Women in Combat Roles

[Gavin]

Which we've covered and has already been addressed in the article. They're not going to slap an 80-lb ruck on Yeardley Smith's back and send her out to defend a fire base.

Can i just take a second to note the genius in using Yeardley Smith for this analogy?

I thought it was great!

[Isgrimnur]

[GreenGoo]

If nothing more than to prove their worth as every bit as good as the guys even though Football and other sports have a lot to tell us about which sex is better at physical activities.

Right, but combat has evolved beyond stabbing with bayonets or wrestling around with knives. Not to mention that sheer physical strength is not the only (or even primary) attribute that helps in hand to hand fighting.

We've long since entered the era of push button warfare.

I'm not saying that there aren't ocassions where hand to hand combat occurs, I'm just saying they are incredibly rare.

Perhaps if we ever get into another world war II'ish situation where nukes aren't viable and millions of troops on either side are controlling territory by literally sitting on it we might need to take another look.

edit: I just read two articles on this. One about an El Salvador unit in Iraq where the last standing member entered hand to hand combat with a number of Iraqis who were still armed with guns, just in time to save his unit as relief showed up. The article mentioned that this was one of the very few hand to hand combat events recorded in Iraq at that time. The article was from 2004 so the war had been going on for 2-3 years.

The second article is all about how important hand to hand combat is and holds up a single example as to why it is the back bone of the marines.

When hand to hand combat is so rare that it receives special mention, I think we're doing ok. And that's assuming women would not be as competent as men in hand to hand combat. Since I think physical strength does play a significant role on hth, I'm ok with assuming that.

A

[Gavin]

If nothing more than to prove their worth as every bit as good as the guys even though Football and other sports have a lot to tell us about which sex is better at physical activities.

Right, but combat has evolved beyond stabbing with bayonets or wrestling around with knives. Not to mention that sheer physical strength is not the only (or even primary) attribute that helps in hand to hand fighting.

We've long since entered the era of push button warfare.

I'm not saying that there aren't ocassions where hand to hand combat occurs, I'm just saying they are incredibly rare.

Perhaps if we ever get into another world war II'ish situation where nukes aren't viable and millions of troops on either side are controlling territory by literally sitting on it we might need to take another look.

edit: I just read two articles on this. One about an El Salvador unit in Iraq where the last standing member entered hand to hand combat with a number of Iraqis who were still armed with guns, just in time to save his unit as relief showed up. The article mentioned that this was one of the very few hand to hand combat events recorded in Iraq at that time. The article was from 2004 so the war had been going on for 2-3 years.

The second article is all about how important hand to hand combat is and holds up a single example as to why it is the back bone of the marines.

When hand to hand combat is so rare that it receives special mention, I think we're doing ok. And that's assuming women would not be as competent as men in hand to hand combat. Since I think physical strength does play a significant role on hth, I'm ok with assuming that.

A

The majority of ground combat isn't pointing a weapon and firing. It's moving rapidly with heavy equipment over/between/through obstacles to areas that you can safely point and click your way to victory. It isn't the possibility of hand-to-hand fighting that demanding or even likely. It's all the other stuff. Those packs are bitching and the distances they cross in them is amazing. Add that to manuerving with them while underfire and you're asking a lot of a sex that is genetically predisposed to be weaker. By something like 60% less power output on average. Insane numbers.

That being said, rare or not, hand to hand does happen. Especially in POW scenarios which women already find themselves in. So we should be wary to dismiss physical confrontations all-out.

The jobs that are still just push button warfare are the ones that are already available to women. The ones that are the most physically demanding are not. Make no mistake, a weak ground soldier can hold the unit back. Male or female, weakness can cost lives.

[dbt1949]

Think of it this way.........do you really want a woman who's time of the month it is, pushing buttons?

[Gavin]

Think of it this way.........do you really want a woman who's time of the month it is, pushing buttons?

Ah, and there it is, that joke elephant in the room. While it isn't polite and will heap a lot of shit on your head if you say it publically (as opposed to on the net), I do think a monthly event that both weakens a person and causes fluxuations in emotional stability can be a huge liability in physical confrontations. But I doubt we'll hear this kind of talk from anyone hoping to have a career.

[hepcat]

I do think a monthly event that both weakens a person and causes fluxuations in emotional stability can be a huge liability in physical confrontations.

Good Lord, where did you learn about women? From a hobo behind the dumpster at a nearby 7-11?

[Gavin]

I do think a monthly event that both weakens a person and causes fluxuations in emotional stability can be a huge liability in physical confrontations.

Good Lord, where did you learn about women? From a hobo behind the dumpster at a nearby 7-11?

