Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

talloulou said:

If the PT for men is that they run 3 miles within such and such amount of time a woman should have to do the same - when the job is serving in infantry. If a man has to be able to do so many pull ups then so should a woman - for battle readiness.

If they can't then you are basically giving a unit a weaker peer by giving them a woman and on the battlefield that is flat out unacceptable.

You can't argue it away by saying, "they're different so they do things differently," if the difference is brute strength it's an issue not to be poo poohed away.

Click to expand...

Correct, I agree with this. Set standards for what is required to do the job physically, without regard to sex, then stand by those standards.

Voidwar said:

I think you might be missing the point a bit here. Perhaps gree0232 is not saying that women can't accomplish it, but that in general, they cannot win at said activity against a group of males. Winning against a group of males is sort of part of what the armt wants in specialized infantry, and in specialized infantry contests, the prize for second place is not one you want.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. If a women can in fact meet the requirements that the men must meet then she can fight just as hard as a man. This isn't a weight lifting contest. It's about meeting the physical requirements and being able to train to the task conditions and standards. Some women can, some men can't. Sex is irrelevant in this regard.

Allowing women to specialize in a certain MOS is not about letting any woman become an infantry soldier. It's about allowing a woman an opportunity to see if she can meet the standard, and if she can, serve in that MOS. I saw many males wash out of Infantry School at Ft. Benning. Many more wash out of more specialized schools.

You make the grade or you don't.

I disagree with integrated units. I don't agree with the ridiculous notion that women "in general" can't do the job.

Voidwar said:

Quote one from this thread then.

Click to expand...

Already been done, move on.

Lerxst said:

You are trying to frame my argument for me, it won't work.

Click to expand...

Not me, the thread title. The facts of policy. "females" Not this one super tough gal that Lerxst met, this one time. The gender, as a matter of policy, is the topic. Anecdotes about individuals are not relevant. Specialized Infantry Units do not fight as individuals, but as a group.

Lerxst said:

I absolutely do know how they are used because it's what I did on active duty. You've obviously not read this thread in it's entirety. Such a shame as you just wasted a bunch of effort in railing on me without cause.

No kidding? What's your point? That women can't get physical enough for combat?

So women can't hump a ruck through the mountains? Care to prove that point?


Again, you're implying women in general can't do that. I want you to prove it.


Some could and some men couldn't. I've already addressed this dynamic previously.


I didn't say that and you apparently have missed several of my other posts in this thread. I've already made this same case as to why we shouldn't integrate women into male dominated combat units. Reading if fundamental. Go back a few pages.

The argument I am no engaged is countering the very foolish notion that women can't do the job. Some can in fact do the job. Conversely some men can't.

Click to expand...

So, we allow men in the infantry who cannot do the job?

Having pushed a few men out of the job, I believe I can say with 100% acciracy that men who are physically unable are not allowed to the job. Some still serve in infantry units, but not in the role of infantryman. Who do you think gets pushed into supply jobs which go unfilled? Good men, who are otherwise physically unable.

So how many women can hump a ruck up a mountain with the same alacrity as their male infantry counterparts?

Some obviously, but not many, and of those who could, how many would be willing to serve in the roll of the infantry?

The number of willing to serve in infantry units, even if they are able, will be by necessity, small in number (which you would know if you had read the entire post).

Since it is small, and 19 year old are 19 year olds you still have the seuxal issue. As you acknowledge this, while ignoring the reality of small numbers that physicality imposes, I am not sure what exactly your point is?

The two are linked.

That they are physically able or that this is desreable are two very different things.

talloulou said:

They're not political reasons they're biological ones and it happens everyday in our current military and other jobs like firefighters.

Click to expand...

:sigh:

Way to miss the point.

Lerxst said:

Already been done, move on.

Click to expand...

no, it specifically has not "been done" and I will not move on.

This ad hominem attack of yours, was just another falsehood posted by you in an ad hominem smear campaign. Post the quote I requested, or retract your fallacious claim, or get reported for the e"libel" you have committed.

Catz Part Deux said:

What does that have to do with anything? You stated that criminals typically flee from the police. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. In some circumstances, criminals TARGET the police.

Click to expand...

