• The TOC
  • SOFREP Explained
  • The Loadout Room
  • Team Room
SOFREP.com - THE Special Operations Forces Report
SOFREP Logos AFSOC MARSOC NSWC USASOC
  • News & Intel
    • SOF News
    • Op-Ed
    • AFSOC
    • MARSOC
    • NSWC
    • USASOC
    • Coalition SOF
    • SOF History
    • Special Operations
    • Black Ops & Intel
    • Admin
    • No Kidding There I Was
  • About Spec Ops
    • AFSOC
    • MARSOC
    • NSWC
    • USASOC
    • Coalition SOF
  • SOFREP TV
    • Inside the Team Room: U.S. Army Rangers
    • Heroes of U.S. Special Operations
    • Inside the Team Room: U.S. Navy SEALs
  • SOFREP Radio
  • Charities
  • Comms Check
    • Share Your War Stories
    • SOFREP Explained
  • The PX
Home Previous story Next story
submit to reddit
Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Youtube
Home » Op-Ed » An Inconvenient Truth About Women in Combat (Part 2)

An Inconvenient Truth About Women in Combat (Part 2)

by Jack Murphy · March 7, 2013 · Posted In: Op-Ed
Marine patrols in southern Afghanistan's Helmand province
Some of the more adorable criticism that part 1 of this article received was that I need to do some growing up.  That is cute and condescending all at the same time.  The thing is, I grew up in the Special Operations community during a time of war.  Like many others in Army Special Operations, I carried a ruck on my back, jumped out of airplanes with a recoiless rifle strapped to my side, walked up the side of mountains in full kit, stomped around Mosul in the summer with my uniform completely soaked through with sweat, and all that jazz.  On a few missions we even had female soldiers with us.  The idea that they are going to carry what I carried and do what I did just makes me laugh inside.  Enjoy that shit, we’ll see how long that lasts before this social experiment is completely discredited.

Related Posts
  • The Inconvenient Truth About Women and Combat (Part 1)
  • The Challenges of Women in Combat Roles
  • Women’s Rights Activist Demands ‘Camouflage Ceiling’ Brought Down

When the armchair feminists grow up they will admit that men and women really are different.  We have certain biological inequities built in to us.  No, it isn’t just a matter of training.  To have female soldiers flooding the ranks we would have to pump them full of steroids and put them on a mandatory high protein diet at a minimum.  Still think we are equal?  Then why can’t I give birth to a baby?  Whoops.  That’s right, it is because there are differences between the male and female genders.  I can make pseudo-intellectual arguments and propose hypothetical situations until I’m red in the face but I still won’t be giving birth to children anytime soon.

The myth is that there is a small Army of crossfit goddesses standing by to serve in Special Operations and Infantry roles.  The reality is that few of these women seem to join the military to begin with and those that do would still struggle to hump the gear soldiers require in combat and IMT when they come under fire with a full combat load.  Go ahead and post pictures of your favorite female body builder, that zero percent body fat image is about vanity (this applies to men as well) rather than combat.  That crossfit princess can do headstand pushups all day, but that isn’t war, it isn’t even combat focus PT.  I respect their athleticism and the hard work they put into what they do, but that doesn’t make them soldiers.

Here is the deal, I’m sick of hearing about what women are or are not capable of doing in combat.  Bores me to tears.  This is something we can actually test and figure out using science and statistics.  It would be very easy and actually fairly cheap to conduct this experiment by gathering together a group of female soldiers (over a hundred to make the study statistically relevant) and test them on various Infantry tasks.  Stress shoots, PT test, 12-mile ruck march, battle drills, and so on.  Stop debating, start testing.  This would end the argument once and for all but it will never happen.  The reason why it will never happen is because the results would be so dismal that it would completely destroy the idea of women in the Infantry and SOF for literally generations to come.  It would also fuck up some people’s political agendas.  In fact, I’ve been told that a study just like this was done in the 1990′s at Natick and the whole thing had to be buried because the female soldiers who volunteered for the study performed so poorly.  But hey, if you disagree with what I’m saying that is okay.  I think we can all agree that some objective testing is warranted before pushing forward, correct?

This is war. No place for a woman.

This is war. No place for a woman.

Another issue the public at large has difficultly conceptualizing is that you need statistically significant numbers of soldiers to fill the ranks.  A diamond in the rough, a one in a million, just isn’t enough.  I accept the idea that if you opened up SOF and the Infantry to women that we would have a few graduate from BUD/S, RASP, SFAS, Ranger School, ect, each year even if they had to meet the current male standards.  Not a lot, but a couple exceptional female soldiers for sure.  The question we need to ask is if it is worth upsetting and overhauling the entire system to accommodate a statistically insignificant number of females in the ranks?  That probably sounds like BS to a lot of people, like institutions just wanting to drag their feet and resist change.  The military not wanting to join modern society, yadda, yadda…  But it is a serious issue.  Is it worth messing with a system that (generally) works just for the sake of total and complete equality?

Right now, General Dempsey and others have made the argument that women should be permitted into these roles for the sake of upward mobility in their career fields.  This is a disgusting argument to make and Dempsey should hang his head in shame.  The entire military now has this problem, cutting across branches and genders.  Being a soldier is about soldiering.  Fuck your career.  Being a soldier is about serving your country and winning god damn wars.  Your career takes a backseat to that.  So riddle me this: how does putting women into SOF and the Infantry make our armed forces more combat effective?  If it doesn’t, then we shouldn’t do it.  When I was in Ranger Battalion we were told to complete the mission, take care of your boys, and take care of yourself, in that order.

