Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Women in combat: Will they have to register for the draft? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Women in combat: Will they have to register for the draft?
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi wayward son,

I double-checked and you are correct, the article I read a while ago incorrectly tied the DHS purchase of 7000 assault rifles to Obamacare. I stand corrected, thank you for your perspicacity sir! [DOH]

TomDavidson,

OOps, made a boo boo, so sorry! Please redact my previous post questioning the funding issue on the civilian army.

[FootInMouth]

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No perspicacity involved, just using the old rule of thumb for media stories from any source: the more outrageous the story, the less likely it is to be true. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*laugh* No apology needed, believe me. [Smile] Although it's surprisingly refreshing.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, welcome to the board, Bud.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bud yeah sorry I didn't say this sooner. Welcome to Ornery, you're wrong.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, ever feel like a cupie doll in a shooting gallery at a state fair, hmmmm!

I heartily appreciate the welcome y'all!

[ February 06, 2013, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Bud Martin ]

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The ban on women in combat has always been a joke. Females have been placed in combat situations, intended and unintended, for quite some time now.

What I don't think that has changed is the Army letting females serve in the Infantry or Armor branches.

The Marines started letting female butter-bars attend their version of IOBC last year, and none of them passed. I'm actually very happy to hear that. I don't care if female marines are infantry or not, but I do care if they start lowering the standard just so they can make some political or social point.

As to drafting women, who cares? I have no problem sending women into danger. If you do, then you're the problem, not women in combat.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant,

The Problem is that they'll lower the standards to let women and gays have a chance at every position in the military (because it suits the administration's purposes).

My guess is that they'll end up abating the fighting quality of our first line units to the point that they won't be able to perform in combat, but only act as UN peacekeepers!

They might leave the Spec Ops people alone though because the administration actually puts them to good use sometimes.

I think a lot of Career military people will end up going to Merc groups and private security companies in the near future!

I had a gung ho nephew leave the Army because of the way he was treated in Iraq. He was a tanker and loved it, but they had him pounding the ground for 18 months and he didn't get to use any of his tank training at all.

If the Army was going to use him as infantry then they shouldn't have wasted all that government money training him as a tanker. I asked him how he thought women would have done on his patrols thru Sadr City and he said they'd be targets as soon as they were spotted because nothing pissed off the local jihadists more than having women pointing guns at them.

The truth was even back then they didn't have enough people on the ground in Iraq; He was borrowed by 10th mountain division because they deployed understaffed to begin with.

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Marines started letting female butter-bars attend their version of IOBC last year, and none of them passed. I'm actually very happy to hear that. I don't care if female marines are infantry or not, but I do care if they start lowering the standard just so they can make some political or social point.
What if they take an honest assement of what the standards need to be, and they just happen to be technically lower in some places because they're either outdated or completely arbitrary/useless legacy that only stuck around because no one ever bothers to clean house on such things without a bit of pressure like this to do so?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I may regret asking this, but what standards would need to be lowered to be lowered to let gays have a chance at every position in the military?

And no, I didn't type that with a straight face.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noble,

LOL, some gays are only as fit as women and they're the ones I was referring to, so lets ammend that to say:

The Problem is that they'll lower the standards to let women and women equivalent gays have a chance at every position in the military (because it suits the administration's purposes).

[ February 07, 2013, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Bud Martin ]

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some straights are "only as fit as women."

Your edit didn't make it better.

[ February 07, 2013, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Some straights are "only as fit as women."

Your edit didn't make it better.

Not to mention that some women are "only as fit as" Olympic atheletes, so it needs a lot of improvement all around.

[ February 07, 2013, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Pyr, I failed to find a good way to express that thought.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They don't care about the women equivalant Straights, they can get washed out... LOL!

Make them all Clerk typist then!

[ February 07, 2013, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Bud Martin ]

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, in all honesty, any requirements for any physicality at any military job will probably be rejected due to claims of sexism and they'll have to lower the standards. The military doesn't have the funds or time to go over all the military jobs and establish fair and equitable strength requirements because there is no standard requirement for any MOS. It always depends on location and mission constraints.

Only a few jobs will end up with requirements that'll keep out women due to the diffence in muscle breakdown patterns under duress!

All this fuss and they'll probably end up using infantry power assist suits in a few years years anyway and then it won't matter.

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
What if they take an honest assement of what the standards need to be, and they just happen to be technically lower in some places because they're either outdated or completely arbitrary/useless legacy that only stuck around because no one ever bothers to clean house on such things without a bit of pressure like this to do so?

Sure, Pyr. I have no problem with removing the weight and height standards placed upon entering the cavalry, since those standards were placed under the assumption that cavalrymen (or women) would have to ride horses.

Actually, now that I think about it, we did get rid of those standards.

Exactly which standards do you believe need to be looked at a second time, Pyr? And who do you believe would be best suited for making those reviews? Other then the fine and honorable ladies and gentlemen on the Armed Services Committee?

It's all well and good to make a generalized statement, but the statement means absolutely nothing in a practical sense without actual specifics.

See, normally I would dismiss Bud's premise that the Army or Marines will be lowing their standards for the sake of gender equality. But then someone like you, Pyr, start talking about how standards do need to be lowered because they are "outdated".

Removing obsolete standards are one thing, but there arises the suspicion that the reasoning behind the desire to lower standards has an ulterior motive.

