• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

  • Thread starter Thread starter the patriot
  • Start date Start date
As for women‘s instincts to preserve life rather than kill, uhhhh, that‘s a load of crap. Honestly, if I have to kill, I would, and if I don‘t have to kill, I wouldn‘t. As simple as that. Are you saying that men kill even if they don‘t have to kill?
You‘ll notice I said majority, not all females in its entirety. There always were and always will be exceptions. Ask many females, particularily those who have birthed children, and most of them will have that maternal, "preservation of life" instinct. Men can fall under the same problem - it does however, seem to be less likely.


Women have fought in and led armies throughout history. Most often, women were the leaders of Germanic tribes. Only in established society such as the Romans and the Greeks were women confined to the home/palace.
I agree completely. However, I wasn‘t referring to that era. Women had a fair bit of power back then too, up until the Dark Ages. I was more referring to the beginning of society and mankind. They didn‘t care about being "PC", they just did what was needed to be done. The men, on average, seemed more inclined to hunt. The women were much better at taking care of the young, and defending the home.

And just so my point is clear, these are not excuses as to why women should not be accepted. These are simply observations that should be taken into account, particularily by women, before taking on a position where they may be required to kill. You admit that you would most likely not have any qualms - others aren‘t so sure. That‘s all.
 
Hi there,

"Should women be aloud" (partial quote of subject heading)

My woman(read lovely wife) of 44+ years certainly is when I jack up.(No emoticon, so LOL)

Drummy
 
Hey Gate_Guard:

No worries. Sometimes its good to let go and engage in irrational, and meaningless, pissing contests -- its therapeutic. In fact, I had a good laugh over our mutual insults.

But, definitely, no CATS on the battlefield. That‘s just sick. Dogs, yes ... but NO equal rights for CATS!
 
Does it really matter what you may or may not have between your legs when you‘re in the field? I dont care what you are so long as you can pull a trigger when it counts.
 
Okay,

I won’t speak to trades I haven’t been in, but I will speak to the Infantry. My professional view: It is DND policy that combat arms are integrated, and my conduct towards soldiers of either gender is the same: professional, impartial, courteous, and focused on using the assets of the group to accomplish the mission. My personal view: Women do not belong in the infantry; full stop, end of story.

Read any after action report from Afghanistan ( and there are several available on the net, including one from the American 10th Mountain ) or read any descriptive article on the the terrain and loads the PPCLI had to deal with: steep, mountainous grinding uphills at altitude (meaning thin air with less oxygen) and 100 lb rucks. Every one points to the physically brutal reality of the infantry in a real theatre of operations. The reality of infantry is that it often may not boil down to pulling the trigger (such as some of the parachute units in Northern Iraq who acted as blocking forces, and saw little or no combat). It does boil down to carrying everything you need, plus everything you may need, and everything that your unit needs (mortar rounds, Carl G rounds, link for your best friend the GPMG) and carrying it all on your back, all day long.

Read the following article, and tell me what you think. Keep in mind that the author has Been There, Done That in a real shooting war.

-----

Women in Ground Combat
A Proposal For An Experiment

Let‘s look bluntly (I‘m not sure how you look bluntly, but I‘m going to have at it) at whether women should be permitted in ground combat. And then I will make a splendid and fair-minded proposal, which will be applauded by radical feminists everywhere. My guess is that I‘ll be awarded life membership in the National Organization for Women.
Should women be in ground combat? Good lord no. Females have no place in the infantry, artillery, or armor. They are too weak, too delicate, and too small. They fade after about a day of heavy marching and lifting. They just get in the way. They will get men killed. The idea is bad, everyone who has been in the military understands it, but no one has the moxie to tell feminists "No."

Maybe you haven‘t been afoot in a war zone. I have. In the mid-Sixties in was in armor in Viet Nam with the Marine Corps, spent a fair amount of time carrying a rifle, went through infantry training in Camp Geiger, which you don‘t want to try unless you are one healthy young buck. Let me tell you some things about ground life in war zones.