There is another facet of this issue that we don’t like to talk about.  That’s right, I’m talking about fornication in the ranks.  Yes, I understand that we should be more professional.  The Military Police 1st Sergeant should not be blowing your Warrant Officer in a Compartmentalized Housing Unit.  Your buddy should not threaten to kick your ass because he is drunk and is trying to get laid and now he doesn’t like your perceived competition.  Your other buddy should not disappear and hold up your freedom bird home because he’s fucking some chick with a glass eye.  You should not nickname a female soldier “Amtrak” because so many dudes have run a train on her.  We shouldn’t be doing this stuff, but it sure as shit happens anyway.  Let’s get fucking serious here.  If you start putting women in Ranger Platoons and Special Forces ODA’s it will be a disaster.  Nothing will get done because everyone will be trying to get laid and nothing else.  It got pretty bad as it is, but those women were in other units and hung around for recreational purposes, at least there was some separation between us and them.

If you are still reading this article you might have figured out that I have some grievances to air.  Let me get to another one.  For you hardcore femi-nazis who think putting women into the middle of some shit is a great idea, I say be careful what you wish for.  Sometimes I worry that on SOFREP we glorify war and give people the wrong idea.  As a veteran I’ve seen some ugly things.  When I meet with others for my various stories and assignments for SOFREP, vets will tell me things they won’t tell you.  They will tell me about the enemy launching a counter-ambush and their position getting over run, they will tell me how they were so scared that they lost their voice for a couple hours.  They will tell me about grown ass men breaking down and crying in combat.  There are things that I haven’t told you about where I’ve been, what I’ve seen, and what I’ve done.  For your sake, I hope you never have to experience some of the things I have.

I’ll say it again, be careful what you wish for.  War gives less than a shit about your political correctness.

 

About Our Links
We link to other websites if we find their content compelling. We also link to relevant products on Amazon.com as affiliates. The money we earn from these sales helps keep our website running and a few beers on ice.

Related Posts

  • The Inconvenient Truth About Women and Combat

    The Inconvenient Truth About Women and Combat (Part 1)

  • idf-female-sofrep

    The Challenges of Women in Combat Roles

  • lioness.span

    Women’s Rights Activist Demands ‘Camouflage Ceiling’ Brought Down

Follow Sofrep on:
Follow @sofrep OR  rss
607 comments
  Livefyre
  • Get Livefyre
  • FAQ
Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
 
Link
Newest | Oldest
Allwet
Allwet 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

First; livefyre sucks in Ghana.

Second; This isn't about PC(OH WAIT,thats ALL IT IS!!!!), this isn't womens rights(Becauseif it is?...YOU ARE DEAD WRONG) , its not "crossfit chicks can do"(projectile vomit 101). Its about bags(HRP's), and bodies(buddies...).

Third; Its about Force Multiplication......FOR THE BAD GUYS. "You will know us by the trail of the dead"(but they will be our own)

Forth: What majrod posted.Facts again, don'cha just hate'em.allotted.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/us/marines-test-women-for-infantry-roles.html?ref=world&_r=0

Fifth; What Jack said....

Sixth; What I said(okay, I come clean....I said this;)!!!!)”Because we all know a 120# female can hump a bleeding out 180# male up a steep ridge line in the **** with a combat load, just a fast as a 170-200# man….its all good til you are the one bleeding out.”

Seventh; Still counting, need more reasons? Then A:You are an idiot....B:Refer to reason 2,3,4,5,6....C: You really ARE an idiot.

DJ clear


majrod
majrod 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

Just in.Results of the USMC’s second attempt to measure women’s performance in their Infantry Officer Course.

The second experiment again consisted of two female volunteers .Both women failed the course the first day when unable to complete an obstacle in the time allotted.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/us/marines-test-women-for-infantry-roles.html?ref=world&_r=0

In the first test last year, one of the two female candidates failed the PT test the first day and the second failed a week later based on her inability to maintain the pace physically.

No doubt the heart was willing but there are physical requirements also and unlike in the artillery.Infantry officers have to be able to do what their troops are expected to do.

Ukdaloi
Ukdaloi 5pts

Well said

Allwet
Allwet 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

NOT.This isn't about in a combat zone.This is about in combat, front line infantry. With NO LOWERED STANDARDS.

Someone once typed(copied thrice now):

For the umpteenth time:”Because we all know a 120# female can hump a bleeding out 180# male up a steep ridge line in the **** with a combat load, just a fast as a 170-200# man….its all good til you are the one bleeding out.”

Canadian Army O
Canadian Army O 5pts

If I may offer, as an Infantry Officer with 32 years in I've seen both and more sides of the debate than I care to remember & gone thru all the emotional and intellecual turmoil. The point of women in combat isn't the issue: that already happens and isn't going to change. The issue, in my opinion, is women should have the chance to try like any soldier for any job in the military. If they make the grade, they make the grade. If they do and it's not acceptable, then the problem isn't theirs, it is yours. Those who are "special" will make it. Those who aren't won't. Where is the problem? I've lost both Brothers and Sisters in the past years. They & me all bled red.

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts

@Canadian Army O Then the standards must not be lowered or changed.. Women have gained nothing if they lower the standards to allow women in.  .   My father or other people's husbands should not have wonder if the person next to them can do the job. they have to know they will do the job.  And if the point is to protect the nation and the freedoms we have, then I want the best. Although I do thank you for your service to your country, this is about  protecting my country. For me this is not a women't rights issue, this is a who is best for the job issue.  women are competent in many areas, but this is not one of them. . 

Canadian Army O
Canadian Army O 5pts

@GraceMascorro @Canadian Army O I agree with everything you have said. However, do you honestly think that every soldier out there is the "best"? Most show up and do the best they can. That aside, The only right that I think is important is that regardless of male, female....a soldier gets the opportunity to try. Make/not make the standard. That's all.  

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts

@Canadian Army O @GraceMascorro  Yes I think that after selection Buds and Ranger selections and all those, they get the cream of the crop,. And those standards must not be lowered for any reason. those standards are what keep my nation free.    

LanceHeckerman
LanceHeckerman 5pts

@Canadian Army O The Canadian Army must operate in a different dimension or you have your head in the sand.

