Results 1 to 20 of 324

Thread: Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    Never seen that argument before.

    FWIW, a rifle company just finished up its 7 month tour in one of the most contested areas of Panjwayi district under a female commander.

    These same claims were raised over 2 decades ago when the Canadian military was fully integrated. The sky has not fallen. Really - there are better things to expend one's energy on....
    Thank you for the response. Although interesting that a woman held the command and did (from the sounds of things) a good job, the tasks of the average infantryman engaged in prolonged and high intensity combat are well beyond that of your average or better than average female. I have seen this personally time and time again in training, and I've only experienced mild stuff.

    You know how many 130 pound women I know who, in full kit, can drag or carry a wounded comrade, also in full kit, 50 to 200 meters? Extremely few. I don't even know of a single woman who deadlifts, or could even deadlift her own bodyweight. How many women do you know who can do a pull up from a dead hang? I'm just touching on the empirically documented biological differences that exist between men and women, differences that would put a unit in prolonged and heavy fighting in danger of not being able to accomplish core tasks.


    Sure, women can shoot damn well. First time I qualified, I knew of some women with higher scores. But there is a fundamental biological difference in the brains of men that make them
    far more competent, effective, and brutal in combat. Imagining women in combat appeals to the lowest common denominator of combat: a firefight at 300 meters that lasts for 30 minutes and ends as it started. Reality for infantrymen could potentially mean a ruck march of 30 miles through extremely difficult terrain at high elevations with 80 lbs of gear with minimal amounts of sleep in horrendous weather, after all of which the enemy would have to be found, closed with, and killed, possibly in close combat. Close combat where, I might add, a female has an absolute disadvantage compared to a man. Read Rommel's book, what I just described is par for the course. You know how many women I know who could do the above? None. For most men that would be pushing the utmost limits of their capabilities.

    Back to the original point: the repeal of DADT should in no way be confused with or put in the same category as the inclusion of women into infantry, cavalry, or armor. If there is one thing that would make me leave my commission early, if I am fortunate enough to get combat arms (I'll know in less than 9 months), it is the inclusion of women into the above-stated branches. Call me a mysoginist, but I've worked with and trained women in combat situations (mma and military), and this is one area that they are simply not equal in.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 12-26-2010 at 12:06 PM. Reason: Spacing

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •