Women in combat, and gays in combat

[JClay]

I was talking about the historical meaning of the word "Light". It all changed when armies were no longer using pikes, swords and bows.

When I was a teen, the 2PPCLI had A Company mounted in APCs, B and C Companies were mounted in 3/4 Ton Trucks. They also had a platoon of 106 recoiless rifles mounted on 1/4 Ton Trucks and a weapons platoon that had mortars and traveled on 2 1/2 Ton Trucks. They were still in Winnipeg back then, so I often ran into them.

Now, they would all be mounted in armoured vehicles, through I assume A Company would still be the ones mounted in the best armoured.

Fair enough - wasn't sure why the reference to the Patricias came up based on uncleg's wife being in the light infantry.

As it stands, all three rifle companies in 2VP roll mechanized in the LAV III. Mortars don't belong to the infantry anymore, nor does Anti-Armour (TOW). The TO&E is constantly changing, though there is always one constant in 2VP - Shilo blows.

 

[mimi]

@ ssdex: wow! very articulate and erudite. I think you nailed it on the head

@bcneil: Yes, I noticed this on the soccer field at the schools. The guys actually played better, with more skill and focus and sportsmanship when a couple of girls joined the team.

We can't let Hollywood lead us to believe that every time a woman is faced with a scary situation she will fall to pieces and sit helplessly while her male companion is beaten to a pulp.

In many third world countries women are basically fighting every day, not only to survive, but to help their men make a better place for their families.

@alinburnaby: was 2PPCLI based out of Calgary? I seem to recollect some pleasant memories of them and the now defunct Airborne Unit.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

First, we don't use DU munitions in the CF. Full stop.

Perhaps we don't. But we're not just talking about our military and we do know others certainly use DU.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/2012126394859797.html

Second, we don't go around popping women in burqas who look like they *might* be concealing bombs.

Again - perhaps we don't but others certainly don't let such uncertainties stop them. And it's not even like that's an unfortunate isolated case. Apparently that's just routine.

http://www.aljazeera.com/secretiraqfiles/2010/10/2010102216241633174.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/w...ws-found-in-iraq-junkyard.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/world/middleeast/07photo.html?pagewanted=all


http://www.collateralmurder.com/

Look at the demographics - nearly half the population of that country is 14 years of age or younger.

How encouraging. That is so unbelievably sad.

When your life or the life of your buddy is in danger, you *will* kill to protect them. Militaries have been enabling people to kill other people for thousands of years, and we've gotten very good at it.

Wow what an accomplishment. You'd think we would have managed to also get better at not getting to that point in the first place and, you know, get along. Or come up with successful ways to resolve conflict without bombs or mass civilian casualties as collateral in never ending but money making wars....

 

[uncleg]

I thought that uncleg's wife was in the Patricias. Memory says she's based in Edmonton.

I took a course in Shilo where we used their ranges. Probably cured me of any idea of the Military as a career. That was when I was still a teen and didn't know if I would be a good enough boxer. Probably 66 or 67 2PPCLI was still in Winnipeg. Lot's of girls in the Cadets back then and I never noticed any of them having difficulty keeping up with the guys.

Edmonton was quite awhile ago for QL3, last posting was WATC, with a Mission Transition Stint in Afganistan. Actually was offered a position in Shilo last week for a back-fill. Told her she wouldn't like the weather so she's staying home.

 

[blackcad]

There's been so much politically correct drivel in this thread that I just have to state the obvious....Basic Biology. The male (of Homo Sapiens) is built for fighting, the female is not.

Females are much better at many things over their male counterparts but physical combat is NOT one of them. (And of course...in a planet of Billions of people, there will be exceptions....but they are far and few between...this isn't Tomb Raider or Resident Evil. There is an obvious reason that there is no such thing as a female Navy SEAL.

