Women in the Infantry

[quik2dasilverho]

In regards to the link about Soviet women fighting in WWI, it was an act of desperation and did not work out too well for them, hence why afterwards they didn't keep them. This is not to say that many of those women did not fight bravely, but rather it was more of a militia-type organization than a true army of sorts. WWII was a similar story: Stalin only had about 1.5 million troops and Hitler was knocking at his door. Conscripting women was a necessity.

Both of these wars were also trench warfare, the last of the conventional wars we would ever fight. Being that this is the day and age of unconventional warfare, we no longer sit in trenches and take pot shots at each other or try to lob a mortar in your canteen cup. Soldiers are constantly on the move and need to bring everything with them - yes, vehicles will be available, but not always. If you need to get to a particular place and the only way is on foot, looks like you're taking the boot leather express. If you're going to be operating out of there for days or weeks at a time, you've got a lot of stuff to bring with you.

Regarding the IDF and the UK study, we've covered both of those. The Caracal Bn is untested and primarily mans the border by Egypt, more of a police role than an actual combat role. In September of last year, one female soldier was praised for shooting a terrorist while another got disciplined for hiding in the bushes nearby.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/one-female-warrior-excels-during-fire-exchange-as-another-is-shamed/2012/09/24/

As for the UK study, they decided it was a bad idea not just due to male soldiers being overprotective but also because of what some other studies have shown - female soldiers training in the same capacity as men tend to get injured (primarily lower body) at a much higher rate than normal. Considering the higher rate of injuries males get in combat arms training vs combat support training, and how females already have much higher injury rates occurred in combat support training alone - even if the 5 testing here did make it, we'd only see maybe 2 of them for a while as the other three would be injured, at least 1 of them enough to get her a disability discharge.

 

[tjgonzalez]

This is also interesting. Seems a lot of Marines won't stick around if women are allowed to serve in combat roles.

http://www.examiner.com/article/almost-1-5-male-marines-would-leave-corps-if-women-allowed-into-combat-roles

 

[bluetopaz]

Why do you say it didn't work out, and was that a training/supply issue more than a gender one?


Still doesn't mean anything. Women are already humping thier personal kit in other armies and dealing with it.


I've read stories about men who couldn't handle combat too. Again, not a gender issue. Them being untested in proper warfare is a good point, but also extends to the men in the IDF and doesn't discount the other countries that have women in combat roles and who have their forces deployed.



I haven't got a rebuttal for this one really

This is also interesting. Seems a lot of Marines won't stick around if women are allowed to serve in combat roles.

http://www.examiner.com/article/almost-1-5-male-marines-would-leave-corps-if-women-allowed-into-combat-roles
Education issue. Its the same assumptions that were made at the start of this thread and will be weeded out if women are implemented:


What stops that happening now in mixed units or areas where all troops are in close proximity? Bastion etc. Plus I don't really see the problem with it anyway.


I'll assume that's mostly about entry criteria which is a case of simply not lowering it. Preferential treatment otherwise? Same as before, what stops that happening in other corps? And does it?


Trickier one, but I'd just have women agree not to get pregnant during service. Obviously more complex than that but I'm simplifying it because its easier right now. You get pregnant anyway then its the same as breaching any other part of your contract.

And this thing about being overprotective. Its stems from the same out dated perceptions of chivalry and whatnot that led to this whole "never hit a women" crap. A vast majority of people have an issue with the idea of hurting a girl and I've seen it numerous times at the gym. But, you see them rolling or sparring with them a couple times and they very quickly get over it. Its a perception based on how we're raised that's very easy to change once exposed to it. I don't see it being a big issue.

As for 17% of the men leaving? I don't personally know any US marines but I do know a few soldiers. They complain about things in the army all the time and a few times they've said they'd quit over this thing or that thing, but when it came down to it they loved thier job and their group a lot more than they cared about something they were moaning about. The impression the Marines like to put out, at least to me over here, is that they're whole espirit de corps thing is huge. They might say they'll leave in some anonymous survey, but I question how many of them would really give up their career and leave something that's, supposedly, so ingrained on them, just because women are allowed to apply.

 

[kustom]

I find the whole 'kit humping' argument a bit unconvincing.

You hear about the supposedly enormous weight of kit that British infantrymen had to hump about in WWI, but the French infantry had a far higher load (partly due to the enormous daily wine ration!) Does that mean that the British tommies were incapable of carrying the same load as the French poilus? Probably not. Well... probably not until we were forced to start forming 'bantam' units because their just weren't enough conscripts who were big enough for the armies previous minimum-size requirements.

So the men got smaller, but the kit still got humped. Maybe a bit less of it, I don't know. The war didn't stop as a result. And it wouldn't have stopped if we'd started forming all-female infantry units. We'd have adapted and muddled through, just like the Russinas did with their women units.

The arguments against mixed units are less unconvincing than the 'women aren't strong enough' line. That seems a bit lame to me, given the evidence against it.

 

[bonesfan]

The fears of preferential treatment sound very similar to the old arguments against homosexual men in ground combat roles. Without evidence it is unsubstantiated bigotry.

The weird thing is that the same reasoning is used to argue why the Spartans were so effective (fighting with your lover - it certainly wasn't anything like 300!)

