Discussion in 'WWII General' started by Volga Boatman, Jun 11, 2012.
I love your last point...deep and perceptive.
Personnaly doesnt come down to a person's sex.. Just comes down to if they can handle it or not. One thing I dont advocate is woman being given lesser requirements to get into the same area as the male counterpart.. Those requirements are set that high for a reason and should not be lowered just becouse some one is the opposite sex.. Doing so would actually increase the likely hood of the female troop's suffering a greater propertionate casualty rate.
And i dont beleive that either females or males as a gender are or will be better then the other.. Comes down to there level of training, ability to adapt and there will to do what needs to be done.. Nothing more nothing less. For the argument of sister hood making females more likely to stick togethor when it gets tough well same could be said for male counterparts.. More then enough examples of it happening for them.. Simply just is how well the unit works together and cares for one another.. Not anything to do with brotherhood or sisterhood, That is all bogus.
Hopefully woman will be able to get more roles in the military sooner, especially front line roles.. The argument about if woman are capable or not is really old.. We should have matured as a society past the view by now.
I'm shaking my head that this is a popular topic on a WW2 site.
My two cents is that a woman could probably fight as good as a man and a few may perform same physical feats but logistically, it would be an added burden to the military. Women, obviously are physically designed different and there are things that happen which are not compatible with the field conditions military operations provide. As previously mentioned, the sexual aspect is one then you have the sanitary conditions on the other hand. Personal hygiene cannot be segregated and women are higher maintenance. So it is not a question of can they fight but more like should they be on the line. When I mean on the line, I mean days on out in the middle of nowhere with no creature comforts.
Sandhurst cadets have to...All female trainees in British army have to Pzjgr? Don't yours? They don't take their lippy on exercise with them.
No, you shouldn't be told you can't do something for an arbitrary reason, but the fact is most men going into the military (forget civilians because this is concerning the military) are bigger, stronger, larger lung capacity and heart (endurance) and greater muscle mass. A woman should be allowed to fill any billet that she has the attributes to do. In jobs not requiring these attributes, all fields should be open. It's funny that intelligence isn't mentioned. It is a physical constraint, both sexes are equal here, a particular level is a prerequisite for many jobs. If say, the job requires a minimum score of a 110 GT score, no one claims it is discriminating against those with a lower IQ because they are excluded. If I have little or no aptitude for speaking foreign languages, should I get a job as a linguist? It's a matter of having the appropriate skills to do the job. Physical strength is a requirement for an infantryman. The ability to shoot is important, it is just as important to be strong enough to hump your water, ammo for your personal weapon, extra MG belts and mortar rounds for the crew served weapons, etc. etc. When you get in a fight that extra couple hundred rounds a weak troop couldn't hump, can often be the margin of victory. I think it should also be stated that in an infantry unit, men can be brutal to the weaker men that don't pull their weight. Physical restraints are physical restraints. If I wanted to be a professional jockey I couldn't. No matter how skilled a horseman I was, how hard I tried, how dedicated or intelligent I was, I'm too tall and heavy. It would place too great an additional burden on the horse. It is a physical limitation. If the purpose of the horse owner were to win races, hiring me would be counter-productive. Same, same with the military. It should exist for one reason, to fight battles and win wars. To close with and destroy your countries enemies with maximum effectiveness and a minimum of friendly casualties. Any soldier or Marine that detracts from that capability needs to be moved to a billet where they are not a detriment. Right now, virtually all fields within the military are open to women.
BTW, my wife an I took Tae Kwon Do for many years together. One thing that was probably missed by many that read the story about your fight with the other girl, is the fact that you were fighting another girl. You may be paired with someone of different physical ability when sparring in practice or testing for your belts, but in tournaments men fight men, not women or children. Children fight children. Women fight women. Why? If you sparred with a lot of males in practice, you know that strength, and a more powerful blow, quite often trumps skill.
This is bull. It is not an issue. Every non-infantry Marine, male or female goes through a 31 day field course that teaches all other Military Occupational Specialties, basic infantry skills. It is called MCT (Marine Combat Training). That way male or female support troops that are confronted with the enemy can defend themselves. After the Army supply convoy with Jessica Lynch, got whacked in Nasariya, the Army was looking at starting something similar. I do not know for sure if this ever happened. They have, to my knowledge had no issues with problems of the nature you describe.