Right. Whatever. The norm is that they run away. Get used to dealing in facts, okay?

Lerxst said:

Wrong again. If a women can in fact meet the requirements that the men must meet then she can fight just as hard as a man. This isn't a weight lifting contest. It's about meeting the physical requirements and being able to train to the task conditions and standards. Some women can, some men can't. Sex is irrelevant in this regard.

Allowing women to specialize in a certain MOS is not about letting any woman become an infantry soldier. It's about allowing a woman an opportunity to see if she can meet the standard, and if she can, serve in that MOS. I saw many males wash out of Infantry School at Ft. Benning. Many more wash out of more specialized schools.

You make the grade or you don't.

I disagree with integrated units. I don't agree with the ridiculous notion that women "in general" can't do the job.

Click to expand...

And if this was the current way the military operated you'd get less objection from me in widening the scope of what women are permitted to do. However the military already lowers requirements for women. Men are expected to be able to do more in PT or not make the cut. Women make the cut, doing less. Currently. Right now. Right this minute. I do not want this carrying over to the battlefield. Plus I also think the sex stuff shouldn't be poo poo'd as a non issue as well. Why burden a battle ready unit with needless distractions no matter whose fault they may or may not be.

Voidwar said:

This ad hominem attack of yours, was just another falsehood posted by you in an ad hominem smear campaign. Post the quote I requested, or retract your fallacious claim, or get reported for the e"libel" you have committed.

Click to expand...

Your post demonstrates a clear failure to understand the concept of ad hominem.

The police are off topic. This is about the military. I can put that in a mod box if you'd like. No more police stuff, it's totally off topic.

Voidwar said:

Not me, the thread title. The facts of policy. "females" Not this one super tough gal that Lerxst met, this one time. The gender, as a matter of policy, is the topic. Anecdotes about individuals are not relevant. Specialized Infantry Units do not fight as individuals, but as a group.

Click to expand...

And your inability to grasp how this argument has evolved is quite apparent. Either make a relevant case or don't. You're hammering of this point is fruitless as there is nothing you can win here. I've explained my position, you don't like it, and you obviously can't intelligently counter it.

Catz Part Deux said:

So, boobs would handicap snipers, eh?

Click to expand...

So, since you can't argue what I've said, you've decided to embark upon a lifetime career of responding to all the things I haven't said.

I hope your new career path is profitable.

talloulou said:

And if this was the current way the military operated you'd get less objection from me in widening the scope of what women are permitted to do. However the military already lowers requirements for women. Men are expected to be able to do more in PT or not make the cut. Women make the cut, doing less. Currently. Right now. Right this minute. I do not want this carrying over to the battlefield. Plus I also think the sex stuff shouldn't be poo poo'd as a non issue as well. Why burden a battle ready unit with needless distractions no matter whose fault they may or may not be.

Click to expand...

Tal, I agree with you on your position here. What we are talking about here would require a restructuring of the requirements for women, period. As it stands now you simply couldn't trust the current system to filter good female candidates for infantry slots. It would have to be changed. I'm glad you see that I advocate changing these requirements as a prerequisite for consideration.

And based upon a few of my previous posts I think you will find that I agree with you on the bad dynamics of integrating women into currently all male combat units.

It isn't in a woman's nature to be a dirty, nasty killer.

Redress said:

Correct, I agree with this. Set standards for what is required to do the job physically, without regard to sex, then stand by those standards.

Click to expand...

Well, lets talk about this. As men and women are different, can we in actuality enforce the same standards? Do you think there would be no political pressure to push women into the ranks once these 'standards' are put in place?

Lets talk about Airborne School which I went through many, many years ago and is now fully itegrated.

The runs are supposed to be a sublime shuffle of 9 minute miles. However, every mandatory runs began at an absurdly differnet pace, that quickly washed out all or almost all the women and a few men. The women were retained because the pace was off, so .... back to the ranks. The men were sent packing. If these women were subsequently being sent to the same infantry units as the men?

There is also the case of Tennessee. She was just your typical 19 year old girl who quickly found herself on the short side of the standards. When she left, a dumb but horny 19 year old boy got himself washed out with her because he was in 'love' with her and had to be with her (until they got loaded up and sent, as failures, to very different places in the Army.)