A man's bones are denser and usually larger, his skin is much thicker, more rugged, and more resilient to impacts (women have much more delicate skin...they bruise easily as their skin thickness and collagen content is much less). A man's eye's are recessed deeper in his skull to accommodate blows to the head without causing as much damage to the vision of the combatant. His skull is thicker, including a much more pronounced forehead, brow and jaw, also as a way to withstand violent confrontations with beast or man. A man has more speed, substantially more muscle mass and power...and a greater adrenaline rush in a fight or flight situation than a woman. Men have a greater ability to focus on one task, especially when in a life threatening situation and are less predisposed to "freeze" and panic. During the stress and turmoil of a life or death situation, gross motor skills take over both females and males, so any advantage females have in agility or fine motor skills (women often make the best sharpshooters and snipers) are completely eclipsed by raw survival instincts....here...only power, speed and resilience counts.

Our biology has built the males to protect and hunt.....and the females to nurture and socialize..thus females make much better communicators.

In a life and death situation, I can't imagine any female that I wouldn't be able to completely incapacitate with one blow....nor can I envision a women who is capable of landing the same on me, with equivalent power, momentum and speed.

Women serving in the military on the front lines where hand to hand combat is likely?...Probably not the best idea....taking political correctness to the point where her life and others around her hang in the balance.

Spare me the arguments that...."I don't have a problem as long as they can do the same job as anyone else"....The performance standards in Canadian and American military recruitment have been set to a level where MANY women can now successfully pass. Only the best women could have possibly passed recruitment standards before. This allows many men and women, the ability to serve in dangerous situations, where their bodies are not tough enough for the task.

Since women are much better multi-taskers then men...I would much rather see females commanding men..commanding vessels..and strategizing military manouvers....then implementing hand to hand.

There are no doubt some women that could kick the living crap out of me......but they are probably close to one out of 10,000. As for men....probably one out of 20.

 

[Tugela]

I don't think it really matters what the sex or orientation of a soldier is, as long as they can do whatever their particular role is. Anyone who joins up voluntarily knows what they are signing up for.

As far as gays in the military is concerned, I would have expected that there is a much higher ratio there anyway because of the nature of the work (macho stuff with extended alone time with a lot of other males). An the current military seems to function just fine without significant problem.

What people like Santorum are really concerned about is that they believe that if you allows homosexuals or females into an all boys organization like the military, that suddenly everyone is going to be screwing each other instead of killing non-americans and discipline will evaporate. That is what it is all about - sex. The fact that you are not supposed to have sex on duty at all flies over their head, and they choose to ignore that.

 

[Tugela]

There's been so much politically correct drivel in this thread that I just have to state the obvious....Basic Biology. The male (of Homo Sapiens) is built for fighting, the female is not.

Females are much better at many things over their male counterparts but physical combat is NOT one of them. (And of course...in a planet of Billions of people, there will be exceptions....but they are far and few between...this isn't Tomb Raider or Resident Evil. There is an obvious reason that there is no such thing as a female Navy SEAL.

A man's bones are denser and usually larger, his skin is much thicker, more rugged, and more resilient to impacts (women have much more delicate skin...they bruise easily as their skin thickness and collagen content is much less). A man's eye's are recessed deeper in his skull to accommodate blows to the head without causing as much damage to the vision of the combatant. His skull is thicker, including a much more pronounced forehead, brow and jaw, also as a way to withstand violent confrontations with beast or man. A man has more speed, substantially more muscle mass and power...and a greater adrenaline rush in a fight or flight situation than a woman. Men have a greater ability to focus on one task, especially when in a life threatening situation and are less predisposed to "freeze" and panic. During the stress and turmoil of a life or death situation, gross motor skills take over both females and males, so any advantage females have in agility or fine motor skills (women often make the best sharpshooters and snipers) are completely eclipsed by raw survival instincts....here...only power, speed and resilience counts.

Our biology has built the males to protect and hunt.....and the females to nurture and socialize..thus females make much better communicators.

In a life and death situation, I can't imagine any female that I wouldn't be able to completely incapacitate with one blow....nor can I envision a women who is capable of landing the same on me, with equivalent power, momentum and speed.

Women serving in the military on the front lines where hand to hand combat is likely?...Probably not the best idea....taking political correctness to the point where her life and others around her hang in the balance.