Canadian Army O
Canadian Army O 5pts

@LanceHeckerman @Canadian Army O Or perhaps your head is jammed up your ass?

Canadian Army O
Canadian Army O 5pts

Darned edit time out!!

On my last tour, a woman commanded a rifle company and another was a company "XO". Both performed admirably and both have a chance to command battalions in the future. Both theses Officers are Mothers. I don't envy you the journey of integration that you are now on but it will be worthwhile. Best of luck.

Allwet
Allwet 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

@laurakinCa. I am waiting on the download, but antipating a REAL response from a stand up woman. Ghana Internet is slow....as , well, as slow as common sense is in manifesting itself these days.

LauraKinCA
LauraKinCA 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

At least one decent but brief article highlighting a Marine Corps Col's (woman) views on the challenges of women in combat roles.

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/03/marine-colonel-speaks-about-women-combat

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@LauraKinCA  Brave of this Colonel to say it. I know she is saying what is basically true, but i bet her career is over. At this point telling the truth is not what the suits in Washington  want to hear.  There re other ways for women to be an asset and not a liability in the military.  

LanceHeckerman
LanceHeckerman 5pts

@GraceMascorro @LauraKinCA Unfortunately, most of the senior level leaders above 0-6 have been replaced or resigned if they are not with the new program. This new leadership has reported early on that the repeal of DADT would have no impact on moral or readiness. They are either out of touch, lying or both.

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts

@LanceHeckerman @GraceMascorro @LauraKinCA Of course it will have a impact of moral and readiness. So these people will get promoted because they follow the party line and more men and women will get killed because of it. Whatever happened to critical truth. Are we so stupid we will let our very freedoms be for sale for a vote for one party or another.  It isn't about anything but political power. 

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts

@LanceHeckerman @GraceMascorro @LauraKinCA Why my Dad got out... People will get hurt... 

LanceHeckerman
LanceHeckerman 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Jack, you have hit on every critical issue here. The problem is that this is politically driven which translates to "women's rights trump combat readiness and cost". Knowing the truth of your observations, the typical politician is not interested in the impact and could care less if the program fails because their entire motivation is re-election. The price paid in blood is shrugged off as the price of women's rights and therefore is justified.

I could write a book on the failures of integrating women into combat support roles, but I must get back to work. My major heartburn with this entire issue is the fact that women will now be required to register for the draft. With all things being equal in the eyes of the law regarding gender, they will ultimately be assigned to combat units should they be drafted as I can see no legal argument to exclude them if this program gains traction and runs it's course. The ugly reality will be ignored in all reports. Any senior leaders that do not like it will be replaced and are being replaced as I write this.

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

@LanceHeckerman  I am a woman and I do not think it is justified.  For what has the women's movement gained if we are allowed in combat because of our gender. It means nothing if the standards are lowered. And the cost will be high for people like my father. The ultimate cost will be our very freedoms.      

badkarma010
badkarma010 5pts

Agreed!

ArmedwithInkstick
ArmedwithInkstick 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

First off, long-time lurker, first-time poster.   Second off, some background from the Naval experience with this.  I'm a SWO-Surface Warfare Officer, a professional shipdriver.  We are famous for working long hours and being a brutal eat-your-own-young atmosphere.  Our job is not particularly physically demanding, which is one thing that is worth noting-there's no real inherent advantage men have over women, which is why I'm completely okay with us being gender integrated.  We have a retention rate for junior officers past the 7-years of service mark in the 30s.  That means about 2/3rd of our young officers decide to go do something else other than be a SWO-and that's with us giving them a $75,000 bonus just to do another three years of sea duty.  Needless to say, keeping people around isn't our strong suit. 

 

We also have a fairly large number of women running around, mainly because we have much shorter service obligations than the Naval Aviation side of the house, and until recently, Submarines were off-limits to females.  So lots of women end up going SWO.  Do they stay?  Well, no, as it turns out.  The last numbers I can find publicly (2004) have about an 18%  retention rate for female SWOs, which is about half of what it for males.   http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA445448Why are they getting out?  They want a job that's less stressful and more rewarding and filled with less psycho lunatic Commanding Officers.  They want to go have a life.  Most importantly, many of them want to do foolish things like have a family and babies* and stuff like that.  We've tried to do lots of things about this-create a new Officer career field (the HR community, which is almost entirely shore-duty), a Career Intermission Program (essentially an opportunity to take a sabbatical for a year, perfect for doing things like making babies), and talking a lot about work-from-home opportunities (which was killed by our J6-equivalent Cyber Warriors, but hey, we tried!), all of which were somewhat explicitly marketed to provide women the opportunity to both have a family and be a SWO.  And, it should be noted, our career field already has a "sea-shore rotation", which gives you windows (shore-duty) where you are essentially non-deployable-perfect opportunities for some baby-making (my understanding of the Army career path, especially for officers, is imperfect-I did a deployment to the 'stan, but I'm pretty sure the command I was at was the Island of Misfit Toys and a dumping ground for retarded O-4s/O-5s to be sent to where they could get a WTS patch but not actually be in a position to risk anyone getting killed through their unrivaled incompetence-but as I understand it, that isn't the case in the Army)!Have they  worked?  Not really.  We still hover at the under 20% retention rate for female SWOs.  This means if you want this to be about "career-enhancement" (as Uniform Number One has said), well, that's your future pool of officers to choose from right there, so you're going to have to either do great at retaining the great ones or settle for what you get.  Sometimes, this works out fine.   I'm pretty sure RADM Nora Tyson is going to be the first female Service Chief, unless the USAF beats us there.  Which is fine, because from all reports I've heard about her, despite being an aviator, she's a rockstar and would make a great CNO.   Bravo Zulu to her!http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=425

Sometimes, however, you end up with the Wicked Witch of the WESTPAC:  Holly Graf.  There's only one reason anyone can figure out how she got command at sea twice (once can be considered a mulligan), and it's because she was a female.  http://www.susankatzkeating.com/2010/01/captain-holly-graf-plows-down-whale.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1971443,00.html