It‘s brutally physical. Try unloading a truck carrying mortar rounds. Hump sixty pounds uphill in Asian heat for an hour. When I was a Marine a flame-thrower weighed, if memory serves, seventy-five pounds. Try humping that sucker up hills of greasy North Carolina clay when you slide back almost as much as you go forward and your lungs are burning till you can hardly breathe. Try breaking track on armor when a platoon in trouble needs fire support right now. Don‘t talk about it. Don‘t theorize. Try it. In Lejeune we force-marched day after day, on three and a half hours sleep. No, that‘s not exaggeration. Try it.

OK. Go to your local gym. If you aren‘t a member, pay the ten bucks for a day pass, and watch. Stand around for a couple of hours, and watch what men lift. Watch what women lift. See whether you can detect a pattern.

Women don‘t lift slightly less than men, and aren‘t slightly weaker. They lift enormously less. They are catastrophically weaker.

Don‘t take my word. Go. Look.

I‘m 53, five-feet-ten, 180, in better shape than average for my size and age, but nothing spectacular. I never amounted to much as an athlete. I go to the gym to stay strong enough to carry my scuba tanks. If I walked into a Marine gym and said I was the strongest guy there, the Corps would have to be disbanded, because you can‘t fight while uncontrollably laughing.

But I‘m far and away the strongest woman I‘ve seen at Gold‘s in ten years of membership.

For example, I do fifteen sloppy reps on the bench machine with 250, and fifteen reps with 200 on the lat pull-down machine (the chin-up machine, if you will). It‘s respectable. That‘s all it is. There are guys there who could lift that much with me sitting on top of it.

I‘ve never seen a woman bench more than eighty (which is real rare, but not even warm-up weight for a man). I don‘t think I‘ve ever seen a woman pull eighty on the lat machine. Twenty to forty is normal for them.

Don‘t call me sexist. Don‘t tell me I‘m trying to be "macho." (Or do: I don‘t care.) Go look.

Want documentation? There is a branch of research called exercise physiology, which has studied the physical capacities of men and women in near-infinite detail (largely to help in training athletes.) Check relative cardiac capacity, erythrocyte counts, muscle-mass-to-body-mass. I‘m not making wild assertions. You can find all of this in any university library.

Now, what do these physical differences mean for society outside of the military? Almost nothing. A woman doesn‘t need strength to be a surgeon, professor, senator, journalist, or CEO. But weak women will get men killed in war. I‘ve seen wars. I‘ve been on casualty wards. So have a lot of men. For us, war isn‘t abstract, and getting men killed to appease feminists isn‘t cute.

I promised to make a splendid proposal. Here it is. Let‘s take 100 males just out of basic training, and 100 females, also just out of basic and chosen at random. Let‘s take them all to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in a rainy October. We‘ll put sixty-pound packs on them, give them rifles and a full load-out of ammo.

Then we‘ll force-march them, at a fast pace set by an infantry sergeant, until they drop. I mean literally drop: can‘t stand up any longer. No stress time-outs, no little green cards to wave, no trucks to carry their gear, no slowing down. Hump till they fall. This is what happens in combat: grim, unremitting physical effort with no sleep. Maybe it‘s humping with rifles and seven-eighty-two gear, maybe it‘s breaking track on a P-5, maybe it‘s unloading those miserable six-bys. It‘s physical.

If the women keep up, I‘ll shut up. If they keep up, all critics of putting women in the infantry will have to shut up. Here is a wonderful opportunity for radical feminists everywhere. But know what? I‘ll get a lot of screeching and howling because of this column, accusing me of sexism and patriarchy. What I won‘t get is a call by feminists to make the test. They know what would happen.

Fred Reed
http://www.fredoneverything.net/
-------
 
But I‘m far and away the strongest woman I‘ve seen at Gold‘s in ten years of membership.
After checking out his website, he seems very much a male. I‘m assuming a typo? Or am I missing something?