Spare me the arguments that...."I don't have a problem as long as they can do the same job as anyone else"....The performance standards in Canadian and American military recruitment have been set to a level where MANY women can now successfully pass. Only the best women could have possibly passed recruitment standards before. This allows many men and women, the ability to serve in dangerous situations, where their bodies are not tough enough for the task.

Since women are much better multi-taskers then men...I would much rather see females commanding men..commanding vessels..and strategizing military manouvers....then implementing hand to hand.

There are no doubt some women that could kick the living crap out of me......but they are probably close to one out of 10,000. As for men....probably one out of 20.

The bullet is a great equalizer, and most combat is fought at ranges where you can barely even see the enemy, if you can see them at all. Physical differences between men and women mean little under those circumstances.

 

[westcoast555]

There's been so much politically correct drivel in this thread that I just have to state the obvious....Basic Biology. The male (of Homo Sapiens) is built for fighting, the female is not.

Females are much better at many things over their male counterparts but physical combat is NOT one of them. (And of course...in a planet of Billions of people, there will be exceptions....but they are far and few between...this isn't Tomb Raider or Resident Evil. There is an obvious reason that there is no such thing as a female Navy SEAL.

A man's bones are denser and usually larger, his skin is much thicker, more rugged, and more resilient to impacts (women have much more delicate skin...they bruise easily as their skin thickness and collagen content is much less). A man's eye's are recessed deeper in his skull to accommodate blows to the head without causing as much damage to the vision of the combatant. His skull is thicker, including a much more pronounced forehead, brow and jaw, also as a way to withstand violent confrontations with beast or man. A man has more speed, substantially more muscle mass and power...and a greater adrenaline rush in a fight or flight situation than a woman. Men have a greater ability to focus on one task, especially when in a life threatening situation and are less predisposed to "freeze" and panic. During the stress and turmoil of a life or death situation, gross motor skills take over both females and males, so any advantage females have in agility or fine motor skills (women often make the best sharpshooters and snipers) are completely eclipsed by raw survival instincts....here...only power, speed and resilience counts.

Our biology has built the males to protect and hunt.....and the females to nurture and socialize..thus females make much better communicators.

In a life and death situation, I can't imagine any female that I wouldn't be able to completely incapacitate with one blow....nor can I envision a women who is capable of landing the same on me, with equivalent power, momentum and speed.

Women serving in the military on the front lines where hand to hand combat is likely?...Probably not the best idea....taking political correctness to the point where her life and others around her hang in the balance.

Spare me the arguments that...."I don't have a problem as long as they can do the same job as anyone else"....The performance standards in Canadian and American military recruitment have been set to a level where MANY women can now successfully pass. Only the best women could have possibly passed recruitment standards before. This allows many men and women, the ability to serve in dangerous situations, where their bodies are not tough enough for the task.

Since women are much better multi-taskers then men...I would much rather see females commanding men..commanding vessels..and strategizing military manouvers....then implementing hand to hand.

There are no doubt some women that could kick the living crap out of me......but they are probably close to one out of 10,000. As for men....probably one out of 20.

You know that they give the soldiers guns now right? They don't duke it out hand to hand like the old days. Sure, I doubt we'll see any Navy Seals who are females any day soon but you're acting like the demands are on upper body strength rather than the ability to use modern weaponry.

Surprised that nobody's brought up the fact that we have female police officers and have for decades.

 

[uncleg]

 

[AA_Train]

There's been so much politically correct drivel in this thread that I just have to state the obvious....Basic Biology. The male (of Homo Sapiens) is built for fighting, the female is not.

Females are much better at many things over their male counterparts but physical combat is NOT one of them. (And of course...in a planet of Billions of people, there will be exceptions....but they are far and few between...this isn't Tomb Raider or Resident Evil. There is an obvious reason that there is no such thing as a female Navy SEAL.