The system didn't let CAPT Graf fail early on when it could have and either corrected her and trained her to be a better future CO, or fired her if found irredeemable.  Why?  She was what was left.   Which leads us to the moral of the story:  if this is about careers, it's a good bet that the small pool that can even make it will be subtracted from by normal wear-and-tear and the desire to have a family.  Which means if you want women infantry officers to one day be CSA-you'd better make sure that pool of Cadets/2LTs you start the process with are going to be super-awesome women who will never, ever fail in anything over the next 30 years, since there's not going to be any bench depth to recover from.  And if you can pick cadets/2LTs that can do that, I'd love to hear your picks on the Super Bowl winners for that same time period.  *Kidding about it being foolish to have a family and babies.  I'm perfectly cool with women having babies, since we need a future cohort of investors for Social Security, and if women want to have families, that means there is a small (but not zero) chance that they might even be willing to have sex with me!

ArmedwithInkstick
ArmedwithInkstick 5pts

Whoops, here are the other articles.  Sorry about the formatting getting all fouled up.  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1971443,00.html

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts

 @ArmedwithInkstick No problem. Glad you aren't in charge of the nuke codes. With respect to all women wanting to have babies, not all of us decide that path career is for us. That is a serious 20+ yer commitment that is 24/7.  For many high school and college age women, we can still enjoy ourselves without committing suicide.  Don't get me wrong I like kids, as long as I can give them back at the end of the day.     

Allwet
Allwet 5pts

Oh shit -who said goats? LMFAO

Carmody375
Carmody375 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Awesome article! Thanks for putting a Rangers perspective on this issue!

Allwet
Allwet 5pts

@susanholly ;););););););)!!!!!!!!!!

susanholly
susanholly 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

All these comments about opening opportunity and career advancement opportunities clearly demonstrate how far afield our military planners drifted from the single focus that should outweigh all these social science projects that garner top consideration.  The military should focus on protecting America from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and winning wars.  This whole obsession with "fairness" shouldn't even be a consideration when deciding 'what military assets best fit the mission?"  We should be setting the highest standards to preserve our military preeminence, not trying to finagle ways to lower the bar enough to accommodate a few women's career aspirations.  I have a link to a very good article by retired MG Patrick Brady <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/women-in-foxholes/#mYTIELWdKCLOM1if.99">Women In Foxholes</a> (keeping my fingers crossed that this link thing works - amateur  hour here, sorry).

majrod
majrod 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

Off Subject but a classic.

 

Incredible video ref 2nd Amend. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KvO-8IvoCI

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts

@majrod Thank you for posting this.. It makes my Day...  


TKW406
TKW406 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

 @majrod  Makes me smile every time.  Reminds me of @Tango9 's saying, "Put one in his thigh and if he tries to get up then double-tap his ass!"

classicus
classicus 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

Hell yeah Jack! Finally, some stark reality to a ridiculous topic. You said it best and in the most simplest question: "how does putting women into SOF and the Infantry make our armed forces more combat effective?  If it doesn’t, then we shouldn’t do it." This is about war and winning war. Not politics or other BS.

 

Enough said!

Allwet
Allwet 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

I have a perfect oak fire , and red meat to char and leave bloody on the inside. My take , on this thread is as to Front line infantry, direct action units, and was provoked by women and Ranger school.My tiny little juvenile and immature( because of my apparently ...wait for it....misogynist !!! Flash bang;)! and sexist attitude = crock of shit) attitude concerning the populating of body bags for buddies, in greater numbers than would normally be experienced, by accommodating females that want to be considered as "directly equal combat assets" (when that is just not physically possible)and not consider themselves as being combat effectiveness detriments ,solely based on the PC doctrines of " everyone is the same and therefore equal in all aspects , irregardless of scientifically obvious mental and physical differences that exist", will not be swayed, by any amount of PC speak.Period. Good men /boys would die hard , horrible and useless deaths to accommodate this farse, in much greater frequency then they do now, but then , so would the women.To what ends ? ...a fucking imaginary concept of PC equality and righteousness? Really ? To me that is pathetic , and disgustingly self centered. But for some reason you feel you have some moral right to this? This I cannot fathom. But , hey that fire is ready, and nature calls , ;), not PC BS, time to feed, and that 7 Pot Brown pepper is gonna completely for this silly argument irrelevant for a while. DJ clear

Allwet
Allwet 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Haha- ...gonna completely make for this silly argument to be irrelevant for a while. ....damn I text like ass !!!!, just sayin!

Old PH2
Old PH2 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

The fraternization angle has already shown a distinct double standard, any one recall the B-52 pilot from the USAF? Lt. Kelly Flinn, got out with a general discharge, could have gotten 9.5 years. www.usvetdsp.com/story55.htm has the whole story.

StormR
StormR 5pts

 @Old PH2 There is another:  "SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE — Something went terribly wrong in Lt. Col. Karen Tew’s life. On March 16, she found her 19-year career as an Air Force officer over, destroyed by her admission five days earlier that she had an improper relationship with an enlisted man."   In this case, she committed suicide after being sentenced. 

