Women on the front lines??

RGv2

Back in 1999 the only reason that they gave why it would not be good for a woman to be in infantry is because of the TOM. If a woman was in the field and her TOM came, and there were no plugs/tampons/whatever

I have to say that this is really no longer true. In the Corps, Every guy I new had Tampons! They make great bullet hole plugs in case you get shot! and as a Combat Vet I can tell you that Female Marines are already on the front line because the "Wars" we fight now don't have lines anymore!

You're both correct. The TOM reason was not becasue they didn't have tampons, but the scent that gives off. It is easily picked up by the enemy (mainly tracking/attack animals). But, for the most part the front lines are no longer "front lines" anymore. I pointed this out earlier.

It had nothing to do with physical strength, which people here seem to be focused on.

geekyjock76

Women serve on the front lines in Israel. So already your point is blown out of the water.

A poli-sci teacher told me this in college:

"In combat should you come across a woman and two men coming to get you.. kill the woman first. The men will stop to help her. In combat the woman will not stop to help the men. She will also kill you quicker and more viciously than the two men."

NEVER underestimate a woman.

Yep. The women in the IDF are pretty damn capable at their job, too.

3dogsrunning

Back in 1999 the only reason that they gave why it would not be good for a woman to be in infantry is because of the TOM. If a woman was in the field and her TOM came, and there were no plugs/tampons/whatever

I have to say that this is really no longer true. In the Corps, Every guy I new had Tampons! They make great bullet hole plugs in case you get shot! and as a Combat Vet I can tell you that Female Marines are already on the front line because the "Wars" we fight now don't have lines anymore!

You're both correct. The TOM reason was not becasue they didn't have tampons, but the scent that gives off. It is easily picked up by the enemy (mainly tracking/attack animals). But, for the most part the front lines are no longer "front lines" anymore. I pointed this out earlier.

It had nothing to do with physical strength, which people here seem to be focused on.

I've never heard or seen anything that suggests this in tracking animals. Would they smell it, of course. Would it be any more of a risk - not from anything I have learned or read.


As for the OP - like someone else said, I'd really like to tell you what I think.


As for "I'm all for equality but...." - that's not "all for equality ".

ETA - and yes, I have experience with tracking dogs, as a female quarry, who has TOM.

usmcmp

Back in 1999 the only reason that they gave why it would not be good for a woman to be in infantry is because of the TOM. If a woman was in the field and her TOM came, and there were no plugs/tampons/whatever

I have to say that this is really no longer true. In the Corps, Every guy I new had Tampons! They make great bullet hole plugs in case you get shot! and as a Combat Vet I can tell you that Female Marines are already on the front line because the "Wars" we fight now don't have lines anymore!

You're both correct. The TOM reason was not becasue they didn't have tampons, but the scent that gives off. It is easily picked up by the enemy (mainly tracking/attack animals). But, for the most part the front lines are no longer "front lines" anymore. I pointed this out earlier.

It had nothing to do with physical strength, which people here seem to be focused on.

Plenty of the female MP's who are deployed have a job that is physically demanding enough they didn't get their normal cycle the entire time. 7-13 months of no change in hormonal levels. Plenty of animals can track normal body odor scents which any human gives off. Can't stop yourself from being sweaty in 100 degrees wearing 40 pounds of gear.

RGv2

Back in 1999 the only reason that they gave why it would not be good for a woman to be in infantry is because of the TOM. If a woman was in the field and her TOM came, and there were no plugs/tampons/whatever

I have to say that this is really no longer true. In the Corps, Every guy I new had Tampons! They make great bullet hole plugs in case you get shot! and as a Combat Vet I can tell you that Female Marines are already on the front line because the "Wars" we fight now don't have lines anymore!

You're both correct. The TOM reason was not becasue they didn't have tampons, but the scent that gives off. It is easily picked up by the enemy (mainly tracking/attack animals). But, for the most part the front lines are no longer "front lines" anymore. I pointed this out earlier.

It had nothing to do with physical strength, which people here seem to be focused on.

I've never heard or seen anything that suggests this in tracking animals. Would they smell it, of course. Would it be any more of a risk - not from anything I have learned or read.


As for the OP - like someone else said, I'd really like to tell you what I think.


As for "I'm all for equality but...." - that's not "all for equality ".

ETA - and yes, I have experience with tracking dogs, as a female, who has TOM.