Good Lord, where did you learn about how to quote people on a message board? From a hobo behind the dumpster at a nearby 7-11? (Joke, that's the second time you've quoted me in that odd way)

Sisters, wife, etc. But primarily med school. Are you really going to tell me that cramps, bloating, and other shit doesn't impact their physical performance or that fluxuations in estrogen and progesterone don't cause fluxuations in moods/temperment?

If you believe this is not a potential problem, then you're unaware of the monthly havok this can play in every day life if the side effects are particularly harsh for the girl. So then, where did you learn about women? From a feminist pamphlet on why it's women's turn to rule the world and why men should just grovel at their feet and stay in the kitchen?

[Anonymous Bosch]

Right, but combat has evolved beyond stabbing with bayonets or wrestling around with knives. Not to mention that sheer physical strength is not the only (or even primary) attribute that helps in hand to hand fighting.

We've long since entered the era of push button warfare.

I'm not saying that there aren't ocassions where hand to hand combat occurs, I'm just saying they are incredibly rare.

Perhaps if we ever get into another world war II'ish situation where nukes aren't viable and millions of troops on either side are controlling territory by literally sitting on it we might need to take another look.

edit: I just read two articles on this. One about an El Salvador unit in Iraq where the last standing member entered hand to hand combat with a number of Iraqis who were still armed with guns, just in time to save his unit as relief showed up. The article mentioned that this was one of the very few hand to hand combat events recorded in Iraq at that time. The article was from 2004 so the war had been going on for 2-3 years.

The second article is all about how important hand to hand combat is and holds up a single example as to why it is the back bone of the marines.

When hand to hand combat is so rare that it receives special mention, I think we're doing ok. And that's assuming women would not be as competent as men in hand to hand combat. Since I think physical strength does play a significant role on hth, I'm ok with assuming that.

A

As Petronio, who herself was clearly no lightweight by any stretch, explains, the concern is not necessarily a simple matter of female servicemembers passing appropriate physical fitness tests, but that there is also cause for concern regarding the question of longevity and whether female infantry are capable of enduring the rigours of sustained front-line combat operations, or even fully comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical and physiological toll that sustained front-line combat operations are likely to exact upon female servicemembers:

I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?

As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

That's a huge concession from the type of person as driven and dedicated to their physical fitness as she had to be to do what she did, and we'd be foolish to ignore it.

[hepcat]

Sisters, wife, etc. But primarily med school. Are you really going to tell me that cramps, bloating, and other shit doesn't impact their physical performance or that fluxuations in estrogen and progesterone don't cause fluxuations in moods/temperment?

Not to the point where they're going to be shooting their squad mates for telling them they look fat. Your comment came off as being informed by 70's tv comedy shows and I still feel it does. By the way, it is possible to think you're wrong about this matter without having a feminist agenda. Just by assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is simply doing so because of that gives me a little insight into where you're coming from.

Women have been doing quite well since time immemorial during their menstrual cycles. Some even do manual labor or even go to the gym during their monthly visit from mother nature.

[Isgrimnur]

It's the attribution screwup. There's a sporadic issue in the forum software, possibly caused by trying to quote and there's a new post that shows up. I ran into it a couple weeks ago.

[GreenGoo]

That's a huge concession from the type of person as driven and dedicated to their physical fitness as she had to be to do what she did, and we'd be foolish to ignore it.

I read it the first time you posted it.

First, I think her opinion is valuable.

Second, I'm not going to cherry pick opinions on this, despite thinking it's a good thing to have women on the frontline.

Third, I find it ironic that a woman with experience in combat and command is not claiming that she herself is not capable of commanding in combat, just that it's a bad idea for other women to do it. She is literally an example of women being capable in the battlefield. So.

Fourth, I think it would be foolish to listen to a single voice as the sole expert on the subject. Pro or Con. And while I said her opinion is valuable (it is) it's not definitive.

Fifth, as with lots of things, the rest of the world got there first. It may be a new and scary thing for the US to experience, but there are plenty of countries already doing it. You're not leading the pack and you don't have to rely on what you *think* will happen. You can get all the information you want on the subject just by playing nice with militaries from other countries, who will provide you with an endless supply of data and studies and case studies.

All the US military has to do is find out from others what the pros are, what the cons are, then decide if the pros outweigh the cons.

Problem solved and we can avoid months and years of hand ringing.

[GreenGoo]

Sisters, wife, etc. But primarily med school. Are you really going to tell me that cramps, bloating, and other shit doesn't impact their physical performance or that fluxuations in estrogen and progesterone don't cause fluxuations in moods/temperment?