Nonetheless, an interesting article. Although some of his generalizations are a little harsh, he‘s completely correct - the average female just isn‘t built for life in some of these situations.
 
For a good read on this subject, I recommend the following book:

The Kinder, Gentler Military : Can America‘s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars
by Stephanie Gutmann

The author makes some very valid points - - - against women in combat roles I might add.
 
Not having read any of the replies, of course women should be allowed to go to the battle field. If we send an army of killers, what good would that do? A reg force captain sat my course down last night and gave us a little chat about what being a Sig Op, reserve or reg is all about; it‘s about command and control; about establishing comms by whatever means. That doesn‘t mean you have to be a killer, that means that rather, you have to use your head. It was funny, how he slammed the infantry, and praised us, but a direct quote from him "I expect more out of a Signals private than I do from an infantry private." And then went on with a few stories of why infantry should not do comms stuff that only a signaller would find funny.
If a woman can think as well or better than a man; if she can figure out problems as well or better than a man; she can be as good of a sig op as a man; and since sig ops are the most important part of the battle field, of course women should be allowed.
Then again, I know this one girl from my course last year who I wouldn‘t trust walking behind, let alone going into the field with. She‘s being sent to Afghanistan... My buddy who was in her det last year said it best when he said "May God have mercy on the poor souls who have to work with her."
 
"being a Sig Op, reserve or reg is all about; it‘s about command and control; about establishing comms by whatever means. That doesn‘t mean you have to be a killer, that means that rather, you have to use your head.."

So how exactly is using a radio to call in an enemy position and have them killed, en masse, any different from a rifleman squeezing a trigger. Reminds me of an argument i had with a pilot who believed pressing a button and dropping a bomb on the ‘enemy‘ was different then what the infantry does.
Today more then ever i believe it‘s important for all soldiers, especially infantry, to not only be proficient with radios (You don‘t find many sgt‘s manning an OP with a radio at 4 am) but for each of them to be in contact with their element commander.
 
Graham,
The studies I‘m looking at right now show that Americans historically had a low percentage of soldiers having killed in combat (15-25% are the figures given). The US military recognized this and introduced operant conditioning into training to bring this rate up. In Korea, 55% of U.S. combat veterans had killed. In Vietnam, 90% of U.S. combat veterans had killed. I don‘t see how you could come up with the conclusion that men hesitate to kill,it didn‘t stop them in Vietnam. But, of course anyone can find stats to back up their opinions.
 
gate-guard - be careful what you do with SLA Marshall‘s stats; they‘ve fallen into serious disrepute among scholars these days.
 
Not reading any of the replies or anyone elses input i‘ll throw in my two cents...
 
CFL Lui, are you for real...
"and since sig ops are the most important part of the battle field"

The same thing every trade tells it‘s people. As for the women issue- I‘m not touching that with a 10‘ pole.
 
"whoever"?
How could you so quickly forget my name. Im insulted.

I‘ve done the same thing too before, not very bright in my opinion but thats just me. If you take time to read all the replies then you get a feel for the conversation and you may learn a lot. Like the stats your about to rhyme off are actually completly out the window so you dont make a fool of yourself (just saying that in general). Conversations here also have a habit of going off topic so it saves you from commenting on one thing when people are talking about something else.


"I‘m not some dumba$$ just making stuff up to write down for fun."
Don‘t worry, *if* you are a dumb *** chances are you think your really smart regardless, im sure people will let you know though ;)
 
Ok, I‘ve read through this and against my better judgement I‘m responding lol. :D

For the record, I am female and 28 years old. I‘m 6‘1 & 185lbs (with huge balls if I can admit THAT in public :D ). I can bench 165lbs (not a huge amount but about 100lbs more then any other woman I‘VE seen at my gym) and I can run 5k in less then 25 minutes. I will be starting basic training in August and I consider myself to be one of the most fit women I‘ve ever met.