Back in the day when "the front lines" were actually the front lines, it would. A scent could easily give up a position then. Like I said, the front lines aren't the same anymore, and this info came from my cadre from West Point so take it for what it's worth.

RGv2

Back in 1999 the only reason that they gave why it would not be good for a woman to be in infantry is because of the TOM. If a woman was in the field and her TOM came, and there were no plugs/tampons/whatever

I have to say that this is really no longer true. In the Corps, Every guy I new had Tampons! They make great bullet hole plugs in case you get shot! and as a Combat Vet I can tell you that Female Marines are already on the front line because the "Wars" we fight now don't have lines anymore!

You're both correct. The TOM reason was not becasue they didn't have tampons, but the scent that gives off. It is easily picked up by the enemy (mainly tracking/attack animals). But, for the most part the front lines are no longer "front lines" anymore. I pointed this out earlier.

It had nothing to do with physical strength, which people here seem to be focused on.

Plenty of the female MP's who are deployed have a job that is physically demanding enough they didn't get their normal cycle the entire time. 7-13 months of no change in hormonal levels. Plenty of animals can track normal body odor scents which any human gives off. Can't stop yourself from being sweaty in 100 degrees wearing 40 pounds of gear.

That's fine and dandy. I'm not arguing with anyone, just providing info passed to me that one of the main reasons was the smell of well, raw blood, to the animals.

RGv2

I'm just passing along the information given to me. Not arguing. I'm out. Same as any other thread, you don't hear what you like, so it must be wrong.

iulia_maddie

Women serve on the front lines in Israel. So already your point is blown out of the water.

A poli-sci teacher told me this in college:

"In combat should you come across a woman and two men coming to get you.. kill the woman first. The men will stop to help her. In combat the woman will not stop to help the men. She will also kill you quicker and more viciously than the two men."

NEVER underestimate a woman.

I remember learning in history class that this was often given as a reason why women shouldn't be allowed on the front lines. Men were more likely to stop and help a woman rather than continue fighting, also seeing women dying brought the morale of the troops down more that seeing men get killed.
Different treatment of male/female war prisoners was also brought up.

3dogsrunning

I'm just passing along the information given to me. Not arguing. I'm out. Same as any other thread, you don't hear what you like, so it must be wrong.

As am I. I never said you were wrong, I specifically stated in my experience as I felt it was relevant.
I understand you were likely told that, my point was questioning how accurate it really is.

usmcmp

I'm just passing along the information given to me. Not arguing. I'm out. Same as any other thread, you don't hear what you like, so it must be wrong.

That's fine that you are passing along what you've heard. We are providing counter points (which we have observed) to the hearsay that you passed on. Just because you don't like what you hear doesn't mean it's wrong.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no2/html/v05i2a04p_0001.htm

pudadough

I'm just amused at all the men folk I know who are prattling on about how we'll have to register for selective service now like it's some kind of "in your face!" moment. As if we hadn't already pondered that. As if Israel hasn't been doing it for years. I'm like, Ok, and what's your point? Give me a pen and the papers! They get pretty mad when it doesn't make us tremble in fear and want to race ourselves back to the kitchen so we don't have to be "that kind of equal."

As for whether I think women should be in combat now (with our current volunteer-only enlistment,) I think that discussion should be restricted to people who are actually in the military. They have skin in the game. As civilians, the rest of us don't, really.

chrishgt4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Physical_Fitness_Test

Different standards for men vs women.

Equality = equality.

I feel the same about all professions. If you can do the job, go for it, but no one should get a leg up because they are a specific gender. Positive discrimination is not positive...

usmcmp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Physical_Fitness_Test

Different standards for men vs women.

Equality = equality.

I feel the same about all professions. If you can do the job, go for it, but no one should get a leg up because they are a specific gender. Positive discrimination is not positive...

I can do more pull ups than some men. I'm not a great runner and I still pass some men. Just because some women need different standards don't mean all do. Some women couldn't hack it outside the wire, same as some men. It's not an overall thing it is an individual.

PikaKnight

So I heard this morning on the radio that the US Military is now going to allow women on the front lines. I am all for the gender equality bit in business. For example, I do the same job as a guy but he gets paid considerably more isn't right. Equal pay for equal work is how I feel. But there are just certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis. I also think that worse things will happen to a woman if she were ever captured than would a man. How do you feel about the new ruling?

