Secretary of Defense (finally) lifts ban on women in frontline combat

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
I'm 5' 6" and a little on the heavy side of 150.

I'd like to be about 130...

Just think of me as a girl if you must. I don't want muscles. I want to be thin and pretty. ;)

Aw you're so little :') (I'm also 5'6)
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
When it comes to women's relative weight and strength, I overheard while washing dishes, some retired officer on a news program answer the question "How would a 130-pound woman carry a 200-pound injured man off the battlefield?" His answer: "The same way a 130-pound man would do it."

As for the perennial question of whether women can fight in combat, I admit I haven't had time to catch up with the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up already (and I'm sure it must have been), but women are already fighting in combat in the US forces. They've been fighting in combat for other nations forever, but they've been doing so in the recent/current wars for the US, too. They haven't been in combat units, but the current state of warfare does not allow for a clear cut "front line," so eventually, there becomes no such thing as a non-combat unit. All units are in the combat zone, including units typically staffed with female troops.

Finally, as to the elimination of the combat ban, I say it's high time. Now maybe women in the US military can get the recognition and honors that they deserve for what they've been doing for years. Maybe they can get equal chances to rise in the ranks because they'll have access to the full spectrum of service. Maybe they'll get the pay, too.
 

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
I'm 5' 6" and a little on the heavy side of 150.

I'd like to be about 130...

Just think of me as a girl if you must. I don't want muscles. I want to be thin and pretty. ;)

Ha! That's a good illustration, actually. I'm also 5' 6", and I wear a fairly teeny women's size at 130. At 150, I just have a bikini tummy bulge. I swear my thigh muscles are made of lead or something.

I probably can squat more than you, really. I can say that because you are enlightened on these things and won't take it as an assault on your masculinity :)



When I carry a backpack, I use my legs, yeah. It's all about the positioning on the back. I was very thin and recently-ill when I went with a 50lb backpack to Europe, and it was nearly half my bodyweight then. Even recovering from a disease, my 50lb pack was no problem at all. I did weigh much more when I was finished, though! All muscle from carrying that pack so much.
 

Ken

Banned
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
11,478
Reaction score
6,198
Location
AW. A very nice place!
... if I was in the military and the sergeant told me to carry a 50lb knapsack or heavier I'd put wheels on the danged thing and cart it about that way. Shh ;-)

B/c seriously. Carrying 50lbs about for any length of time is intense.
And as to that 110lb knapsack mentioned up thread, just forget about it.
What am I, superman or something?!
Let the sergeant rent a pack horse.
With all due respect.

ps 5'6" is a neat height.
Possibly ideal from a physiological standpoint.
 
Last edited:

Cranky

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
14,945
Reaction score
8,145
Speaking from my own personal experience (which includes some time posted with special forces folks), high time this has happened. Many of the arguments against it are spurious as well as flying in the face of what is already happening. And since I've not seen anything from women who are or were active duty, I'll share a little bit of my experience and perspective.

The default assumption is that we (women) can't do it. Period. Especially if you are petite, as I am. When I was active duty, I was 5'2, and hovered around 100lbs. (I weighed 94lbs when I came out of basic training, and *much* stronger than I looked -- being light is actually a bit of an advantage in some ways) But many looked at my matchstick arms and assumed, "Hey, I can take her!"

They found out differently when they tried. I did lift men who weighed a significant amount more than I. Threw them, in fact. (Judo is fantastic -- leverage is an excellent tool) But there was resistance. A senior person -not an officer, for the record thought very little of my physical capabilities and tried to limit me to -forex- carrying more than 15lbs on a weekly ruck. Figuring the men were carrying about half their body weight, I pretty much blew this off (with permission, I should add) and carried 55lbs instead, which was half of mine. This from the same man that I beat back to the building at the end of our hash runs, which took place in the hills. Hills that were practically vertical and covered in sawgrass, and muddy as hell. You could slip and fall and break something, easy, if you weren't careful or just shifted your weight at the wrong time. I was one of the first folks back, as a matter of fact. Now, could I do what the men did? Not exactly across the board, no. That is obvious. But would I be able to handle myself? Yes. Would I be able to properly fire and maintain a weapon? Yes. Would I be able to follow the orders of my superiors? Yes. Would I be able to save a fellow from the burning wreck of a Humvee that exploded due to an IED? I do not know. I don't know if many people know if they can do that until presented with the situation. What I *do* know is that in situations like that, both adrenaline and training is your friend. And we've all heard stories (and seen one linked here that is relevant) of women being able to do extraordinary physical feats when needed.

The point I'm making is that he assumed, just because I was female and small, that I couldn't do the most basic things, like carry a ruck for miles up and down hills or get a minor injury and still carry on, let alone do my job. And he wasn't alone in that. I caught a lot of flak from plenty of people. I came to my desk once to find a printout about how to be the perfect wife and mother, and was asked more than once why I wasn't in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. That was supposed to be my place. But my place was a desk job doing intel. Supporting some of those same people, providing them with information they needed to do their jobs effectively. I was and am quite proud of the work that I did, and personally felt no desire to serve in a combat position. I liked what I did, and felt that I was making the best contribution I could in that capacity, and not in the trenches. I am not a fool, however, and I knew that it was possible that I would have to either be fired upon and/or return fire. Even be killed. But everyone who joins the military is aware of that possibility and accepts it as part of the job.