There‘s no way in **** I‘d ever consider going into the combat arms. If they had told me that that was all I had qualified for on my aptitude test I would have given up on enlisting all together and went back to building PC‘s.

I can‘t even begin to comprehend why anyone, male or female would choose such a grueling and excausting career. Not only do you work your butt off all day long, you work more weekends then any other trade and spend more time in the field. Plus you get the least respect of all the trades, at least here in Pet.

Everyone assumes that every infanteer is a dumba$$ grunt who couldn‘t think his (or her) way out of a paper bag (which I disagree with for the record, some of my best friends are Infantry and they know more about AV Reconition and weapons then I could ever cram into my mellon). I just don‘t understand why someone would willing sign up for all that.

As to whether or not women should be allowed in the combat arms, I‘d have to say yes. Personally I think that if you can pass the requirments, then you‘ve proven yourself able. I also think there should be trade specific requirments however and that Infantry should require a lot more then nine pushups and 19 situps minimum to qualify.

Just as other trades such as LCIS Tech require certain courses from highschool and such to qualify because they involve more mentally demanding tasks, combat arms should have higher physical requirements because they tax your body so much more.

HeHe, just my long winded two cents :D
 
Mr. Dorosh,
My stats came from an article in the Journal of Peace Psychology, 2002, correlated to a book by LCol Grossman, author of "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" which addresses PTSD in combat veterans. But, like I said, anyone can spew stats to fit their argument.

Graham,
Relax, there‘s no need to throw a tantrum. And some friendly advice, if your going to present facts, stay away from saying "probably".
 
Ok, thanks for the advice.

Here is my revised answer to the question:

"Should women be (allowed) on the battlefield? (*during time of war)"

Answer: YES

Primary reason:
Basing a decision to prohibit a person from doing something they wish to do, which in this instance is: (carrying out their duties as a member of the combat arms during wartime), upon their Gender, Ethnicity, or Religion, is biggotry.

Suggestion to revise question to not solicit a biggoted, or conversly, a defensive or point of view:
Perhaps, rather than blatently ask if women should just not be allowed to fight because they are women, you could include an at least debatable reason tacked on the end of the question.

Example:
Should Canadian Forces women be allowed on the battlefield, due to the fact they may be subjected to physical, and mental hardships during capture beyond what a man may suffer, ie. sexual abuse.?

Or if there is a reason you feel strongly about, use it as the question, don‘t be so overly general.

Example:
Should fitness standards be equal between males and females within the combat arms, to ensure that every soldier is capable of meeting the exact same minimum physical standards?

My answer would still be yes to females being allowed the opportunity, but I also belive in minimum fitness standrds being higher for men and women, and that those standards be identical.
 
My girlfriend was navy diver but they have failed to course load her for the last two years so she is remustering. She is interested in the infantry reserve but is concerned with the possible attitude of fellow soldiers including senior ncm‘s as well, she is concerned about the physical aspect of it. She is quite fit and is one tuff cookie but still has doubts. What do you guy‘s think? is the training passible for most females or just exceptional few? She would possibly be joining the Seaforth Highlanders.
 
There is policies in place that deal with sexism, racism, and biggotry in general. It is unacceptable to discriminate against anyone for any reason within the CF. In my interview the Cpt. really drove home this point to me, I don‘t know why because I‘m the furthest thing from a biggot. I guess it‘s something they have to cover with you.

Anyway, obviously there would be channels to go through if she suffered blatant sexism, and the induvidual/s would be delt with according to policy.

However, read through some of the other threads in this forum that have anything to do with women, and you will see that there are a few people with opinions and views about women that may be a little offensive to you/her. I would think that if she‘s already been in the military for a while, she would have developed certain defence mechanisms against people like that though.
The Combat arms may indeed have a few more of those types kicking around, I think that it would go without saying, but dealing with adversity can only make us stronger right? And I would think the vast majority of people are probably fine with working with women.
 
Back
Top