Not to the point where they're going to be shooting their squad mates for telling them they look fat. Your comment came off as being informed by 70's tv comedy shows and I still feel it does. By the way, it is possible to think you're wrong about this matter without having a feminist agenda. Just by assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is simply doing so because of that gives me a little insight into where you're coming from.

Women have been doing quite well since time immemorial during their menstrual cycles. Some even do manual labor or even go to the gym during their monthly visit from mother nature.

Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of soldiers suffered from dysentery during WW1. Somehow the fighting went on. Fighting on despite suffering from physical ailments is a time honored aspect of being a soldier. Feeling a little bloated or cramped sure as hell isn't going to stop them if shitting out their intestines didn't stop other soldiers.

That we're talking about "being moody" or minor aches and pains (like muscle soreness) as enough of a detriment to keep soldiers from the field is laughable.

[noxiousdog]

Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of soldiers suffered from dysentery during WW1. Somehow the fighting went on. Fighting on despite suffering from physical ailments is a time honored aspect of being a soldier. Feeling a little bloated or cramped sure as hell isn't going to stop them if shitting out their intestines didn't stop other soldiers.

That we're talking about "being moody" or minor aches and pains (like muscle soreness) as enough of a detriment to keep soldiers from the field is laughable.

I was denied an ROTC scholarship because my medical records said I was treated (not hospitialized) for asthma 13 years prior.

While I'm with you in spirit, the military isn't about equality. It's about putting forth the best fighting force. And if there's a measurable degradation in fighting capability (or logistics as the case may be), then it should be taken into account.

[hepcat]

We have already seen favoritism on a political level so no reason to expect it not to exist in the field. There is no way that the same attention and resources would have been paid to rescuing Jessica Lynch if it had been John Lynch instead.

Considering that Jessica Lynch's "rescue" was a botched PR job by the military by most accounts, you probably don't want to cite that particular instance in an analogy.

[GreenGoo]

Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of soldiers suffered from dysentery during WW1. Somehow the fighting went on. Fighting on despite suffering from physical ailments is a time honored aspect of being a soldier. Feeling a little bloated or cramped sure as hell isn't going to stop them if shitting out their intestines didn't stop other soldiers.

That we're talking about "being moody" or minor aches and pains (like muscle soreness) as enough of a detriment to keep soldiers from the field is laughable.

I was denied an ROTC scholarship because my medical records said I was treated (not hospitialized) for asthma 13 years prior.

While I'm with you in spirit, the military isn't about equality. It's about putting forth the best fighting force. And if there's a measurable degradation in fighting capability (or logistics as the case may be), then it should be taken into account.

Would you have been able to simply enlist? Serious question, I have no idea.

That said, I have absolutely no issue with effectively training and testing women to meet minimum requirements. Any who can't meet those requirements, don't get to fight. or enter the military, as the case may be.

The article I posted earlier is about a woman on a 2 man heavy machine gun team, where she regularly had to carry 80 lbs of ammo (I assume she was the feeder/support/whatever) while on active duty in Afghanistan. Same the article didn't interview her teammate, but it was just quickie blurb type article and not a piece of detailed reporting. I don't hold this up as definitive proof that it's a good idea, only that there seem to be lots of examples of women performing adequately (which is all we ask of men, even if we pretend they are super heroes) or better in the field.

I don't know, maybe men in that position have to carry 100 lbs of ammo.

And...as was said at the beginning, American women are already on the frontlines. The only change is that they will be there intentionally from now on.

[Isgrimnur]

Previously, any history of asthma was disqualifying, regardless of age. While medical waivers were sometimes possible, waiver approval usually required scheduling and passing a pulmonary function test. Under the new policy, Asthma is only disqualifying if it occurs after the applicant’s 13th birthday.

I was disqualified from serving due to my childhood history. Of course, I still have rare bouts of it as an adult as well.

[Gavin]

Not to the point where they're going to be shooting their squad mates for telling them they look fat. Your comment came off as being informed by 70's tv comedy shows and I still feel it does.

It isn't that. It's that it's a really physically and pyschologically demanding job. Every disadvantage needs to be considered. For example, what about strong guys with minor problems that are rejected for them. Problems that they could probably do a good job regardless? A disadvantage for one member of the unit means a disadvantage for all of them. Honestly, I think you're trivializing the mental and physical demand of the job our ground troops perform. I'm not sure what decade comedy show that'd be from. Maybe Gomer Pyle USMC or the Beetle Bailey comics? (Not trying to be a dick, just trying to throw your more humorous comments back at you)

Women have been doing quite well since time immemorial during their menstrual cycles. Some even do manual labor or even go to the gym during their monthly visit from mother nature.

