Women in Combat

[Suppressed Poet]

The problem with women in combat roles is when you put 100+ pounds on their back they collapse under the weight. They have tiny hollow bones.

A small percentage of willing females can have the necessary mindset & be in peak physical fitness for their gender, but you can’t beat physics. A woman in combat is like a human male fighting against smart armed silverback gorillas. It just doesn’t make sense.

[Shaps]

The problem with women in combat roles is when you put 100+ pounds on their back they collapse under the weight. They have tiny hollow bones.

A small percentage of willing females can have the necessary mindset & be in peak physical fitness for their gender, but you can’t beat physics. A woman in combat is like a human male fighting against smart armed silverback gorillas. It just doesn’t make sense.

I disagree, as I know and have served with women that would put 95% of men to shame.

Again, if you read what I wrote, I acknowledge the biological differences between men and women... I focus on the job dictating standards vs. gender dictating standards... and differentiate between Conventional Forces vs. the SOF community.

Do I think women should be put in conventional forces Combat Arms positions? No.
Not because some can't do the job. It's because the training pipelines; time constraints; and personnel turnover are not conducive to it. Hence, it should not be a standard practice in the war-fighter making machine.

Do I think women should, could, and do work in the SOF, and other Combat Arms roles, where the training pipelines have the resources and time to facilitate their inclusion? Absolutely.

[Suppressed Poet]

Beyond the physical differences in gender, almost all women are not mentally suited for combat. Hell, most men are not both mentally and physically fit for combat. There is a damn good reason the infantry is composed of young men in their prime. Combat = hell. Why would we ever want to subject women to something like this?:

[Shaps]

Beyond the physical differences in gender, almost all women are not mentally suited for combat. Hell, most men are not both mentally and physically fit for combat. There is a damn good reason the infantry is composed of young men in their prime. Combat = hell. Why would we ever want to subject women to something like this?:

Again, your example of the "Infantry" is a misnomer. When did I say women should serve in the Infantry? I didn't. I actually said the opposite. So your whole premise is incorrect, therefor I have no rebuttal.

Also, call me "enlightened", "delusional", or whatever you want... I see people as people. I don't care what your gender, race, ethnicity, sexual proclivity is... none of it. If you are a free thinking INDIVIDUAL, then do what you want... and you should be afforded the opportunity to suffer just like anyone else.

Do I personally believe women should be required to join the Selective Service? No.
Do I politically believe women should be required to join the Selective Service? Yes.

Why? Because if you require it of one segment of the population, you should require it of all segments of society... as a baseline rule. Conscription is conscription, regardless of gender.

In an all volunteer force, you as a free thinking INDIVIDUAL, should be able to make your own choices and me, you, or anyone else shouldn't tell you you can't. That's just my opinion.

Did I like seeing female Soldiers die? No, I didn't.
Did I like seeing male Soldiers die? No, I didn't.

But one didn't affect me more than the other, they affected me equally... because I saw them as fellow Soldiers, not my male or female civilian counterparts.

I know people have differing views, and that's fine. That's what's great about this country. I'm just expressing my position, that's it.

[Suppressed Poet]

I disagree, as I know and have served with women that would put 95% of men to shame.

Again, if you read what I wrote, I acknowledge the biological differences between men and women... I focus on the job dictating standards vs. gender dictating standards... and differentiate between Conventional Forces vs. the SOF community.

Do I think women should be put in conventional forces Combat Arms positions? No.
Not because some can't do the job. It's because the training pipelines; time constraints; and personnel turnover are not conducive to it. Hence, it should not be a standard practice in the war-fighter making machine.

Do I think women should, could, and do work in the SOF, and other Combat Arms roles, where the training pipelines have the resources and time to facilitate their inclusion? Absolutely.

No doubt there are always exceptions and I’m not taking away anything of the badassness of women that serve. I’m just saying that bone size and density male vs female is a scientific fact. It doesn’t matter how many pushups they can do or how fast they can run a mile, that is a physical limitation.

As a more obvious example, a woman is ill suited to be a paratrooper jumping out of an airplane with 300 pounds of gear. I work with a dude that did that and his back is permanently fucked.

Edit: I’m not arguing against you. I may just have a difference of opinion and I stand by my reasons.

[Shaps]

No doubt there are always exceptions and I’m not taking away anything of the badassness of women that serve. I’m just saying that bone size and density male vs female is a scientific fact. It doesn’t matter how many pushups they can do or how fast they can run a mile, that is a physical limitation.

As a more obvious example, a woman is ill suited to be a paratrooper jumping out of an airplane with 300 pounds of gear. I work with a dude that did that and his back is permanently fucked.

Edit: I’m not arguing against you. I may just have a difference of opinion and I stand by my reasons.

