Why Women Cannot be a Part - Page 2
Create Post
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27
  1. #16
    Registered User Free Member Cheezballz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Camp Pendleton, CA
    Posts
    59
    Credits
    943
    Savings
    0
    Men are Naturally stronger than females, and what Arnoldy G said mother nature plays a role too, and it is proven scientifically that females are more likely to fall under stress easier than their maile counterparts. What i'm tryin to say is that in times of war u put a female with grunts, who by the way sometimes go for weeks without seein a female. Yea. Can they even carry 100 plus pounds of gear humping for 20 miles i haven't heard one yet. Don't get me wrong their's some that are tuff but their's always an exception.


  2. #17
    Yes it has been discussed before....What I can see....

    This post was made on Jan. 28, 2004....and You joined Jan. 30, 2004.....


  3. #18
    THEN THIS MUST HAVE BEEN THE ONE POSTED BEFORE MINE. NOW I UNDERSTAND, I THINK, OH WELL THAT'S LIFE ISN'T IT?

    PS: WHEN YOU GET OLD YOU FORGET, THEY HAVE A NAME FOR IT, I JUST FORGOT WHAT'S IT CALLED.


  4. #19

    Let women fight in combat

    they should be allowed to get their quota as well.


    Heck ever see a women with PMS?
    Men, you got to get out of her way....


    LOL


  5. #20
    yellowwing
    Guest Free Member
    Captain Barbara A. Wilson, USAF (Ret) makes a good argument in her documentation of woman that have already been in conbat. The Captain outline the histories on her web page.


  6. #21
    Interesting website, yellowwing.
    I'll have to look deeper into the Captain's logic.

    One irrefutable fact is that all a female has to do to get out of her current billet, and removed from any dangerous assignment, is get herself pregnant. It has happened aboard Navy ships, and Army posts. Legal or not, the pregnancies have caused removal of females from units.

    It will never happen that way for men. If a guy's wife gets pregnant, all that happens is he receives notification, and starts to worry more about getting home again to see the newborn.

    Unless there are Superwomen out there, who can handle combat while eight months into pregnancy, there is no equity. Look at all the charges of sexual harrassment and worse, which have been surfacing in our now PC military academies. Note all the units, both here and overseas, which are coming under scrutiny for harrassment and worse. Is this what will win us wars?

    I will not comment on servicewomens' courage, or valor, or capability, since that varies from person to person, just as it does for men. I will not use graphs or charts to track the assimilation curve for MOS adjustments. I do know the bar has been lowered in some cases to allow qualification in certain specialties and physical tasks.

    I may be an old dinosaur, according to Capt. Wilson's logic, but I can still see and smell trouble.


  7. #22
    yellowwing
    Guest Free Member
    In her Myths and Fallacies section, to me she is stating that women are already in combat. The Powers That Be resolutely deny it, but women are out in the field doing their jobs, sometimes under fire. But the Brass are denying that its combat.

    Some of her figures do seem suspect. "only 15 percent of Infantryman in World War Two ever fired their weapons in combat and fewer than 15 percent of the hundreds of thousand of military personnel who served in Vietnam are estimated to have been in a firefight."


  8. #23
    I believe her suspect figures might be based upon such works as the book "On Killing", by LtC. Dave Grossman, who taught psychology at West Point, and is a Professor of Military Science at Arkansas State University.

    The book is a study on killing in the military. According to the author, only one in five American fighting men, in a combat situation, will actually fire at the enemy with intent to kill or maim. The other four men will shoot in the general direction, but will subconciously, intentionally miss, because of deep personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, and/or family upbringing.

    This was the case in WWII, and caused a shift in training afterward, to bring as many men as possible up to a killing pitch, regardless of their original inclinations. His figures are not 15%, but 20%. Nonetheless, this might be one of the works Capt. Wilson uses as reference. I don't know without seeing her bibliography lists.

    The second 15% figure she uses might be correct. Consider that it takes four people in the support and logistics (quartermaster) section to keep one man in the field, on patrol or whatever. That means 80% of the troops in Vietnam were REMFs. That doesn't mean they didn't get mortared, or shelled with artillery and rockets. Note Capt. Wilson's narrow qualifier, "Firefight". That cuts down participation even amongst the grunt troops. If only 20% of people in the combat zone are grunts, and 25% of that number don't get shot at, then you achieve your 15% figure, which Capt. Wilson used.

    Granted, I'm only postulating, but her numbers may be more accurate than we want to admit.


  9. #24
    One question/comment on the 15% figure - how to we determine which 15% are involved in a firefight? Don't 100% need to be prepared to be in a firefight? If so, then while comforting to know that you have a good chance of not being in a firefight if in combat, then doesn't her argument lose some weight?


  10. #25
    yellowwing
    Guest Free Member
    I just emailed the good Captain about her quotations, and will post her reply.


  11. #26
    jryanjack
    It cannot bedetermined beforehand who will be in a firefight, which is why we train everyone for that event. In Vietnam we usually went looking for trouble, but sometimes it came knocking at our door, so to speak. We had water purification men and other MOS Marines in our grunt ranks after the peak of fighting following Tet.

    Consider the 26th Marines, ringed in at Khe Sahn. While all the Marines were under fire from artillery and rockets, some of them were never called upon to shoot at the enemy because the NVA were out of rifle range. Unless the Marines encountered sappers at night on perimeter, or were bushwhacked outside the wire, they would have maintained fire discipline. Their main concern was live through the constant shelling. They were not in firefights, but instead underwent bombardment.

    If the opportunity had presented itself, I have no doubt all Marines would have been involved in the firefight. If one in five men isn't required to fire, then you achieve your percentage figure. According to that book, our training since WWII has achieved an rise in "intent to kill" of almost 80%. The goal is 100%, but it hasn't been reached yet.

    I have to read more on the Captain's website to see how she folds women's participation in combat into these numbers. I've only just scratched the surface of her opinion.


  12. #27

    Gee our Women have to fight, go get them girls

    Am I allowed to get into this discussion gentlemen? I use the term gentlemen loosely.LOL
    Can anyone tell me what percentage of the Marines are 03's? I always thought that they were the ones who did all of the fighting, that is, do all of the "bang bang", the rest just there to support them, to hear them speak they are the real Marines. I know that we have a few 03's out there who can answer this for me. Am I being sarcastic? Maybe a little, then that's my makeup, like to get everyone all riled up.


    namgrunt, I like your replies, you seem to check things out before you open your mouth or should I say type what's you want to say.

    yellowwing, I will also check out Captain Barbara A. Wilson, USAF Ret Web page, thanks for posting it.

    Sparrowhawk, good short come back,
    Heck ever see a women with PMS? Men, you got to get out of her way....
    You ever seen a male Marine with Bull Head Cl*p, I wouldn't t want to get in his way either.


    Cheezballz,
    Men are Naturally stronger than females, and what Arnoldy G said mother nature plays a role too
    I have seen some real tough broads in my life, then we are talking about Military ladies not broads aren't we?


    jryanjack,
    One question/comment on the 15% figure - how to we determine which 15% are involved in a firefight? Don't 100% need to be prepared to be in a firefight? If so, then while comforting to know that you have a good chance of not being in a firefight if in combat, then doesn't her argument lose some weight?
    Get behind the wheel of your car and drive our Freeways, what is the chance that you will get into an accident, 15%? I'm asking you I don't know.


    Just wanted to get my 2 cents in sorry that I put in a nickel. isn't this a fun post, we do worry about our Marines sisters don't we?

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	cartwhy (2).jpg‎
Views:	139
Size:	29.7 KB
ID:	3366  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not Create Posts
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts