woman to pull off. Female commanders, in my experience, tend to more often fall somewhere between "motherly" (which is fine, and all, but not really useful in combat), and "obnoxious overbearing bitch everyone hates."

This is going to sound sexist as hell, but that's not all that different then female leaders in general.

Ok people, feel free to blast me for that comment. :mrgreen:

You're not wrong. :shrug:

The difference is simply less critical when lives aren't on the line.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Females have a place in military leadership positions. I have worked for many great female Chiefs and Officers, and I regret that I have lost contact with most them over the years. But, the Navy female officer position is very different than a battlefield type command position.

There is no GI Jane out there that can stand up what the average Seal or Grunt go through. She hasn't been built yet.

The only exception to this reality, is in the minds of the liberal academia types who are taking over the military.

I think it's funny how liberals make up a minority of the military, but at the same time liberals are making the rules for the military.
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
23,247
Reaction score
10,786
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Feminists won this battle like they win every other battle. Half of the time they make no sense when making their fight, but since they're women and they want something men give in and go along with it. There really isn't much more to it.


As for the opposition, like anything else concerning liberal goals, it doesn't matter. If people oppose them they will just call them bigots and pretend as if their opinion is wrong by default.

So, feminists won this battle, as they tend to win all their battles? Is that what you are saying?


And then, you are saying, you DON"T want a group of people who have a track record of winning the conflicts they choose to engage in serving in key roles in our military?


Do defend that, somehow, would you?
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So, feminists won this battle, as they tend to win all their battles? Is that what you are saying?


And then, you are saying, you DON"T want a group of people who have a track record of winning the conflicts they choose to engage in serving in key roles in our military?


Do defend that, somehow, would you?

You realize that "political battles" fought by snarky bureaucrats and editorialists trading quips and rhetoric aren't the same thing as an actual battles, fought between armed combatants, right?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So, feminists won this battle, as they tend to win all their battles? Is that what you are saying?

Name me a battle feminists started that they lost. You can't because there isn't one. They can complain about the dumbest most childish of things and they somehow win. Not because their case has any validity, but because most men are idiots that give in to anything a woman wants.

And then, you are saying, you DON"T want a group of people who have a track record of winning the conflicts they choose to engage in serving in key roles in our military?

I'm talking about political battles, not combat in war. lol.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
26,649
Reaction score
13,555
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think it's funny how liberals make up a minority of the military, but at the same time liberals are making the rules for the military.

OMG....you are totally out of it! Liberal civilians dictate what the military does, and how it does it!
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
23,247
Reaction score
10,786
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You realize that "political battles" fought by snarky bureaucrats and editorialists trading quips and rhetoric aren't the same thing as an actual battles, fought between armed combatants, right?

Of course I am aware, but I am also aware that someone who knows HOW to win, is going to be winner 9 times out of 10, regardless of the contest. These are officers, not grunts.
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Of course I am aware, but I am also aware that someone who knows HOW to win, is going to be winner 9 times out of 10, regardless of the contest. These are officers, not grunts.

A) His point was that they "win" petty political battles, which they don't really deserve to win, simply because of the largely female-deferent nature of gender power dynamics in modern popular discourse. That's a criticism of the "limp-wristed" and generally absurd state of modern society, not an endorsement for any kind of feminist "fighting spirit." It's certainly not speaking to any sort of innate feminist battle prowess.

B) As I already noted, these are Infantry Officers we are talking about here, not desk jockeys. They are expected to be just as tough and physically capable as the men they lead, if not a bit more so.

Inspiring respect and obedience in trained killers, especially in a high-stress, combat, environment, requires a particular kind of person, with a particular kind of presence. I'm not at all convinced that female leadership will really hold up to that standard.
 
Last edited:

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
23,247
Reaction score
10,786
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A) His point was that they "win" petty political battles, which they don't really deserve to win, simply because of the largely female-deferent nature of gender power dynamics in modern popular discourse. That's a criticism of the "limp-wristed" and generally absurd state of modern society, not an endorsement for any kind of feminist "fighting spirit." It's certainly not speaking to any sort of innate feminist battle prowess.

