Women in Combat

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Again, no one (that I have heard here) is advocating allowing in anyone who can't meet the requirements.

The problem, of course, is "the requirements".

The probability that bureaucrats will lower the standards to try to make some phony point about diversity or equality is nearly 100%. They are safely in the rear and/or beyond military service age and will not be affected by the consequences of their actions.

We have been down this road before. In the 1980s, New York area feminists, on a bender to prove that women could do everything a man could do, demanded that the NYFD hire women firefighters on an equal footing with men.

When it was ointed out that women could not pass the physical, the idiots actually demanded that the physical tests be changed so that, instead of a firefighter being required to CARRY a 220 pound dummy over his shoulders down 5 flights of stairs, the new test would only require the firefighters to DRAG a 150 pound dummy down 5 flights of stairs.

Try to imagine being dragged down 5 flight of stairs with your head bouncing off the risers all the way down. One rescue like that and you will spend the rest of your life making posts like IBHankerwrong.

Ed Koch put a stop to the stupidity. Bless him.

So, politicians will change the requirements for combat so they can boast of how their policies have enabled ever more women to break through ever more glass ceilings.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CJ7

great for the 5'7" 165lb men .. maybe?

for the big guys, not so much


I still have trouble seeing an avreage size woman throwing an average sized man over her shoulder and packing him 100 or more yards to saftey .. reverse the scenario seems more plausible IMO

Was speaking about the small man moving a large man.Not a woman.

[Jackie S]

Way back when I went through Basic Training, we had to low crawl, in full combat gear, in what amounted to a 50 yard long mudhole.
We did it a couple of times, and then one day the Drill Sgt came running by with a open CN Gas Grenade on a stick.
Have you ever tried to clear a gas mask when it is full of vomit?
And keep in mind, nobody was shooting at us. If they had been, I suppose I would be a dead man.

This is what I mean about the difference in controled enviroment testing and real world encounters. Sure, you can do a lot of things when you know what is going to happen and are prepared. But, what if you are already so damned tired you can barely walk, you hurt all over, and yes, someone is shooting at you, and then you are called upon to perform one of those "test" that means someone might live, or someone might die.
I'm old now, (66), none of this really concerns me on a personal level, but I can say from personal experience that what you think you can do and what you really can do is really subject to a lot more things than completing a set of guidlines laid down by some beauracrat or polititian whose biggest aim is getting people to vote for him.

I guess we will see in the future what comes of all of this. I suppose in the end a woman can be just as brave, or just as big a coward, as any man.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The problem, of course, is "the requirements".

The probability that bureaucrats will lower the standards to try to make some phony point about diversity or equality is nearly 100%. They are safely in the rear and/or beyond military service age and will not be affected by the consequences of their actions.

We have been down this road before. In the 1980s, New York area feminists, on a bender to prove that women could do everything a man could do, demanded that the NYFD hire women firefighters on an equal footing with men.

When it was ointed out that women could not pass the physical, the idiots actually demanded that the physical tests be changed so that, instead of a firefighter being required to CARRY a 220 pound dummy over his shoulders down 5 flights of stairs, the new test would only require the firefighters to DRAG a 150 pound dummy down 5 flights of stairs.

Try to imagine being dragged down 5 flight of stairs with your head bouncing off the risers all the way down. One rescue like that and you will spend the rest of your life making posts like IBHankerwrong. You are an inveterate and pretentious Yankee jackass, ExNYer, who couldn't make it in your beloved New York: a dismal failure in your own eyes.

Ed Koch put a stop to the stupidity. Bless him.

So, politicians will change the requirements for combat so they can boast of how their policies have enabled ever more women to break through ever more glass ceilings.

.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Go farch yourself.

Farching is for your type.(between guys)

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'm wondering if you really read the article.

"Fewer than 4 percent of U.S. firefighters are women, despite almost half of female firefighter candidates passing physical ability tests, a study says."

"The researchers found that women firefighters are simply not being hired. When women are hired, the study found that 85 percent say that they were treated differently; 80 percent say they were issued ill-fitting equipment, 37 percent report that their gender creates barriers to career advancement; 50 percent feel shunned or socially isolated; and 37 percent are verbally harassed."

Maybe they aren't being hired as firefighters because passing a dumbed down test meant to accommodate women taking tests to prove they can be firefighters to make a social point isn't the same as carrying someone to safety from a burning building, or climbing 72 stories up the WTC with 100 pounds of gear to try and save lives.
I don't doubt there are women brave enough to give it a try, and even some who could do it. But what's the fucking point besides a political statement that pleases some old hag feminist and her pussy whipped fellow travelers? Millions of guys could do it. I could still do it at my age of 52, and I'm just a regular guy, but I've never seen a woman in her fifties who I think could handle it.
Men and women are different, thank God. Why turn them into men? With three billion swinging dicks on this earth, we don't need anymore!

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The problem, of course, is "the requirements".