A man's bones are denser and usually larger, his skin is much thicker, more rugged, and more resilient to impacts (women have much more delicate skin...they bruise easily as their skin thickness and collagen content is much less). A man's eye's are recessed deeper in his skull to accommodate blows to the head without causing as much damage to the vision of the combatant. His skull is thicker, including a much more pronounced forehead, brow and jaw, also as a way to withstand violent confrontations with beast or man. A man has more speed, substantially more muscle mass and power...and a greater adrenaline rush in a fight or flight situation than a woman. Men have a greater ability to focus on one task, especially when in a life threatening situation and are less predisposed to "freeze" and panic. During the stress and turmoil of a life or death situation, gross motor skills take over both females and males, so any advantage females have in agility or fine motor skills (women often make the best sharpshooters and snipers) are completely eclipsed by raw survival instincts....here...only power, speed and resilience counts.

Our biology has built the males to protect and hunt.....and the females to nurture and socialize..thus females make much better communicators.

In a life and death situation, I can't imagine any female that I wouldn't be able to completely incapacitate with one blow....nor can I envision a women who is capable of landing the same on me, with equivalent power, momentum and speed.

Women serving in the military on the front lines where hand to hand combat is likely?...Probably not the best idea....taking political correctness to the point where her life and others around her hang in the balance.

Spare me the arguments that...."I don't have a problem as long as they can do the same job as anyone else"....The performance standards in Canadian and American military recruitment have been set to a level where MANY women can now successfully pass. Only the best women could have possibly passed recruitment standards before. This allows many men and women, the ability to serve in dangerous situations, where their bodies are not tough enough for the task.

Since women are much better multi-taskers then men...I would much rather see females commanding men..commanding vessels..and strategizing military manouvers....then implementing hand to hand.

There are no doubt some women that could kick the living crap out of me......but they are probably close to one out of 10,000. As for men....probably one out of 20.

I agree with this statement in general. Like it or not, there are genetic and psychological predispositions that each gender has that makes them superior to the other in certain areas. Overall though, I think that mental toughness is a bigger key to success in combat and a lot of that has to do with life experience. This is why it perplexes me that if someone has smoked a joint or snorted a line or had a troubled childhood, they can never be police officers. The belief is that past behaviour is a predictor of future behaviour. This is true to some extent but past behaviour is a tool to learn from past mistakes as well. Therefore, someone who has been in tough situations in the past will be more likely to take pause and figure out the best possible solution without panicking. This is why so many civilians are killed by police officers these days without due cause. The moment a suspect gets confrontational, they panic, they shoot and some poor person is injured or killed unnecessarily. The people recruited have little real world pressure experience and some poor person pays the price. The same happens in the military I'm sure.

 

[mimi]

@blackcad

I agree with you too. It is just as easy for a woman to go up against a fully grown and developed man as it is for a man to go up against a fully grown and developed bear.

When it comes to disadvantages in size and weight (and other considerations) then mental acumen is the only way around.

I remember the day I took a shot at my brothers gut only to find he had somehow turned into solid rock...ouch!

I had been winning in matches against him all my life and suddenly he had outgrown me. It was then I discovered that collapsing on the ground in agony and tears brought all kinds of help and I wondered why I had ever bothered with the effort of fighting in the first place (excepting the adrenaline rush is awesome) when just playing possum could get him into sooo much trouble. (I was always the one getting slapped down for being bigger and knowing better.)

So, being big and brawny does come in handy. Still cannot outfight a bear. However, with brains and the ability to make a suitable spear and some distracting help from a few buddies, the jumping on a bears back and planting a sharp instrument into a vulnerable place has been known to happen throughout history.

BTW...my bro is 6'6" tall and 240lbs...I wonder how many men could handle him in combat?

All humans have their places and what y'all don't get, something I was discussing with another ex military fellow just the other week, is this: some people are just born to be in the military. It is their passion. Civilians feel all sorts of fear and anxiety when viewing film from Afghanistan. Military personnel (men and women) get excited...the adrenaline rushes to the brain. I cannot explain why. It just is.

So, if some woman decides she wants to be in the military it's because she was made that way and she will find a place to be useful.

(uncleg that girl in the picture could be me

 

[Tugela]

@blackcad

I agree with you too. It is just as easy for a woman to go up against a fully grown and developed man as it is for a man to go up against a fully grown and developed bear.