Another fairy tale. I don't remember who posted it, but the deal about women having higher pain thresholds. This has been disproven in numerous medical studies. There is a great variance in the ability to tolerate pain from individual to individual. So you can't say all men can take more pain than all women. It varies from person to person. You may have certain women that can endure more pain than all the males in the study, but as a group there is a significant difference, with men as a whole being more pain tolerant.
I posted the 'pain threshold'...
Mr Price, with all due respect, try passing a seven pound stool with no gas, no drugs, and no assistance of any kind without yelling out in extreme pain continuously for the entire time.
When my wife recently broke her large toe,(in three places), the hospital staff that had to rebreak and set her foot in a cast pulled and pushed her toe back into position, unaided by gas or drugs of any kind. Arlene just sat and smiled at them. Try this also, at your leisure....
I made no claim to ALL members of the female gender possessing this atribute, but to this day I have yet to see any man alive get root canal work done on their teeth with not a painkiller in sight.
Try this also for yourself......
We used to have what was called a BFT..battle fitness test...something still around I'm sure..I know its been watered down over the years...think its fit to fight now or something similar in UK forces...But the gist is..all males and females had to do it...A run...with boots not trainers as I think today...full kit at one time..AND the ability to shoot is something ALL British forces had to pass...don't know today...even the Jolly Jack Tars...And shoot to a minimum standard...ALL folk joining UK forces HAVE to be able to shoot to kill..various accuracies may be allowed but as far as the forces are concerned here...and always have been since ww2 anyway...You join up and you must be prepared to kill...cook by all means..send signals...send and receive em if you like...stack blankets...speak Pashtun..whatever...ski ing was always popular in my day...plus sailing...wednesday afternoons for football..rugby...whatever...squash...go for a run in your spare time..travel the world...meet new folk...learn new customs...But the biggie...you joined up you had to be prepared to take life if necessary...male or female..the UK forces don't have a problem with it..so the argument is not can they should they be allowed...your too late...they already are and do. and are expected to....whether they should be or can be infantry is the only agrument left.
I think most if n ot all countries have something similar to the BFT. Simple fact is most if not all militaries around the world now that at one point or another any one person may be forced into a situation that they have to fight, So they like to now they are able to fight and kill when needed.
And as i think I already stated, If the females can hack it then there is no reason for them not to be out there with the boys. More then alot of females have already seen 'front line' combat in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the nature of warfare there and I have not seen any complaints from the boys on the ground screaming to get the girls out because they cant fight, hack it or are more trouble then there worth.. They have proven they can handle fights in those two conflicts alone.. not to mention the many others before them. If they couldnt handle Iraq or Afghanistan then they would have already been pulled out and we would only be seeing male forces there.
Generalizing is generalizing and there are always exceptions, but generally speaking I don't believe the shooting accuracy is an issue. Strength and stamina would be.
Generally speaking you could say that women would make better combat pilots than men.
Many are not strong enough to hold a M-16 firm and steady. That is why they can not shoot. The only women who could were a few Soviet snipers during WW2. History has proven the Russians are a different breed of people. So you can't compare women of other nations to them except the German women of that same era. Women like that do not exist these days. There are a few exceptions but not many.
Could you provide some supporting data for any of these statements?
See this is where the rub is. While the argument is true, on the surface, it doesn't give a true picture. Females, with rare exceptions are not assigned to front line service, (pilots would be one area that comes to mind). The problem is that insurgents attack in your rear areas also. So you are exposed to combat of an ancillary nature, but it is not the same as front line service where combat is the primary focus. To put it another way, the ancillary combat is where the primary mission is something else, a supply convoy for instance. Their primary focus is to deliver the supplies, they do not go out with the intention of initiating contact. Any contact that occurs is normally initiated by the opposing forces and is of short duration. The "front line" combat troops are either defending a position in an exposed area with a high level of enemy activity and contact is probable (as opposed to possible) or more often they are going out looking for the bad guys, clearing an area, or patrolling a high risk area where combat is likely. You can die just as easily in either type, but the latter is the type where you'll always find the infantry types.
Women have performed well in the jobs they are filling, the latter half of your argument is fallacious though, in units where combat is the primary focus women are not currently allowed to serve so they can't be pulled out. The units in question are already all male.