The probability that bureaucrats will lower the standards to try to make some phony point about diversity or equality is nearly 100%. They are safely in the rear and/or beyond military service age and will not be affected by the consequences of their actions.

We have been down this road before. In the 1980s, New York area feminists, on a bender to prove that women could do everything a man could do, demanded that the NYFD hire women firefighters on an equal footing with men.

When it was ointed out that women could not pass the physical, the idiots actually demanded that the physical tests be changed so that, instead of a firefighter being required to CARRY a 220 pound dummy over his shoulders down 5 flights of stairs, the new test would only require the firefighters to DRAG a 150 pound dummy down 5 flights of stairs.

Try to imagine being dragged down 5 flight of stairs with your head bouncing off the risers all the way down. One rescue like that and you will spend the rest of your life making posts like IBHankerwrong.

Ed Koch put a stop to the stupidity. Bless him.

So, politicians will change the requirements for combat so they can boast of how their policies have enabled ever more women to break through ever more glass ceilings.

I also agree it's silly to lessen requirements in order to allow in people unsuitable for the job (men or women). But if anyone can meet the current requirements, I don't see any reason to exclude them if they want to serve.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

I also agree it's silly to lessen requirements in order to allow in people unsuitable for the job (men or women). But if anyone can meet the current requirements, I don't see any reason to exclude them if they want to serve.

That's just the first step.

It's like passing the written and driving tests for a license.

Is she ready for NASCAR? Day in and day out ... 24/7?

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's just the first step.

It's like passing the written and driving tests for a license.

Is she ready for NASCAR? Day in and day out ... 24/7?

That's fine. Again, as long as anyone can meet the requirements expected of any soldier, I don't see any reason to exclude them from trying for it.

If it turns out the individual can't cut it, well too bad.

[I B Hankering]

Unknown hundreds of women subordinated their sexuality and served in battle alongside their husbands, brothers, etc., during the Civil War. Another example is Cathay Williams who enlisted in 1866. Her story is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathay_Williams

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Unknown hundreds of women subordinated their sexuality and served in battle alongside their husbands, brothers, etc., during the Civil War. Another example is Cathay Williams who enlisted in 1866. Her story is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathay_Williams

"In 1861 Union forces occupied Jefferson City in the early stages of the American Civil War. At that time, captured slaves were officially designated by the Union as "contraband," and many were forced to serve in military support roles such as cooks, laundresses, or nurses. At age seventeen, Williams was impressed into serving the 8th Indiana Volunteer Infantry Regiment, commanded by Colonel William Plummer Benton."

Uhhhhhh... #1 .... "impressed" into serving ...

I think that is distinctly different from being "impressed" by a recruiter as to the virtues of joining and "seeing the world" or "becoming a man" ... blah, blah, blah.

#2 ... I suspect that if there is "war" on our homeland that the standards of "entrance" and "training" will be substantially lowered and adjusted to accommodate every able bodied male and female capable of loading and discharging a firearm or one or the other ... in lieu of doing both. We ain't there yet!

#3 .. I don't see anything in there about being in "combat" ... I do see where she was sick and hospitalized during at least part of the 2 years she was in.

[JD Barleycorn]

There are more to "requirements" than a written test and some jumping jacks. There is all the other stuff that goes along with military service; getting along with others under difficult conditions, doing what has to be done regardless of the inconvenience, going the extra distance, not ducking out (getting pregnant) on difficult duty, and just being stubborn enough to keep going when the easy thing would be to quit. Yes, some women will pass this test and some men won't but my point is that just passing a couple of test does not make a soldier.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Unknown hundreds of women subordinated their sexuality and served in battle alongside their husbands, brothers, etc., during the Civil War. Another example is Cathay Williams who enlisted in 1866. Her story is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathay_Williams

There is a difference between serving secretly and serving openly. I assume the women fighting in the Civil War at least tried to pass as men. It's like comparing the old policy of don't ask don't tell to the new policy of gays serving openly.

Analyzing the success or failure of women fighting in the Civil War may not be very useful in predicting the outcome of the new policy of women in combat.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"In 1861 Union forces occupied Jefferson City in the early stages of the American Civil War. At that time, captured slaves were officially designated by the Union as "contraband," and many were forced to serve in military support roles such as cooks, laundresses, or nurses. At age seventeen, Williams was impressed into serving the 8th Indiana Volunteer Infantry Regiment, commanded by Colonel William Plummer Benton."

Uhhhhhh... #1 .... "impressed" into serving ...

I think that is distinctly different from being "impressed" by a recruiter as to the virtues of joining and "seeing the world" or "becoming a man" ... blah, blah, blah.

#2 ... I suspect that if there is "war" on our homeland that the standards of "entrance" and "training" will be substantially lowered and adjusted to accommodate every able bodied male and female capable of loading and discharging a firearm or one or the other ... in lieu of doing both. We ain't there yet!

#3 .. I don't see anything in there about being in "combat" ... I do see where she was sick and hospitalized during at least part of the 2 years she was in.