That is where bullets come in. I can shoot a bear no problem. In fact, even women can (and do) shoot bears. Far more bears have fallen in combat to women than the other way around. And the reason is the bullet.

I don't know what you think the average day in combat is like for troops, but they are NOT going face to face hand to hand with the people they are fighting except under rare circumstances. And even then the guy with the loaded gun pretty much allways wins. This is not the days of swords and shields.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

So I suppose you agree with me that what is happening in Syria is none of Canada's business?

Most especially, we shouldn't be making monstrous killers out of any of Canada's military by putting them into Syria and interrupting Bashar al-Assad's troops as they murder any Syrian citizen who doesn't agree with the government?

You can't have it both ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17002573
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/11/us-syria-idUSL5E8DB0BH20120211

Do you read any reference to Syria in my post? You can't have it both ways...what does that mean? Because one case is legitimate, that makes any war legitimate too? Of course not. So I'm not sure what you're getting at or how you can infer I said or believe anything about Syria.

(But btw - no one was so concerned when they shipped Maher Arar to Syria to be tortured.)


And where did I make "monstrous killers out of any of Canada's military"??? Do any of those links lead to articles about the Canadian Military? Um, no....so?


So are you saying you can't have it both ways and need to accept the generation (s?) of deformed babies and entire families of civilians sick with cancer?

Did you even check out those links? Are you saying I'm wrong to think it's absolutely unacceptable whatever the purpose or alleged legitimacy of any war?

...

We most certainly have gotten better at preventing wars. And reducing non-combatant casualties as well. Significantly I might add.

Really?
Compared to...who/what/when?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/15554...toll—-us-has-been-paying-victims-families-yea
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wiki...igher-reported/story?id=11953723#.TzhNnZd_6uI
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

[Miss*Bijou]

I see you're a big fan of wikileaks. You must be an incredibly informed person sitting in your well appointed condo with a high-speed Internet connection. Well done you.

Do you have a point? As a matter of fact, yes, the internet is a gold mine for someone interested in learning or being informed on countless different topics. Is that a problem? Would I be better off spending my time on facebook or Hollywood gossip instead?

Now that you've established a base line, why don't you hit up wikileaks for some stats that relate to the First and Second World Wars, and Viet Nam. Unless of course your village gets sacked tonight by a bunch of transient marauders, in which case I wind up with egg on my face to suggest we have less wars now (and less deaths) than we did in the last 100/200/500 years.

I'm sorry it gets your boxers in a knot that I don't just accept a claim without wanting to know specifically what you're referring to and that I expect at least some reference to your sources so I'm able to read up on it myself. I don't claim to know everything there is to know but I do find it important to try my best to inform myself. That means I welcome suggestions from anyone, whether they agree or disagree. And I don't mind being corrected either. But the fact that I do have access to the internet, as we all do, means I've no intention of passively "taking someone's word for it" or accepting whatever is said just 'cause they say so.


So if you get tired of giving me attitude or ridiculing me for doing something most people are too lazy to do -being critical and trying to find answers for myself - as if that was somehow an absurd idea, and if you have some points to add that you feel I should look into, then by all means, share some links. But I really don't see what giving me attitude proves or how that's at all relevant to anything. My question was valid and it's entirely legitimate to want to know what your comparison was based on.


Of course I appreciate wikileaks, I'm not sure how I could not appreciate its value and prefer being lied to or have to wonder if what I'm reading paints an accurate picture?

 

[Miss*Bijou]

@ Miss Bijou: Apologies. Please understand the passion, I should have attacked the idea, not the person.

Apology Accepted.

I can understand passion. lol :nod:

 

[JClay]

www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun.html

 

[vancity_cowboy]

www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun.html

wow... that was moving... thank you very much JClay

 

[Ray]

What is happening in Syria is barbaric. The World must intervene. However, it cannot be the Americans all the time

I totally agree. About time the Arab world stepped up and put to use some of the hundreds of billions they've spent on arms over the last decade. Not our fight.