Why? Is that the ultimate test of pain tolerance. My wife gave birth to two sons, one 7.2lbs, one 8.4lbs. She chose to go the natural childbirth route. I was there for the first and she was in a lot of pain and I felt a great deal of empathy for her suffering. I was deployed during the second sons birth so I don't have direct knowledge of the amount of pain involved there, but she did tell me it wasn't as bad as the first. Not anesthesia or pain killers with either birth. Despite this she will tell you in a heartbeat that I have a much higher pain tolerance than she does.
Your wife does appear to have a high pain tolerance, but what does that prove? I've on two separate occasions broken fingers. I set them, taped them together to immobilize them, and went to the hospital and had them properly fixed when the mission was over. Once, was a couple of days, once was about a week. I ran a PFT with a broken right ankle, rather than be re-cycled/medical dropped from a course. As soon as I was done, it had swelled so badly they took me directly to the hospital and I spent the next six weeks in a walking cast. Try running three miles in 18 minutes with a gimp ankle. My younger son broke his big toe at the end of boot camp at Parris Island. It swelled up and turned purple, they took him to the hospital and the corpsman (a female and a good "doc" by his description), examined it and had it x-rayed, and she was prepared to medical drop him. He didn't want to stay at PI one day longer than necessary, so he begged her to allow him to stay in training. She said, she was going to yank on the toe and if he could take the pain she wouldn't recommend that he be dropped. She did, he winced, but nothing more. He was returned to training, no restrictions. Ran a PFT two days later and left for the Crucible at the end of the week. A non stop 54-hour training exercise with about 60 miles of road marches, numerous assault courses, etc. He hurt but he completed it. Or the time I treated myself for a gunshot wound. I can go on and on, but what does it prove? These are individual instances, involving individual people. They prove nothing for the group as a whole.
One story that is too good to pass up is the LCpl. in my older sons unit that went home to Memphis over a 96. He was out partying, on Saturday night, when someone tried to mug him. The bad guy pulled a gun, they struggled, the gun went off shooting the Marine, and the mugger ran off. The Marine had a through, and through, 9mm gunshot wound to his side. He walked home, got his IFAK out of his gear and patched himself up. He then got his parents to take him to the hospital. He reported back to base by midnight of the following Monday (two days post shooting), but didn't tell anyone he'd been shot. He ran PT Tuesday morning, and went to work performing all his assigned duties. He did the same on Wednesday and Thursday. On Friday morning they had to run a PFT. He ran it, did his pull ups, crunches and three mile run. Scored well. They were lining up to start the CFT (Combat Fitness Test), when the Lance Corporal went up to the First Sergeant and requested to be excused for a few minutes. The SNCO thought he was trying to get out of PT and started making disparaging comments about the LCPL, and how he was weak and a malingerer. The LCPL said, "No First Sergeant, I'm not trying to get out of PT, I just need to go change my bandage, I'm leaking." The First Sergeant asked, what bandage? The LCPL replied, "The one from where I got shot." The First Sergeant called BS on that and wanted to see, the LCPL pulled up his sweatshirt and complied. The First Sergeant then wanted to know how it happened and how come the LCPL never said anything, to anyone all week. They didn't make him run the CFT, they sent him to the hospital to have it checked and put him on light duty until it healed. There are a lot of hard people out there, of both sexes.
I agree with the first part, but you shouldn't have gone there on the second part. Been there done that, July 1977, my two, upper front incisors. The dentist used this little device that used electrical current to determine if the nerves were still alive. The device was malfunctioning. They had drilled the holes and were using these little screw things to remove the pulp and nerves. The dental assistant kept telling the dentist that he thought the nerves might not be dead because I appeared to be in a great deal of pain. I never cried out, never closed my mouth, never complained, did wince a lot. The dentist tried the device on his own tooth and realized it wasn't working and really appeared to get scared, and apologized alot. It was too late at this point to give me anything. They finished up and sent me back to my platoon. So get you some of that, I have tried it, not by choice and I wouldn't recommend it.
All this said, I stated earlier and stand by my assertion that pain tolerance, varies considerably from individual to individual, and while there is a difference gender wide it does not translate into all men have more pain tolerance than all women. That said, women as a gender, do not have a higher pain tolerance than men, despite popular opinion. Here's a WebMD article on the subject. How Men & Women Handle Pain, on MedicineNet.com
Do a google search, there are tons more.