You're either being obstinate or illiterate, LL. Didn't you read where Williams "enlisted" to serve with the Buffalo Soldiers in 1866 -- after the war, or are you just too much of a hack to acknowledge that it says she "enlisted"?

"Despite the prohibition against women serving in the military, Williams enlisted in the United States Regular Army on 15 November 1866 at St. Louis, Missouri for a three year engagement, passing herself off as a man. Only two others are known to have been privy to the deception, her cousin and a friend, both of whom were fellow soldiers in her regiment."

. . . and she did everything demanded of an U.S. Infantry soldier -- chasing Apaches -- short of fighting:

"Upon enlistment, as William Cathey, she was assigned to the 38th U.S. Infantry, which had been officially established in August, 1866, as a designated, segregated African-American unit. (The 39th, 40th, and 41st Infantries were the other designated and segregated black units created that year.) The segregated African-American regiments were commanded by white officers, with the regimental headquarters of the 38th at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri.

On February 13, 1867, Company A of the 38th Infantry was officially organized, and William Cathey, along with 75 other black privates, was mustered into that company at Jefferson Barracks. However, at that time, she was in an unnamed St. Louis hospital, suffering an undocumented illness.

By April, 1867, William Cathey and Company A had marched to Fort Riley, Kansas. On the 10th of April, she went to the post hospital complaining of "itch". ("Itch" was usually scabies, eczema, lice, or a combination thereof, part the filth of camp life.) On April 30, along with 15 other privates, she was recorded as being ill in quarters. Because they were sick, all 16 privates had their pay docked 10 dollars per month for three months. She returned to duty on May 14, indicating that something other than "itch" had bothered her.

In June, 1867, the company was at Fort Harker, Kansas. On July 20, 1867, they arrived at Fort Union, New Mexico, after marching 536 miles. On September 7, Company A began the march to Fort Cummings, New Mexico, arriving October 1. They were stationed there for eight months. They were stationed there for eight months, protecting miners and traveling immigrants from Apache attack.

From the records, it looks like she could march long distances as well as any man in her unit. When not on the march, all privates did garrison duty, drilled and trained, and went scouting for signs of hostile Native Americans. William Cathey participated in her share of their duties. There is no record that she ever engaged an enemy or saw any form of direct combat while she was enlisted."

http://www.sangres.com/history/cwilliams/#.UQsOUx1EFPs

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-cathywilliams.html

Williams was an anecdotal example of a woman who met the standard in an U.S. Infantry unit. Numerous other women served in combat during the Civil War:

"Even though women weren’t legally allowed to fight in the Civil War, it is estimated that somewhere around 400 women disguised themselves as men and went to war, sometimes without anyone ever discovering their true identities.

How did they do it?

Honestly, the lore is that the physical exams were not rigorous at all. If you had enough teeth in your head and could hold a musket, you were fine. The funny thing is, in this scenario, a lot of women didn’t seem any less manly than, for example, the teenage boys who were enlisting. At the time, I believe the Union had an official cutoff age of 18 for soldiers, but that was often flouted and people often lied. They had a lot of young guys and their voices hadn’t changed and their faces were smooth. The Confederacy never actually established an age requirement. So [women] bound their breasts if they had to, and just kind of layered on clothes, wore loose clothing, cut their hair short and rubbed dirt on their faces. They also kind of kept to themselves. The evidence that survived often describes them as aloof. Keeping to themselves certainly helped maintain the secret.

What duties did the women perform?

They did everything that men did. They worked as scouts, spies, prison guards, cooks, nurses and they fought in combat."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...Civil-War.html

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/ci...ah_edmonds.htm



Disguised as a man (left), Frances Clayton served many months in Missouri artillery and cavalry units. (By courtesy of the Trustees of the Boston Public Library)

http://www.archives.gov/publications...vil-war-1.html

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

There is a difference between serving secretly and serving openly. I assume the women fighting in the Civil War at least tried to pass as men. It's like comparing the old policy of don't ask don't tell to the new policy of gays serving openly.

Analyzing the success or failure of women fighting in the Civil War may not be very useful in predicting the outcome of the new policy of women in combat.

They did do it secretly because it was against regulations to do so openly. Often they served with someone they knew, a brother, a husband or, as in Cathay Williams' case, a cousin. And it's wrong to think these women were just "cooks" because during the Civil War, each man (or woman) was responsible for carrying and preparing his own rations, though this was normally accomplished as a squad with some men naturally inclined to cook and others serving to forage and gather wood and water, etc. Fundamentally, they were all infantry, and being a cook was just an additional duty that excused no one from combat. One need only read a good monograph on the Battle of Shiloh to know that "cooks" were infantry first and foremost.

"After the War of 1812, the War Department became responsible for central procurement of common supply items for all services. At the same time, the Army Subsistence Department was merged with the Quartermaster Department. Even with these changes, the Army continued to issue ration components to individual soldiers through the Civil War years."

http://www.qmfound.com/food.htm