TheCrusader
TheCrusader 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 8 Like

Jack, very well written article. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.  I am a retired Army Special Forces Officer. I served as an Infantryman (not an Infantryperson) prior to switching to SF branch. I have  commented on part one of your article, and would like to offer the following comments on part two: There is no valid argument that can be offered to justify allowing women to serve in combat units. Girls in a rifle platoon? Girls on an ODA? It is completely ridiculous. We hear the argument that women have already been serving in combat,chiefly in support roles as truck drivers, MPs and so on. Just because it has been done, doesn't mean that it was a good idea, nor does it mean that the concept was validated. There is no reason we should allow women to enter combat arms, it is a completely ridiculous notion. The small percentage of militant feminists who think they want to be an infantryman will fail,  and may cost someone their life. Women will be, without question the weak link in the unit and will degrade cohesion and combat effectiveness.  As I wrote in response to part 1: Since time immemorial, men have been warriors, and women have born children.  Did the Vikings have a bunch girls with them on their raids? What about Ghengis Khan's army? Alexander the Great surely had a bunch of girls in his combat forces didn't he? Was Pickett's charge at Gettysburg led by women? Did women climb Pointe de Hoc? Did a bunch of women paratroopers hold fast at Bastogne, or retake Corregidor, rescue the POWs at Cabanatuan, or link up with the Northern Alliance or. . . . ? The answer is a giant no. I have been around a number of women in the army, would I have liked to date some of them? Yes. Would I trust any of them to watch my 6, or drag me behind cover (at about 345lbs in full kit)? No I would not. Think of it this way:  You are trapped in a burning house. If you dial 912, a bunch of women firefighters will be dispatched to help you; if you dial 911 a bunch of firemen will be dispatched. What number would you dial? I bet everyone would dial 911.  If you say you would dial 912 you're either so progressive, deluded or stupid you deserve the end result. 

 

Women can excel in any number of fields, medicine, intel, aviation-but even the most dimwitted person should be able to understand that women are neither set up emotionally nor physically to handle the rigors of combat. It is a blatant self evident truth that cannot be altered by political correctness, feminism, or anything else for that matter.

TheCrusader
TheCrusader 5pts

Excuse me- Pointe du Hoc

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts

 @TheCrusader Place of Army Ranger Assault during WW2. Bad place to be....

hjw1dr
hjw1dr 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

@majrod  Just a quick question  -- too long to tweet and I don't have an email for you... so thought this might be an okay topic here.  

I wondered if you knew Borah Van Dormolen?  She died recently, but rose to Lt. Colonel in the US Army. I believe she also taught at West Point. She was commander of logistics operations units for the U.S. Army's  1st Cavalry Division and 13th Corps Support Command. Borah retired in 1997. I met her in 2008 and got to know her quite well. She was astute politically, but was also very pragmatic. She passed away suddenly this past week, by the way. 

 

Anyway, I had some interesting discussions with her about women in combat. since you taught at West Point, i wondered if you knew her?  (I wasn't a close friend, just a professional acquaintance... but am interested in your opinion). 

majrod
majrod 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @hjw1dr  If you tweet me, I'll give you an e-mail address

 

hjw1dr
hjw1dr 5pts

 @majrod just tweeted you... fyi

hjw1dr
hjw1dr 5pts

 @majrod nope!  lol  I just forgot I used a verification program. I got your tweet... 

majrod
majrod 5pts

 @hjw1dr sent e-mail that got kicked back and tweeted you. 

 

You work for the "gov't" or something?

 

majrod
majrod 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @hjw1dr  No I'm sorry I didn't know her.  Sorry to hear about her sudden passing.  i'm sure it made the loss even greater to her NOK.

 

vazquezs96
vazquezs96 5pts

So I am doing a paper about this topic, so during class we were sharing topics and what we think about, all my class mate day are that women are as strong as,and can do anything men, and that that they have the right to protect our country and so on. This one girl though just called me sick and disgusting for thinking that women shouldn't be allowed in combat jobs

Allwet
Allwet 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@vazquezs96 ... But the funny part is " these people haven't been there , and most likely ain't goin there" ... For the boys ( cuz they aren't 't men , I promise) - if you aren't 't gonna feel the fires- most likely , to a BOY, you aren't; find some other way to get in their pants, some play "you are an awesome crossfit chick, pant,pant", or become a vegetarian(don' t worry each path is equally pathetic;)!!!!), and shut the f*ck up; For the "Girls", you most likely won't be standing line for actual combat either( so all you get are rolled eyes, and some not so discrete laughter), BUT IF YOU THINK YOU ARE, be careful what you wish for, and please respond back about good it felt. Bet that's gonna be all Simon and Garfunkel.........the sounds....of Silence. DJ clear

majrod
majrod 5pts

 @vazquezs96  Too many comic books, video games and GI Jane movies skew people's perception of reality.

 

I suggest you google Kingsley Browne.  He's written some very well referenced papers on the subject and comes at the issue from a well reasoned and logical perspective.  His book if you can find it in the library is a seminal work.

 

If you send him an e-mail he will likely respond.  He's faculty in a law department of a university.  

 

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @majrod  @vazquezs96 He is from Wayne State, I think, right. I can't find his book. Co-Ed Combat in our library. Amazon has it though. My school library does have Biology at Work :Rethinking Sexual Equality. Still think he is missing some points. Might do this for a dissertation in college as they need more voices from women to discuss an obvious truth.  But the goal is the mission and that is to protect and defend the Constitution and the freedoms we have. If that is the goal,  then I don't see what there is to argue about. The standards should not be lowered.

 

Allwet
Allwet 5pts

@majrod @vazquezs96 oh Shit -GI Jane, now there's a fucking joke! ;)

hjw1dr
hjw1dr 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @majrod  I recently read an interesting series of studies on women and load bearing systems (backpacks- etc) in the US ARMY. I believe the studies were done in 1998-9? The studies suggested that women could carry loads up to 75 lbs, but training would have to be longer and more costly-- had to do with stress fractures and stride length (at least 20 24 weeks basic) and due to diffent physics in body mechanics new carry apparatus would need to be developed to enable women to carry (women muscle mass is in thighs and legs versus upper body strength in males)

The length of training had to longer... at much as double in length for male basic and start at a slower level of stress and build to male levels. It's a whole series of papers in a symposium -- buried in the abstracts, but I'll see if I can dig out the link. 

 

The papers argued that female muscle strength could be conditioned to mimic male muscle strength. At the same time a different load system needed to be engineered for women to adapt to womens center of gravity (as apposed t men).