But a jugement cannot be made unless an actual standard is brought up. Otherwise it's all wind.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant,

I think you hit the nail on the head. The minute the standards become a topic for discussion in the attempt to update the policies for adding women, the lawyers will tear everything apart and be forced to lower the standard just to make it more PC.

I can't imagine them spending the time or the tens of millions of dollars to review all the MOS jobs under scrutiny. Hell, they can't even afford to refuel an AirCraft Carrier because of the current sequestration issues!

[ February 09, 2013, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Bud Martin ]

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
See, normally I would dismiss Bud's premise that the Army or Marines will be lowing their standards for the sake of gender equality. But then someone like you, Pyr, start talking about how standards do need to be lowered because they are "outdated".
I didn't say that any necessarily need to be changed at all. Only that, as with any large scale system that's been running for years, nevermind decases or longer, you're bound to have acuulated a lot of cruft if you're not actively policing the system. Maybe some standards that were set based on outdated equipment, others that may have even been set maliciously and never fixed (not precsisely mailcious, but "doesn't fit into current body armor designs" goes along this line, because up till the past few years, body armor has not been designed to fit female bodies properly. Fixing that issue doesn't require lowering any standards, but fixing the system so that everyone cany meet the same effective standard.). It's even possible that standards are too low in some areas and need to be beefed up to match current realities.

The big issue is that till now, the primary standard in many cases is "What's between your legs?"; if you give the right answer, you can try to qualify, even if you ultimately end up washing out. Give the wrong one and you don't even get to try.

Except for some very narrow cases, any standard that's set so high that only olympic atheletes can qualify (which is the level you'd have to be at for sex to make a material difference in potential to qualify) is probably doing more harm by reducing the talent pool of both sexes than it is in ensuring a needed level of training. Once you're below that cusp, behavioral and cultural differences have more impact than a person's sex; something that being in the military in the fisrt place already provides a pretty significant filter for.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Either way, any woman that can fulfill those minimum standards should be allowed to fill those combat positions. Although most women may not be able to do such feats of strength, I pretty sure that there are some who can.

There's always a problem with the ideas those that never been there and have no idea what there talking about.

quote:
By Rebecca Kheel - 09/10/15 04:49 PM EDT
All-male ground combat units in the Marines were faster, more lethal and less injured than units with mixed genders, according to a Marine Corps study that looked at integrating women into all service jobs.

quote:
The study found all-male squads were faster in each tactical movement than those with both genders, according to the summary. The differences were greater when they were carrying heavy weapons and ammunition.

Also, all-male rifle groups had better accuracy than integrated squads, according to the summary. And women had more injuries such as stress fractures.

Put women in combat roles, expect dead Americans.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stress fractures are generally due to sudden changes in training volume/intensity. It is possible that women are less suited to the task, but it is also possible that the training is simply inadequte for female marines.

I'm curious if women in other mixed forces (such as that of Israel) show a similar pattern, or if it is just that the marines haven't designed proper training for female marines.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like a study involving Israeli mixed forces shows a similar pattern.

quote:
The incidences of overuse injuries and attrition of 85 male and 235 female recruits in a light infantry brigade was followed in a three-year prospective study. Females were shorter (162 cm, CI 161–163 cm) than males (174 cm, CI 173–176), had more body fat (18.9 kg, CI 18.2–19.6 kg) than males (12.6 kg, 11.3–13.8 kg), had lower O2max (36.8 mL·min−1·kg−1, CI 35.8–37.78 mL·min−1·kg−1) than males (50.48 mL·min−1·kg−1, CI 48.4 to 52.48 mL·min−1·kg−1), had more stress fractures (21.0%, 95% CI 16.2–26.5%) than males (2.3%, CI 0.3–8.2%), and had more anterior knee pain (41.2%, CI 34.9–47.7%) than males (24.7%, CI 16.0–35.2%).
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/572953/

So if it is inadequate training, then it is a problem for Israeli forces as well.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This paper suggests it is predominantely due to anatomical differences,

quote:
The authors emphasize that, anatomically and physiologically, women are not the same as men; lower extremity biomechanical differences between men and women may account for gender differences in training injury rates. Women have increased pelvic width, forefoot pronation, heel valgus angulation, pes planus, external tibial torsion, and femoral anteversion. Additionally, because of the estrogen influence, women have less lean body mass and greater ligamentous laxity. The combination of anatomy and physiology appears to predispose women to a higher risk of pelvic stress fracture and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. The diagnosis of pelvic stress fracture has been reported as 1 in 367 female recruits, compared with 1 in 40,000 male recruits, and rates of ACL ruptures for female athletes range from 2.4 to 9.7 times higher than in male athletes.
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7

Although this paper notes that it appears to be fitness related (with low fitness individuals of either gender being much more subject to injury, with women generally being less physically fit).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21539165

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not to mention that some women are "only as fit as" Olympic atheletes, so it needs a lot of improvement all around.
It depends on the event, but I'll wager pretty confidently that the average female Olympic athlete is still physically weaker, slower and less durable than even low level male athletes and probably even just men off the street who aren't totally out of shape.

The difference between men and women in terms of strength, endurance and durability is a chasm. But that said, some modern militaries seem to employ women effectively in combat roles. I would assume not every military role, even in combat, requires trudging through the mud with 100 lbs of kit in 90 degree weather.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1