B) As I already noted, these are Infantry Officers we are talking about here, not desk jockeys. They are expected to be just as tough and physically capable as the men they lead, if not a bit more so.

Inspiring respect and obedience in trained killers, especially in a high-stress, combat, environment, requires a particular kind of person, with a particular kind of presence. I'm not all convinced that female leadership will really hold up to that standard.

Petty? Women have convinced a nation run primarily by men that they are as strong and tough as men. That's an accomplishment, no matter how dumb you think men can be. Fact : Women are not as strong as men. They are also not as physically tough. They simply lack the density we have. Yet, somehow, they have managed to convince a great deal of people that they in fact are.

For a country that prides itself on the quality and quantity of it's bull****, that right there is the equivalent of mounting Everest.

As for infantry officers needing to be as strong, as tough...perhaps even a little MORE so than those they lead...If there are women in that infantry, why can't that still be true? Furthermore, a GOOD leader is not so because they are better at their tasks than those they lead...they are a GOOD leader for an entirely DIFFERENT set of reasons. I have worked with many GREAT female leaders. A leader's primary job is to inspire. All that other ****...is just ****. Bottom line. If the soldiers under you don't respect you because you can't run a mile as fast as they can, or lift as much, then the problem isn't you, it's them. Because that's not a leader's job. If those soldiers have a problem with that simple understanding...remove them. It's what I would do.
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Petty? Women have convinced a nation run primarily by men that they are as strong and tough as men. That's an accomplishment, no matter how dumb you think men can be. Fact : Women are not as strong as men. They are also not as physically tough. They simply lack the density we have. Yet, somehow, they have managed to convince a great deal of people that they in fact are.

For a country that prides itself on the quality and quantity of it's bull****, that right there is the equivalent of mounting Everest.

Uhhh... No, besides a small minority of cultural Leftists who are either completely unqualified to judge such matters, or don't really care how well women perform in combat, because they view the military as being irrelevant at best, and something which they should actively seek to dismantle at worst, the feminists haven't actually "convinced" much of anyone. There simply happens to be a Leftist President in office at the moment, who basically has absolute control over military policy, because he can and will fire and replace any and every military leader who tries to counter-act his edicts.

He's not called the "Commander in Chief" for nothing, you know. This is one of the downsides of a civilian run military. :roll:

Again, either way, I'm not seeing how on Earth you're making this leap from "semi-effective petty political bulls***ers" to "qualified warfighters." It's a complete non-sequitur.

At the end of the day, modern feminism is a movement born of privilege and luxury, nothing less. It exists because our society is comfortable, secure, and (quite frankly) bored enough that allowing a bit more freedom with regards to gender roles doesn't result in things simply imploding outright, and because our men are civilized enough not to merely smack women down for being uppity, like they do in so many other parts of world. Under more chaotic and uncertain circumstances (like WAR), all of that goes right out the window fairly quickly.

What you're doing here is akin to arguing that since Gandhi was effective at creating chaos in the political order of the British Empire, he'd be effective as a military leader as well. Such a position ignores the fact that the only reason Gandhi was successful to begin with is because the British were moral and civilized enough not to simply shoot his scrawny peace-loving butt outright (or worse). Gandhi's story would have ended far differently if he had lived under the influence of a regime like Rome, the USSR, Nazi Germany, or even modern China instead.

As for infantry officers needing to be as strong, as tough...perhaps even a little MORE so than those they lead...If there are women in that infantry, why can't that still be true? Furthermore, a GOOD leader is not so because they are better at their tasks than those they lead...they are a GOOD leader for an entirely DIFFERENT set of reasons. I have worked with many GREAT female leaders. A leader's primary job is to inspire. All that other ****...is just ****. Bottom line. If the soldiers under you don't respect you because you can't run a mile as fast as they can, or lift as much, then the problem isn't you, it's them. Because that's not a leader's job. If those soldiers have a problem with that simple understanding...remove them. It's what I would do.