 

I can't find a direct link to the articles (one is from 1976 - other from 1997) , but below are the references to the studies. FYI

 

-----------------

Laubach researched the comparative strength of the sexes and found overlapping curves of normal distribution28, the 5th percentile for male strength approximating to the 60th percentile for women. Seemingly, however, a woman's muscle can be trained to mimic male muscle, though it takes a long period of time. A US Army study showed that the proportion of female recruits capable of passing strenuous physical tests rose from 29% to 40% after 8 weeks of basic training, yet when a similar group were trained over six months with additional resistance training, the proportion capable of achieving the test scores was as high as 78%.

 

references:  FYI

 

Harman E, et al. Effects of a specifically designed physical conditioning program on the load carriage and lifting performance of female soldiers. USARIEM Tech Rep T98-1;November 1997.

 

 Laubach L. Comparative strength of men and women: a review of the literature. Aviation Space Envir Med 1976;47: 534-42. 

 

 

 

@vazquezs96  

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @hjw1dr  @majrod  @vazquezs96  They really had to do a study to figure that out. How much did that cost the taxpayer. 

 

majrod
majrod 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@hjw1dr  "A lot of money for only a very few women,  who in best effort will  perform as well as the average male."

 

Bingo!

@vazquezs96

 

 

hjw1dr
hjw1dr 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @majrod  @vazquezs96  Good rebuttal. I thought those studies should be brought up since I'm sure they are referenced somewhere, and probably often. 

 

I only read the abstracts by the way, not the entire studies. (I have work to do during the day! (lol) However, if no control group was used, then that would be a major flaw in methodology (not sure that would be compared-- men who trained the same amount and length?). I also noticed the stats of a rise to 78% was not against male standards. It was vague and undefined. I assumed it was a rise in women's performance on "strenuous" activities  (whatever strenuous meant--still undefined). 

 

If however, the 5th percentile for men's performance (bell curve) is at 60% women's bell curve hold true, then by logical extension the 99th percentile for women should land around the 45-50th percentile for men. There would be very few women in that group -- if distributed in a bell curve -- but even they would perform less than the average performance for males. 

 

What I found interesting was how the length of training and the cost of adapting a new system for females would cause huge changes in a system already strapped financially.  Would the cost be worth finding and training that upper 1% of women (the upper 99 percentile) who might meet the 50th percentile performance in males? 

 

A lot of money for only a very few women,  who in best effort will perform as well as the average male. 

majrod
majrod 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @hjw1dr  I think you are referring to the "Effects of a Specially Designed Physical Conditioning Program on the Load Carriage and Lifting Performance of Female Soldiers"study of '97.  http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada330237

 

The problem with those studies is they ignore that training just goes so far.  In a nutshell, no amount of training is going to get you to bench press 300lbs.  Will strength training increase performance?  Yes. What they won't tell you is that it will raise the avergae woman's strength to the lowest group of untrained men's performance.  That's why it's important to have a male control group something the study lacks. This is a major shortcoming.

 

Second the study had no correlation to specific Army requirements or combat arms standards. 

 

The training program was also 24 weeks long, three times eight week long basic.  Is it really sensible to triple basic training to raise some women's performance and even then not be sure that it meets the standard of combat arms requirements.?

 

Even a female olympian's performance will not exceed the bottom 5% of male olympians. BTW, the group suffered 30% attrition and the women were in better physical condition than the average woman. 

 

Here is a paper that points out he shoortcomings of an often misquoted and faulty 1997 Natick Study.

http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/TheAmazonMyth-April1996.pdf

 

The money quote "With regard to aerobic capacity, necessary for long-term endurance under physically-demanding conditions, the women ended the study with an average aerobic uptake corresponding to the Army's minimum entrance standard for men."  So after 24 week of Olympian style training women were able to meet minimum entrance standards of men?  Not very efficient or adequate. 

 

Another performance measure" is performance on the standing long jump, an event in the physical aptitude examination (PAE). The Natick women's average achievement, somewhat short of 6.0 feet, would have put them at the bottom 40 percent of women entering ROTC and West Point, and at the very bottom when compared with men."

 

That's not very indicative of the case for training making up the difference in performance.

 

Then there are the issues that the increased training and strength have on women who are genetically more prone to injury something the Brits rediscovered in '99.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/

 

 @vazquezs96

 

vazquezs96
vazquezs96 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

@majrod thanx i'll give it a try

LauraWalkerKC
LauraWalkerKC moderator 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

 @vazquezs96 challenge them to pull ups.

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 6 Like

 @vazquezs96 Women demand the right to die in combat.  We gotta get those female KIA stats up for the sake of equality.

GraceMascorro
GraceMascorro 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @JackMurphyRGR  @vazquezs96 If people want true equality then start with the draft and we can start with the Obama girls. There is no right to die, you will. It is a fact when you are  born you are going to die. But if you choose a career path  that puts other people at risk, I don't think you have that right..  I have been on this site for information for a school paper . Sister Regina although somewhat put off by the language is open to the direct honestly as the light is the truth and well you know the rest. Sister Maureen is Irish and she doesn't mind the bad language as long as it is used for good.     

majrod
majrod 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @JackMurphyRGR  You know Jack I mention the stats at every opportunity because so few hear/know them.  Has shut down many an argument for the "nonlinear battlefield".  