That is the reality of men and women, young men and women, how make up the ranks of our Army. We are not talking about the female Harvard Valedictorian here.

Men and women are different, and they are treated different and even explicit standards exist they are not enforced equally. There exists inequality between the sexes, for that I apologize, but the infantry is not the tool to correct that inequality. The desired result is victory in battle, not removing societal peevishness.

I can't get into all female colleges, and yet I am able to live a happy and healthy life. Go figure.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

So, since you can't argue what I've said, you've decided to embark upon a lifetime career of responding to all the things I haven't said.

I hope your new career path is profitable.

Click to expand...

Only larger breasts would pose a real problem.

Ethereal said:

It isn't in a woman's nature to be a dirty, nasty killer.

Click to expand...

It isn't in a mans "nature" either.

Lerxst said:

Wrong again. If a women can in fact meet the requirements that the men must meet then she can fight just as hard as a man.

Click to expand...

Where to begin ?

Your logic does not hold.

"If a women" I think you meant "a woman" there right ?

If so, then you are again trying to present anecdotal individual evidence in a discussion of groups.

Further, It does not follow that she can fight just as hard as "a man", because you have generalized again, and the group you have generalized, "a man", contains many individuals who exceed the physical requirements to a significant degree. All it proves, is that she met the requirement, the rest, is conjecture, and inaccurate at that.

Lerxst said:

I disagree with integrated units.

Click to expand...

So does this mean you would prefer to allow specialization but not subsequent assignment to an already predominantly male Specialized Infantry Unit ?? If so, the only practical application would need to be something along the lines of the "separate but equal" approach I touched on earlier.

Lerxst said:

I don't agree with the ridiculous notion that women "in general" can't do the job.

Click to expand...

Do you think men "in general" can do it faster and farther ? Remember. . .

Voidwar said:

in specialized infantry contests, the prize for second place is not one you want.

Click to expand...

Ethereal said:

It isn't in a woman's nature to be a dirty, nasty killer.

Click to expand...

Unless it's personal and then she'll cut your junk off while you sleep and toss it out the window of a moving car considering it nothing more than a chew toy for the next mutt that passes by.

Ethereal said:

It isn't in a woman's nature to be a dirty, nasty killer.

Click to expand...

My, how sweet and idealistic you are.

Lerxst said:

And your inability to grasp how this argument has evolved is quite apparent. Either make a relevant case or don't. You're hammering of this point is fruitless as there is nothing you can win here. I've explained my position, you don't like it, and you obviously can't intelligently counter it.

Click to expand...

Simply wrong Jeff. By showing, several times, that you are trying to fallaciously apply anecdotal evidence to a discussion about groups, I have intelligently countered it.

Your money, doesn't spend in this discussion. This has left you bereft of both position and credibility.

Lerxst said:

It isn't in a mans "nature" either.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. Men retain a biological predilection for violence. Thousands of years of hunting and warfare have made sure of this.

Anyway, I feel you are being slightly obtuse. You know what I mean. I'm speaking to the emotional divergence between men and women. A platoon of Marine grunts has a distinct emotional makeup that in no way resembles the typical thought process of women. I know you know what I'm saying.

Ethereal said:

Sure it is. Men retain a biological predilection for violence. Thousands of years of hunting and warfare have made sure of this.

Anyway, I feel you are being slightly obtuse. You know what I mean. I'm speaking to the emotional divergence between men and women. A platoon of Marine grunts has a distinct emotional makeup that in no way resembles the typical thought process of women. I know you know what I'm saying.

Click to expand...

I think you have an overly optimistic view of women based upon your acculturization. First off, you haven't been hunters by need for thousands of years. Secondly, I don't think you've ever heard a group of women sitting around trash talking their menfolk. Women are far filthier than men, hands down.

The idea of women as delicate creatures that need to be protected is largely a Victorian upper class construct.

gree0232 said:

Well, lets talk about this. As men and women are different, can we in actuality enforce the same standards? Do you think there would be no political pressure to push women into the ranks once these 'standards' are put in place?

Click to expand...

I cannot predict the future. I do not know if such would happen or not. I do believe that an imagined deterrent should not hold us up from doing the right thing.