Because women aren't "stronger," "tougher," or "more intimidating" than the average combat infantryman PERIOD. No amount of "leadership" is going to change that. :roll:

Besides even the above, your argument here can be plainly seen to be a lot of word salad that simply ignores reality. That reality is that combat arms pretty much runs off of testosterone, and male instinct at its very most primitive. It simply happens to be harnessed towards more productive goals, as it is in any number of tea based sports. In that regard, an Infantry Officer is basically like the Quarterback of a football team, or any other generalized sports "Captain." His position only means dick if the people under his command trust and respect him, and that only happens if he is able to pull his weight on equal or better terms than the rest of the team.

This would seem to be common sense, if you ask me. Unfortunately, however, a lot of civilians seem to basically turn their brains off when it comes to anything relating to the military. :roll:

Frankly, combat units are a bit more drastic than even that. Again, they're made up of trained killers, in highly stressful life or death situations.

When discipline breaks down in such an environment, people die. It isn't always the enemy pulling the trigger.
 
Last edited:

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,504
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The assumption that out of some 150 million American women there cannot possibly be a few dozen at the top end of the bell curve on par with everything expected of the average infantry officer is among the more stupid things I've read on this forum.
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The assumption that out of some 150 million American women there cannot possibly be a few dozen at the top end of the bell curve on par with everything expected of the average infantry officer is among the more stupid things I've read on this forum.


Well, I've got almost ten years in the military, and I still have of yet to meet even one female service member who holds a candle to the most "hard" and grizzled Officers and NCOs the combat arms field as to offer.

That really begs the question; even assuming that there are a "few dozen" women out there who conceivably could, how much in the way of time, money, and resources are we willing to waste chasing a statistical anomaly, when we could simply recruit a man instead for a small fraction of the same cost, and have him perform just as well, if not better?

For that matter, how many "affirmative action" cases, who were never actually qualified, but were pushed through the system anyway for political reasons, are we willing to tolerate in the meantime? How much of the damage they'll inevitably cause?

I mean... I hate to break it to everyone, but, historically speaking, where female soldiers are rare, female tactical commanders are basically unheard of (at best, you'll occasionally find examples of female generals, who played more symbolic and administrative roles, or women who were only really 'in charge' in so much as they happened to be romantically attached to a man who was). There is a reason for that.
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,108
Reaction score
17,706
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well, I've got almost ten years in the military, and I still have of yet to meet even one female service member who holds a candle to the most "hard" and grizzled Officers and NCOs the combat arms field as to offer.

I bet if you met one of those 22 women you'd end up like Happy... :mrgreen:

 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I bet if you met one of those 22 women you'd end up like Happy... :mrgreen:


Scarlett Johansson can wrap her legs around my head any time. As far as all that physics defying Hollywood voodoo is concerned, however, I have my doubts. :D
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
23,247
Reaction score
10,786
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Uhhh... No, besides a small minority of cultural Leftists who are either completely unqualified to judge such matters, or don't really care how well women perform in combat, because they view the military as being irrelevant at best, and something which they should actively seek to dismantle at worst, the feminists haven't actually "convinced" much of anyone. There simply happens to be a Leftist President in office at the moment, who basically has absolute control over military policy, because he can and will fire and replace any and every military leader who tries to counter-act his edicts.

He's not called the "Commander in Chief" for nothing, you know. This is one of the downsides of a civilian run military. :roll:

Again, either way, I'm not seeing how on Earth you're making this leap from "semi-effective petty political bulls***ers" to "qualified warfighters." It's a complete non-sequitur.