Again... I at no point said the overall Conventional Forces, and specifically Combat Arms elements, should include women in their training pipelines. I said the exact opposite. Because the %'s of those physically capable does not meet the threshold for retention and turnover required for participation. It's as simple as that. The "Machine" must work efficiently, and it would be inefficient when pushing out 10s of thousands of Soldiers for Conventional Combat Arm MOSs.

Women are just fine jumping out of planes, just like the men. It sucks for everyone. I started at 5'10, I'm now 5'7 - 5'8 on a good day. The old joke of "jumping out of a perfectly good airplane" is funny, because it's so true.

Again, I think of it as a "Machine". The "machine" must be ran in an efficient manner. The "machine" is the Conventional Forces. Hence my position of women's roles in Combat Arms vs. Combat Support roles.

The SOF community is a whole other beast, which I've already laid out.

[Suppressed Poet]

Again, your example of the "Infantry" is a misnomer. When did I say women should serve in the Infantry? I didn't. I actually said the opposite. So your whole premise is incorrect, therefor I have no rebuttal.

Also, call me "enlightened", "delusional", or whatever you want... I see people as people. I don't care what your gender, race, ethnicity, sexual proclivity is... none of it. If you are a free thinking INDIVIDUAL, then do what you want... and you should be afforded the opportunity to suffer just like anyone else.

Do I personally believe women should be required to join the Selective Service? No.
Do I politically believe women should be required to join the Selective Service? Yes.

Why? Because if you require it of one segment of the population, you should require it of all segments of society... as a baseline rule. Conscription is conscription, regardless of gender.

In an all volunteer force, you as a free thinking INDIVIDUAL, should be able to make your own choices and me, you, or anyone else shouldn't tell you you can't. That's just my opinion.

Did I like seeing female Soldiers die? No, I didn't.
Did I like seeing male Soldiers die? No, I didn't.

But one didn't affect me more than the other, they affected me equally... because I saw them as fellow Soldiers, not my male or female civilian counterparts.

I know people have differing views, and that's fine. That's what's great about this country. I'm just expressing my position, that's it.

I think we’re largely on the same page with some small disagreements, and that’s ok. I have no problem with women serving in the military in non-combat roles, and that includes combat support roles where there is a lower probability they could face such a situation like an ambush. I think they should also be trained for the basics of combat in case they face it. I don’t support women being conscripted or to be placed in active combat roles.

SOF should be comprised of the best of the best for the missions they will find themselves in, and even mediocre males are better suited for combat than the very best exceptional females. Don’t believe me? Put the world champion female of any combat sport in a match against an averaged ranked professional in the same sport & see what happens.

Call me misogynistic or whatever, but that’s my 2 cents.

[~Rocktar~]

I disagree, as I know and have served with women that would put 95% of men to shame.

Again, if you read what I wrote, I acknowledge the biological differences between men and women... I focus on the job dictating standards vs. gender dictating standards... and differentiate between Conventional Forces vs. the SOF community.

Do I think women should be put in conventional forces Combat Arms positions? No.
Not because some can't do the job. It's because the training pipelines; time constraints; and personnel turnover are not conducive to it. Hence, it should not be a standard practice in the war-fighter making machine.

Do I think women should, could, and do work in the SOF, and other Combat Arms roles, where the training pipelines have the resources and time to facilitate their inclusion? Absolutely.

I am not going to argue the mental suitability or any of that other stuff. I would agree that in the SOF community they have plenty of time IF the person meets the minimums to get in. I would further suggest that the basic requirements be the same regardless of the sex of the soldier. If you can meet the minimum, then you can serve in certain combat roles. If you can't, you don't. Rifles weight the same for men and women. Ammo is the same, comms gear, MREs, water, armor, other equipment, it all weights the same so the combat soldier should meet the same requirement. As my nephew complained, there is nothing more destructive to morale than having a woman in the platoon, everyone is putting on full kit, 100+ pounds of gear and then part of her share is farmed out to others because she can't carry it. He also said the same for some wimpy ass men too so don't think he was discriminating, if you can't carry your load, you can't carry your load. BTW, he is like 5'6" and weighted like 140 going into the corp, when he left due to concussion trauma from a couple artillery shells in an IED detonating and shaking his MRAP like a children's toy, he was 168 pounds and none was fat.

Not to mention the whole transgender BS. We don't allow diabetics in certain positions because insulin isn't guaranteed in combat situations, these idiots require a lot more than just insulin.

NOW, that being said, in support roles, certain combat roles that don't live and die by what they carry on their back, sure. Female combat pilots are fine assuming the exact same standards for flight school are maintained, pilots don't ruck 100+ pounds on patrol. I am fine with instituting the flat standard because the gear and combat conditions are the same.

Before the Left starts crying "But Israel . . ." they have a different army structure and purpose. They are oriented around a defensive posture and seldom do they ruck 20 miles in a day to combat. US troops must prepare to do that day in, day out.

Europe is finding out that their female troops aren't doing so well either.