I also had the very basic POW training briefs, etc. I knew that my job wasn't to not spill my guts, but to hold out for as long as I possibly could, to make what I knew and would be forced to share as operationally irrelevant as possible. So much is time sensitive. If you can just hang in there, what you know won't matter. It would hurt and be scary and I've been raped before, and so the prospect of such happening again...is not pleasant. But it's not much different than what a male soldier or airman or marine would have to face. To assume that I cannot face it or that the men I served alongside would not be able to face it and handle it if necessary seems like a grave insult to us both.

None of this even gets into the promotion aspect of things. Women officers were getting the short end of the stick there, and so for their sakes especially, I am glad to see this policy enacted. As others have noted, having women higher up in the heirarchy may in fact help the sexual assault stats we're seeing. Women *are* feeling more free to report them. And perhaps, with more women in the upper ranks, we may find more support than we have previously on issues such as these, instead of constant jokes and complaints about sexual harassment training and blank stares or half-assed investigations when there are allegations. I won't pretend that this will fix any of that. It won't make people or society at large automatically accept that women are equals and that they should be allowed to at least *try* to compete on an equal field. As far as I'm concerned, so long as high standards are maintained (and that doesn't necessarily preclude making necessary adjustments to account for the differing strengths of men and women) and women can meet those standards, then they should have the same shot as any man. If a man isn't interested in a combat position or isn't capable of performing, he's moved to somewhere or something else or even kicked out. The same should apply to women as well. I don't think that the point is to have women there as PR tokens, but to allow the ones who are interested and capable to have the opportunity to serve in that capacity. Period.
 

Cranky

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
14,945
Reaction score
8,145
A separate thought that just occured to me (which is why I'm posting again instead of adding to the previous wall o' text): the complaints about women being able to carry equipment and fellow soldiers.

First, about the fellow soldiers: there are techniques out there that enable a smaller person to carry a larger, heavier one. I was taught some of them in basic training myself (specific to firefighting, but taught nevertheless). Even if a woman cannot carry a man the way another man would, who is to say that she couldn't carry him at all? There are ways it can be done.

Secondly, as to the equipment. This equipment has been developed and tested with the male soldier as the template. There was no reason to try and develop something that women could be capable of carrying because it was a moot point. Now, it isn't. So I would not be surprised to see a shift in equipment and weapons design to accommodate this new reality. Considering the fact that it's likely to result in even lighter more compact designs, I don't see how that would be a bad thing. The cost would be a consideration, certainly, but it shouldn't be sufficient reason not to do it.

In other words, the military's equipment and standards are already designed around the idea that men will be the primary end users. That doesn't mean that this is automatically the superior way to do things. It's simply easier and more cost-effective for things to remain that way.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Last night, Jon Stewart skewered the anti women in combat folks with his usual sharp take.

Also, Samantha Bee of The Daily Show "interviewed" Kingsley Browne, a history professor who has written a book explaining why women in combat zones is a terrible idea.

Nothing is more powerful than words directly from an idiot's mouth, and Samantha Bee nails it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...tm_campaign=Feed:+TheRawStory+(The+Raw+Story)
 

Myrealana

I aim to misbehave
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,425
Reaction score
1,911
Location
Denver, CO
Website
www.badfoodie.com
As tiny little Dr. Ruth Westheimer said: ""Women are going to go into combat w/US forces. Since I was sniper in Haganah I'm all for that."
 

MattW

Company Man
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
6,326
Reaction score
855
I've learned 2 things in this topic: there is no doubt women should be able to serve in combay roles, and there are too many skinny people posting here (humblebraggers!)
 

Cranky

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
14,945
Reaction score
8,145
I've learned 2 things in this topic: there is no doubt women should be able to serve in combay roles, and there are too many skinny people posting here (humblebraggers!)

Bwahahaha! That was about 14 years and 5 kids ago, Matt. I just had a baby four months ago - trust me, I am nowhere close to 94lbs now and I'm pushing 40. It's more like nostalgia on my part, hehehe.
 

Cranky

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
14,945
Reaction score
8,145
Thanks, Monkey. :)
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
On the "a woman can't carry a man" topic:

Women on the police force are common, now. We don't consider it a huge deal. Men and women partner up, and rely on each other for their lives. We know all this...

but did you know that part of the physical requirements for entry into the profession often requires a dummy drag? I've talked to three people who took the test in Beeville, Texas, and they have to drag 155 pound dummy as if it were human (meaning in such a way as not to cause them physical damage, such as by grabbing them under the arms and pulling them backwards) for fifty feet... and this is part of a much longer timed test where they also have to go over a five foot wall, over hurdles, up a ladder, across a balance beam, ect, at a run. The dummy drag is the very last thing - the idea is to have them exhausted by the time they get there.

Women pass this test all the time. And I'm not even talking big, buff women with aspirations of advancement in the military. I'm in a weightlifting class at my college right now, and one of my classmates just completed the drag no prob, but failed the test because she lost too much time getting over the obstacles. She's going to do some parkour practice with me and retake. :D But this girl is under 155 pounds and gave birth to her fifth baby not too long ago. She's not exactly at peak strength right now.