At the end of the day, modern feminism is a movement born of privilege and luxury, nothing less. It exists because our society is comfortable, secure, and (quite frankly) bored enough that allowing a bit more freedom with regards to gender roles doesn't result in things simply imploding outright, and because our men are civilized enough not to merely smack women down for being uppity, like they do in so many other parts of world. Under more chaotic and uncertain circumstances (like WAR), all of that goes right out the window fairly quickly.

What you're doing here is akin to arguing that since Gandhi was effective at creating chaos in the political order of the British Empire, he'd be effective as a military leader as well. Such a position ignores the fact that the only reason Gandhi was successful to begin with is because the British were moral and civilized enough not to simply shoot his scrawny peace-loving butt outright (or worse). Gandhi's story would have ended far differently if he had lived under the influence of a regime like Rome, the USSR, Nazi Germany, or even modern China instead.



Because women aren't "stronger," "tougher," or "more intimidating" than the average combat infantryman PERIOD. No amount of "leadership" is going to change that. :roll:

Besides even the above, your argument here can be plainly seen to be a lot of word salad that simply ignores reality. That reality is that combat arms pretty much runs off of testosterone, and male instinct at its very most primitive. It simply happens to be harnessed towards more productive goals, as it is in any number of tea based sports. In that regard, an Infantry Officer is basically like the Quarterback of a football team, or any other generalized sports "Captain." His position only means dick if the people under his command trust and respect him, and that only happens if he is able to pull his weight on equal or better terms than the rest of the team.

This would seem to be common sense, if you ask me. Unfortunately, however, a lot of civilians seem to basically turn their brains off when it comes to anything relating to the military. :roll:

Frankly, combat units are a bit more drastic than even that. Again, they're made up of trained killers, in highly stressful life or death situations.

When discipline breaks down in such an environment, people die. It isn't always the enemy pulling the trigger.

First, the concept of electing, respecting, and ultimately following a leader based on their physical prowess is cro magnon. Is the B in you own example the roughest and toughest? No, he's the weakest, but also the most technically skilled, and strategically most adept.

you may want to do yourself a favor and Google "famous female soldiers". Killing isn't the sole province of men, and it never has been. Even the bible, a book I gather you know a lot about, makes note of this.
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
First, the concept of electing, respecting, and ultimately following a leader based on their physical prowess is cro magnon.

And what, exactly, do you think frontline combat is, dude?

There's nothing "clean," or "civilized," about blowing someone's head off, bludgeoning them to death with the butt of a rifle, or ripping their guts out with a knife or bayonet. Quite frankly, if someone doesn't have the rather blatantly uncivilized edge necessary to do such things effectively, then they've got no business in such a line of work to begin with.

The fact of the matter here is that the basic model of small bands of heavily armed men roaming the country-side, looking to hunt, raid settlements, or murder other bands of armed men, has pretty much been around since the dawn of humanity, and it hasn't hasn't changed a whole lot in the time since. Hell! Even Chimpanzees do it.

It requires a certain mindset, and a certain kind of leadership. Yes, both happen to be rather "primitive," because "primitive" works. That's not going to change.

Is the B in you own example the roughest and toughest? No, he's the weakest, but also the most technically skilled, and strategically most adept.

Who in the heck is "B," first off? Do you mean QB? If so, he's also expected to be able to take some of the hardest hits on the field, run the ball, if need be, and not throw like a girl, in addition to being smart enough to think strategically.

If all you can do is think, then you've got no place on the actual field. That's exactly what I'm getting at here.

you may want to do yourself a favor and Google "famous female soldiers". Killing isn't the sole province of men, and it never has been. Even the bible, a book I gather you know a lot about, makes note of this.

:roll:

Feel free to name some.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I think it's funny how liberals make up a minority of the military, but at the same time liberals are making the rules for the military.

As they say, elections have consequences.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As they say, elections have consequences.

I'm not a huge fan of a president getting the results of study that say something is a bad idea and then doing it anyway. It's like, hmmm, that study I asked for shot me in the face, but **** it, I'm doing it anyways.
 
Top Bottom