 

[Jaeblade]

I've been waiting for Kuma to bring up how he already touched on some of the golden links of women in combat roles (infantry) that have resurfaced lately. Your response Southpaw, the first paragraph of what I quoted, went off on your own tangent that didn't really apply to what was being discussed. "Untested" doesn't mean "can't handle combat." Don't know what you're trying to draw from that? Everybody also conveniently leaves out the context of the situation with Russia and some other conflicts, where everybody fought or your country was taken over. You might as well post links about children and the disabled or elderly in combat as well for evidence of why they should be allowed into combat positions because I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for that in countries fighting off an invading force.

As for the second paragraph, superb example of you making an assessment of something you know absolutely nothing about. There is a HUGE difference from what is in the media, and what the reality of the situation is. This holds especially true for infantry and units who have been involved in combat (engineers, EOD, etc.). Personally, the lack of truth and reality in the media disgusts me and I don't hold you at fault for that.

Your passive aggressiveness towards python is a bit annoying to read through as well. If you read what I posted involving his statement of "if you haven't served, don't voice your opinion" you'll see that he 'thanked' my post. I basically said that was the easy way out and we have an obligation to explain since we are on the side with experience. 'Thanking' the post implies he agreed. The only way I can probably relate the amount of frustration a service member feels (especially on the combat side) is that it's sort of like explaining why science is a good thing to a religious extremist when trying to discuss military issues to people who haven't served. God forbid somebody doesn't want to keep engaging in that sort of discussion. Constantly making remarks about it at this point isn't helping anything out, especially when it appears he doesn't want to engage in this thread any longer (which if you ask me is understandable after what I just explained).

It's also unfair to call a snarky remark made because of another snarky remark petty without addressing the person who prompted the remark with one of their own as petty.

 

[KenzieL]

I think they say those concerns as they have seen it first hand. I came from serving with all males to being in mixed gender units and I can say, intentional or not, preferential treatment does happen. The pregnancy bit is also interesting - you would be surprised if you found out how many kids were born to female service members when Afghanistan and Iraq came into the picture. I've known of females who deliberately got pregnant to get out of deployments. Now your unit is down and you have to scramble for a replacement. Likewise if they get preggers in theatre they get to go home, and I've seen that happen too.

 

[Genius22]

From what many sources say, the kit for a British infantryman in WWI was about 70 pounds. A US soldier today wearing his Interceptor body armor with a full combat load, rifle, and helmet weighs almost the same and that's not counting the stuff in his pack. Again - conventional warfare is different from unconventional.

 

[romeasaurusrex]

My wife may end up becoming a JAG. I've told her that if they try to send her overseas, then it's time to have a kid . I got enough of the green weenie in my life, I'm not leaving the U.S., been outside of it enough in my lifetime .

I have no shame saying that either.

 

[thepizzaguyishere]

Do you think it might not be as cut-and-dry as yes/no for all countries?

Maybe there are cultural differences between countries like the USA and Norway, that mean that it can work in Norway but wouldn't for the US (as its culture stands now)?

 

[lilspadette41]

In terms of defense, yes it can. The Caracal Bn watching the Egyptian border, for example. In that situation though it is more combat support than actively taking a combat role. Taken in that context, we already do that.

 

[inconspiracywithsatan]

Since posting, the thought has occurred to me that making comparisons is bound to be flawed. Modern day professional soldiers are trained to be as effective, as flexible and as prepared for any situation imaginable as they possibly can be. Whereas conscript soldiers in a war like WWI or WWII were equipped and prepared for dealing with a specific situation, and it was more a case of them being as well prepared as possible under the circumstances, rather than trying reach the highest standard possible. Which isn't to downplay their achievements one iota - I'm simply saying that it was a different situation.

I suppose what I waas trying to say before was more to do with what is possible when the chips are down. But on reflection that isn't how you organise a professional army.

 

[Julene8]

No, I was talking about ground close combat roles, not support/auxiliary/policing.

I was wondering if the preferential treatment was cultural, rather than biologically innate.

 

[lzpa77]

I was trying to say that pointing out the women in the IDF carry out a border patrol job rather than a conventional soldiering one so its not a straight comparison is a fair shout, but there's still other groups that show women can handle front line conventional type placements as well. I don't see the tangent honestly.


Well the media's the only interaction I get with the US marines. Notice I did also say I was basing it off the few soldiers I know as well, but I can't use them on their own since I have no idea how different the US services are in that regard.


Honestly, I'm not that fussed. His posts from the start read quite confrontational to me and I'm not that patient a person these days. Although, again, I don't really see the passive aggressiveness myself. Other than the petty comments comment I don't see me being rude at all.


I pointed out in the last page that I sympathise with how annoying it must be at times, but also why I don't accept it as the authoritive opinion on this specific topic.


Fair point, but going back through the threads Python was the one who started being confrontational first. I'm not going to blame someone as much for replying in kind.

 

[bonniethontpuirtlalbeult]

Another recent update.

Quick notes first though.

1.) Marine Corps Times started a subscription system where you can't read "hot topic" articles, hence the switch to Army Times which is the exact same article for free

2.) That picture at the top . . . that's a good picture of what officers look like in the field doing pretty much anything other then "planning."

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130708/CAREERS/307080018/Grunt-school-test-Women-accept-one-Corps-most-grueling-challenges







.