Had to deal with a female 1st Lieutenant from a US Ranger Platoon some years ago. She looked nice but uuuhh that was a beast! And she was always their with her soldiers no matter how mad it was. They´ve told me that she is very good soldier. Why not?
Tolerance to pain is a bogus argument on both sides.
1. Pain is subjective, as is a person's response to it. There is no viable way to measure the intensity of pain nor a person's response to it.
2. Childbirth is painful, no doubt, but so are kidney stones. In my previous profession, I had ample opportunities to talk to women who had both. Most stated to me that the pain of either was about the same, but that they would take delivering a child over passing stone any day, if only that something good came from their efforts. This included women who gave birth before the use of saddle block or epidurals.
3. In my previous profession I also had opportunities to observe many, many patients of both sexes that had underwent identical surgeries. I've seen stoics and screamers in both sexes and no conclusion could be drawn as to the ability of either sex to withstand pain better than the other, that is, if I could actually measure pain or response.
I don't think there is any data to support this claim. A fully loaded M-16 only weighs 8 lbs.
You might want to also check with Spc. Liana Bombardier who won the national military rifle championship with an M-16 in 2003. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-qi4Cg&usg=AFQjCNH_lPThXEbQHCnvQKxIyObxkIWnvA
There is absolutely no reason in the world that a woman couldn't become proficient with an M-16.
I agree, and I didn't bring it up to start with. I included it in my reply because it kept being alluded to.
Again, I agree. I even included a similar statement in my earlier reply:
I also think there is a strong cultural component. In my travels I have noticed people in certain cultures have a tendency to be more stoic when dealing with pain. I really don't think there is a difference in how much pain you feel, just your reaction to the stimuli. I think there is probably a learned component also. I think we've all seen kids that overreact to injuries and seem to display a response all out of proportion to the injury. This is usually because they get a desired response from their parent(s). Usually, once you've looked at it and insured it's not serious, if you say I know it really doesn't hurt as bad as you're making out and they perceive that they're not going to get the desired response, the tears and screaming usually subside.
I've been told the same thing numerous times. Both my mother, 4 kids and aunt 5 kids, have told me this also.
During my Army days, I would occasionally work at Brooke Army Medical Center, between deployments, too re-certify my skills. They have a big burn center there. I think the worst task and some of the greatest pain, you can inflict on a person is the debriding of burns. This is a brutal process, but must be done and done regularly, if the patient is to retain as much function as possible. I've seen amazing pain tolerance in both men and women, the most impressive and the most heart rending though are the children.
My comments were not necessarily directed at you.
Talking about repsonse to Kidney stones. I have had 4 episodes of kidney stones in life. Every single time I was crawling under the car seat, hanging from the ceiling, rolling on the floor and even tossing my cookies one of the times from the intense pain.
My brother-in-law called me one morning several years ago, asking me to drive him to the hospital because he thought he might have a kidney stone. I get there and he looked like he was in some mild discomfort, like maybe he had a small burn on his back or abdomen. Otherwise, he did not appear to be in any real distress. It turned out that he did have a stone and I was amazed at how calm and nonchalant he was about it. Had he not told me, I really would have not thought he was hurting really much at all.
My main thrust was, as you agreed, that pain is so subjective, as is how someone responds to it. I've seen women can be tough as nails, but also men. I have seen them both get up out bed the afternoon after having a total hip replacement walk as thought they were 6-8 weeks post-op, dragging the walker along only because I told them to use it. Then in the next room, we'd nearly have to fight the patient, male or female, to even move the operative leg in the bed.
A very vivid description of the stones. That's one of those pains I don't think is overstated. Now, that you've gotten me to thinking. There was this one guy that came into the ER, in a great deal of pain with kidney stones. He was in enough pain that the doctor administered morphine for the pain and he was out like a light. Then like all of a sudden he'd be wide awake again in bad pain, while the kidney stone was working its way down. Then like flipping a switch, back out cold. Then a little while later the stone would start moving again and wide awake. I figured anything that could wake you instantly from a morphine induced state of unconsciousness had to hurt. You knew he wasn't exaggerating either because of the way he was instantly back out.