 

@vazquezs96

 

vazquezs96
vazquezs96 5pts

@majrod I sent you a tweet

majrod
majrod 5pts

 @vazquezs96 sure send me a tweet at majr0d

 

vazquezs96
vazquezs96 5pts

@majrod would you be up for an interview,trying to get the prospective of an infantry soldier?

vazquezs96
vazquezs96 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

@JackMurphyRGR My teacher said it would be a good idea to to interview, I was wondering if you be interested?

vazquezs96
vazquezs96 5pts

Sorry about the mistakes

Join the SOFREP Team Room, Support Our Veteran Writing Team
  • Hot Now

    • In the IDF, 'Lonely Soldier' is a term that describes soldiers serving on active duty who have no family is Israel. These are volunteers that came to serve for 3-5 years. They typically go back to their respective countries upon completion. Most commonly, these are people who immigrated to Israel by themselves. I was one of them. While in Israel, I lived in an apartment building where the majority of people were lonely soldiers. It was located on the outer ring of Jerusalem, surrounded by four Arab villages. My roommates were two recon guys (like me) and one who worked in field intel. All of the other inhabitants were soldiers from various units, with most of them serving a combat role. It was a well known thing, especially to the Arabs in the village. Most of the time we wouldn't be there, but when we were on leave, we would come to the apartment for a little R&R. It was rare that the four of us were there at the same time, but once in a blue moon, it did happen. Each village had, as is customary, its own mosque. When the time for prayer came, the loudspeakers would call out to the faithful. It was OK, we were used to it. However, over the weekend they would make it a point to play the call to prayer very, and I mean VERY, loud. They knew soldiers would be in the building trying to get some sleep - recovering from several weeks in the field. This always annoyed me but there was nothing I could do. On this particular weekend, after an intense seven weeks of non-stop ops, all I wanted was to go to the apartment, sleep, eat, sleep some more and then sleep again. That weekend the four of us were at the apartment and we were all equally tired. We arrived Thursday night and after a small dinner and some beers, we went to sleep. At 0400 we all jumped.... The freaking loudspeakers at all four mosques began their call to prayer at full blast. Fuck.... We spent the remainder of the day trying to rest and every time we would fall asleep, again... The call for prayers, full blast! Over lunch, we all looked at each other and knew this had to stop. We came up with a plan. I know it wasn't nice, but at that point we couldn't care less about political correctness. Here's what we did. After some recon that night, we noticed that the call to prayer wasn't performed by an Imam or some other person with a microphone. It was a tape recorder that used a tape. We figured the four of us, experts in stealthy infils, could sneak in and steal those tapes. However, while we were planning the different infil routes for each village, we all smiled and did something better. We recorded Metallica's 'For Whom the Bell Tolls' on repeat on all four tapes and then waited till midnight. At midnight, each one of us - armed with a Metallica tape - headed to a different village. All dressed in black, we were careful not to be seen. We entered into the buildings and exchanged the tapes. We rallied back to the exfil point, a crossroad not far from the last village and headed back to our apartment. And then we waited... At 0350 we went to the roof with some coffee, opened some field chairs and waited for the show to begin. At 0400 sharp the first "call" came alive, full volume: Make his fight On the hill in the early day Constant chill deep inside ... Take a look To the sky Just before you die It's the last time he will Followed by the next, then the 3rd and 4th joined in. Full volume Metallica! Soon after, we heard sirens headed to the villages. I don't know what happened after that, but we had our own private concert, right there. No kidding, there I was... Metallica call to prayer

      No Kidding There I Was... Metallica Call to Prayer

      May 18, 2013
    • 345

      Battlefield America: Literary Reflux in 500 Words or Less, #2

      May 17, 2013
    • US Army Rangers Episode 3: Ranger Indoctrination (RIP)

      U.S. Army Rangers Episode 3: Ranger Indoctrination (RIP)

      May 15, 2013
  • Latest SOFREP

    • In the IDF, 'Lonely Soldier' is a term that describes soldiers serving on active duty who have no family is Israel. These are volunteers that came to serve for 3-5 years. They typically go back to their respective countries upon completion. Most commonly, these are people who immigrated to Israel by themselves. I was one of them. While in Israel, I lived in an apartment building where the majority of people were lonely soldiers. It was located on the outer ring of Jerusalem, surrounded by four Arab villages. My roommates were two recon guys (like me) and one who worked in field intel. All of the other inhabitants were soldiers from various units, with most of them serving a combat role. It was a well known thing, especially to the Arabs in the village. Most of the time we wouldn't be there, but when we were on leave, we would come to the apartment for a little R&R. It was rare that the four of us were there at the same time, but once in a blue moon, it did happen. Each village had, as is customary, its own mosque. When the time for prayer came, the loudspeakers would call out to the faithful. It was OK, we were used to it. However, over the weekend they would make it a point to play the call to prayer very, and I mean VERY, loud. They knew soldiers would be in the building trying to get some sleep - recovering from several weeks in the field. This always annoyed me but there was nothing I could do. On this particular weekend, after an intense seven weeks of non-stop ops, all I wanted was to go to the apartment, sleep, eat, sleep some more and then sleep again. That weekend the four of us were at the apartment and we were all equally tired. We arrived Thursday night and after a small dinner and some beers, we went to sleep. At 0400 we all jumped.... The freaking loudspeakers at all four mosques began their call to prayer at full blast. Fuck.... We spent the remainder of the day trying to rest and every time we would fall asleep, again... The call for prayers, full blast! Over lunch, we all looked at each other and knew this had to stop. We came up with a plan. I know it wasn't nice, but at that point we couldn't care less about political correctness. Here's what we did. After some recon that night, we noticed that the call to prayer wasn't performed by an Imam or some other person with a microphone. It was a tape recorder that used a tape. We figured the four of us, experts in stealthy infils, could sneak in and steal those tapes. However, while we were planning the different infil routes for each village, we all smiled and did something better. We recorded Metallica's 'For Whom the Bell Tolls' on repeat on all four tapes and then waited till midnight. At midnight, each one of us - armed with a Metallica tape - headed to a different village. All dressed in black, we were careful not to be seen. We entered into the buildings and exchanged the tapes. We rallied back to the exfil point, a crossroad not far from the last village and headed back to our apartment. And then we waited... At 0350 we went to the roof with some coffee, opened some field chairs and waited for the show to begin. At 0400 sharp the first "call" came alive, full volume: Make his fight On the hill in the early day Constant chill deep inside ... Take a look To the sky Just before you die It's the last time he will Followed by the next, then the 3rd and 4th joined in. Full volume Metallica! Soon after, we heard sirens headed to the villages. I don't know what happened after that, but we had our own private concert, right there. No kidding, there I was... Metallica call to prayer

      No Kidding There I Was… Metallica Call to Prayer

      May 18, 2013, 31 Comments
    • 345

      Battlefield America: Literary Reflux in 500 Words or Less, #2

      May 17, 2013, 87 Comments
    • north-korea-missiles_opt

      North Korea: Missile Systems

      May 16, 2013, 20 Comments
    • tripoli-embassy-usa-sofrep

      State Department’s ATA Program—A Disaster in the Making

      May 15, 2013, 24 Comments
    • What’s Been 'Camouflaged' About Camouflaged Uniforms?