I say woot! Women who join the military (well, at least the ones I've known) don't join to get desk jobs or expect to be babied. They want the opportunity to prove themselves and I bet they would rise up to the challenge of heading to the front lines.

PikaKnight

I can do more pull ups than some men. I'm not a great runner and I still pass some men. Just because some women need different standards don't mean all do. Some women couldn't hack it outside the wire, same as some men. It's not an overall thing it is an individual.

QFT

neandermagnon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Physical_Fitness_Test

Different standards for men vs women.

Equality = equality.

I feel the same about all professions. If you can do the job, go for it, but no one should get a leg up because they are a specific gender. Positive discrimination is not positive...

In the British army, as far as I'm aware, for women to be on the front line they have to meet the same standards as the men do. At least thats how it was when they first let women go on the front line, i.e. yes women can but only if they meet the same standards as for men. I don't know if that has changed now (I don't have up to date information)

ArroganceInStep

I can do more pull ups than some men. I'm not a great runner and I still pass some men. Just because some women need different standards don't mean all do. Some women couldn't hack it outside the wire, same as some men. It's not an overall thing it is an individual.

The point I was trying to make is that baseline standards for things like various groups in the military and such should not be differentiated by gender. It was not an implication that women couldn't do it, but rather that in many cases (police, fire department, FBI, CIA, and iirc boot camp for the various branches) the minimum standards set are different between guys and gals and that I think that distinction was wrong.

I'm just amused at all the men folk I know who are prattling on about how we'll have to register for selective service now like it's some kind of "in your face!" moment. As if we hadn't already pondered that. As if Israel hasn't been doing it for years. I'm like, Ok, and what's your point? Give me a pen and the papers! They get pretty mad when it doesn't make us tremble in fear and want to race ourselves back to the kitchen so we don't have to be "that kind of equal."

As for whether I think women should be in combat now (with our current volunteer-only enlistment,) I think that discussion should be restricted to people who are actually in the military. They have skin in the game. As civilians, the rest of us don't, really.

Some people are like that, but certainly not all folks. I do think women should be required to sign up for the draft, and as long as they are not men have more skin in the game than women do. While you're right that experts in the field should be given more weight than a random civilian on a computer, something like the draft is a perfectly valid discussion point for all citizens. Further discussions of inequality--as is currently the case being discussed between women being disallowed from certain posts/pay scales and gender bias in some assessments--is more of a moral issue and should be debated by all. My thought on it, anyway.

erinsueburns

Good lord, someone is trotting out the whole menstruation thing.

A) So men never bleed on the battlefield????

This is the same thing men on my dad's hunting lease tried to claim "She can't come out, if she's on her period the deer will smell it and be scared away." or "The boar will smell it and attack her."

Let me just tell you, I peed all around that man's deer stand while menstruating and the boars didn't attack him, nor did it seem to scare off the deer any worse than putting human hair around it.

Also, there isn't anything to stop a woman from peeing standing up, or into a bottle except a willingness to practice. The difficulty is writing your name in the snow. That requires a degree of speed and flexibility not often seen in any normal human female.

digitalbill

I served from 1990 - 1006 and we had this discussion several times.
I have served with males and females and, with both sexes, there are those who I would be comfortable with in battle and there are those who I would rather leave behind.

One SSG I served with would complain that she was not allowed to go to Ranger school.
We agreed however that she would be unable to pass the school with the same standards as her male Rangers had to do.
She was a FANTASTIC shot (better then me) and she had no problems in the field as far as map reading, ambush setups, or leadership skills but in the end, she lacked the physical stregth needed to accomplish particular needs.
I was 220 LBS and, loaded with gear, closer to 270.
She could not physically drag me to safety if I needed it.
As I said, she was a fantastic shot and I would gladly have her provide cover fire if needed but, there are simply times where physical power IS needed.
Now, as far as pilots, tank crew, and things like that, I am not seeing a problem whatsoever.
As many others have mentioned, the "front lines" have changed so, even a cook in a convoy could find herself in the middle of a firefight.

lovelyMYlovely

well obviously it was the womans choice to be on front lines.... YES obviously woman would get tortured and beat and abused WAY more than a man...... but its not really our choice it was the woman in combat who fought for this right.... every woman knew what they were signing up for when they joined.... so its not really our say....... its theirs....