      What’s Been ‘Camouflaged’ About Camouflaged Uniforms?

      May 14, 2013, 252 Comments
    • Hoorah! Marine Torturing/Murdering Terrorist Killed!

      Hoorah! Marine Torturing/Murdering Terrorist Killed!

      May 13, 2013, 74 Comments
    • Larry Thorne: Three Wars Under Three Flags

      Larry Thorne: Three Wars Under Three Flags

      May 12, 2013, 37 Comments
    • Screen Shot 2013-05-12 at 12.01.52 PM

      Navy SEALs Charity Scam Update

      May 12, 2013, 75 Comments
    • Brazilian Police: How Not to Do Aerial Platform Support

      Brazilian Police: How Not to Do Aerial Platform Support

      May 11, 2013, 64 Comments
    • Navy SEAL Mike Ritland And Dog Rico Tour New York

      Navy SEAL Mike Ritland And Dog Rico Tour New York

      May 10, 2013, 18 Comments
  • Most Commented

    • Not Mirandizing Terrorists? Slippery slope...

      Not Mirandizing Terrorists? Slippery slope...

      April 25, 2013, 544 Comments
    • Analyzing the Chechen Connection to the Boston Marathon

      The Brothers Kavkaz: Analyzing the Chechen Connection to the Boston Marathon

      April 21, 2013, 447 Comments
    • Extortion 17 Heroes

      Extortion 17 Heroes

      May 9, 2013, 325 Comments
    • Chechen Terrorists Hit Boston: The Manhunt

      Chechen Terrorists Hit Boston: Suspect Captured

      April 19, 2013, 278 Comments
    • What’s Been 'Camouflaged' About Camouflaged Uniforms?

      What's Been 'Camouflaged' About Camouflaged Uniforms?

      May 14, 2013, 252 Comments
    • Benghazi: Book Delves Into the Details Nobody's Talking About

      UT Report: Benghazi Book Uncovers the Details Nobody's Talking About

      May 7, 2013, 245 Comments
    • Attention Whores and Conspiracy Theorists (But I Repeat Myself)

      Attention Whores and Conspiracy Theorists (But I Repeat Myself)

      April 27, 2013, 238 Comments
    • State Department at Fault Over Benghazi Response

      State Department at Fault Over Benghazi Response

      May 2, 2013, 229 Comments
    • DSC_4902

      Why Does PETA Want to Kill Our Special Operators?

      April 29, 2013, 188 Comments
    • SOFREP on Newsmax TV Discussing Benghazi

      SOFREP on Newsmax TV Discussing Benghazi

      May 8, 2013, 157 Comments
  • Topics by Category

    • SOF News

    • Op-Ed

    • MARSOC

    • NSWC

    • USASOC

    • Coalition SOF

    • SOF History

    • Special Operations

    • Black Ops & Intel

    • Admin

    • No Shit There I Was

  • SOFREP TV

    • US Army Rangers Episode 3: Ranger Indoctrination (RIP)

      U.S. Army Rangers Episode 3: Ranger Indoctrination (RIP)

      May 15, 2013, 17 Comments
    • U.S. Army Rangers Episode 2: Ranger Indoctrination (RIP)

      U.S. Army Rangers Episode 2: Ranger Indoctrination (RIP)

      May 13, 2013, 41 Comments
    • U.S. Army Rangers Episode 1: Why the Rangers?

      U.S. Army Rangers Episode 1: Why the Rangers?

      May 13, 2013, 16 Comments
    • Honoring the Fallen

      Heroes of U.S. Special Operations: Honoring the Fallen

      December 9, 2012, 4 Comments
    • The Unifying Issue

      Heroes of U.S. Special Operations: The Unifying Issue

      December 8, 2012, 3 Comments
    • Veterans Day

      Heroes of U.S. Special Operations: Veterans Day

      December 7, 2012, 2 Comments
    • Inside the Team Room Episode 26: Passing the Gut Check

      Inside the Team Room Episode 26: Passing the Gut Check

      November 19, 2012, 7 Comments
    • Inside the Team Room Episode 25: SEALs vs. Gangsters

      Inside the Team Room Episode 25: SEALs vs. Gangsters

      November 18, 2012, 16 Comments
    • Inside the Team Room Episode 24: Leaving the Teams

      Inside the Team Room Episode 24: Leaving the Teams

      November 17, 2012, 4 Comments
  • SOFREP Radio

    • Navy SEAL Mike Ritland And Dog Rico Tour New York

      Navy SEAL Mike Ritland And Dog Rico Tour New York

      May 10, 2013, 18 Comments
    • Mark Donald - SEAL Medic And Author Of Book Battle Ready

      Mark Donald – SEAL Medic And Author Of Book Battle Ready

      April 28, 2013, 10 Comments
    • The Clean Up Shot

      The Clean Up Shot

      April 22, 2013, 25 Comments
SOFREP Network SOFREP Network SOFREP Navy SEALs The Loadout Room Hot Extract The Arms Guide SOFREP Radio SOFREP TV SOFREP Team Room
Listen to SOFREP Radio #1 on iTunes
  • Contact
  • About
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Commenting
  • Advertisers

© Copyright 2013 SOFREP Inc. All Rights Reserved.