I'm sorry but I think you're not up to date with the amount of endurance required of ground troops. It isn't going to the gym, it's far harder and they're doing it with men. You're expecting women to carry just as much as the men and keep up while going just as far. Women aren't going to be equivalent to men in this area. In this way, it is like a female trying to play pro football in the guy's league. Women's bodies simply aren't made in the same way.

This by no means is intented to say that they are not competent and capable. But this is to say that they are not as physically capable as men. I'm sorry, but guys have simply won out physically in more ways than one. The average variance of power output is 60%. That is to say, women, on average, put out 60% less power than men. If you compensate for size and a few other things you can get closer but that's ignoring the fact that women are also smaller than other men on average. Again, this is all on average. But it means a woman has to work significantly harder just to reach the average equivilant of their male counterpart. How much harder do they have to work to reach military average male strength?

As cited above, do they also have the ability to exert the stength necessary over the required amount of time? Or will they end up holding the unit back? These are serious questions that need to be asked and people need to stop seeing this line of questioning as just dismissively sexist. Men and women are different physically and even emotionally. Guys on estrogen also present different emotional tendencies so it isn't a surprise. I understand that sexism has held down a lot of women and continues to do so, so this conversation seems like it has a lot at stake for women because it means there are things that men can do a lot easier than they can and perhaps better. But just wanting something to be different than it actually is does not make it so. A cow will never fly and a bird will never make beef.

We need to take a look at these things as scientifically as possible. Do they have the strength, do they have the endurance, can they respond to battle fatigue at least as poorly as men do? These are unanswered questions even with women already in the line of fire because they're not intended to be there and they're not there in numbers great enough to have been extensively studied like with men and PTSD. I wonder if they're reviewing the impact on those women that have been in action like that.

Make no mistake though, the physical and pyschological stress of this work is significant and the fact that women already have monthly stressors impacting both of these areas is not promising. Kudos to them for handling themselves well at work otherwise, for the most part. Don't get me wrong, I've seen a woman or two have an awful day at work because of it, but most of the time you'd have no idea. You can't really blame people whose body actively seems to mess with them with mood changing hormones.

Odd way? You mean by expressing surprise you said something in a way I think is equally odd? Or by simply quoting you? In the case of the former, it can't be helped. In the case of the latter, it's because that's what "quoting" means.

Actually, you quote me quoting someone else saying what I said. For example, most recently you cited me quoting dbt1949 saying what I said. So your html was off. That's all I meant. It was a misquote altogether. Go back and look at your quote of me, really look, and you'll see what I mean.

[GreenGoo]

My concern is that the vampires will smell the menses and it'll give away the squad's position.

[hepcat]

I agree with the assertion that women should have to pass the same physical requirement test that men have to pass. I don't agree that if they pass that test, they become a "huge" (your word, not mine) liability because of their menstrual cycles.

You also brought up the mood swings which is why I derisively made the comparison to your comment and bad tv sitcoms. I still maintain that's a cheesy stereotype that is grossly exaggerated.

p.s. i removed the quote response after I realized what you were actually talking about.

[Gavin]

Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of soldiers suffered from dysentery during WW1. Somehow the fighting went on. Fighting on despite suffering from physical ailments is a time honored aspect of being a soldier. Feeling a little bloated or cramped sure as hell isn't going to stop them if shitting out their intestines didn't stop other soldiers.

That we're talking about "being moody" or minor aches and pains (like muscle soreness) as enough of a detriment to keep soldiers from the field is laughable.

Actually, it did stop many of them. As in, sent them home in a casket stopped them.

The question isn't whether or not they can handle these things. The question is whether or not it'll be enough of a hinderance to their performance to impact their unit's performance. Only as strong as the weakest link and all that. So, imagine dysentery WITH bloating and cramping and mood swings. Imagine hormone fluxuations coinciding WITH battle fatigue and PTSD that men already have trouble handling. It's an issue of being expected to perform the same as their male coworkers while having a monthly hinderance.

FYI, it's also cute to say minor when talking about the symptoms of a period but the severity of menstrual cycles can be very different from one month to another. It can be quite severe and random as to when it's worse than other times. Did you know that painful menstruation is the leading cause for lost time from school or work in women in their teens and 20s? That's not just the particularly painful ones the article below is discussing, that's in the general population.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 003150.htm" target="_blank

So, explain to me, if it can be bad enough to make household chores difficult and cause absences from work and school then why is it not worth considering?

Again, I think people are letting the "but it's sexist!" flag fly when we're just discussing pysiological differences here that have nothing to do with women not being capable and competent human beings. There are differences between the sexes and either sex has its benefits and disadvantages. Physical strength was simply not awarded to women in the great handing out of assets. If this would be a significant problem and if we are not experiencing a shortage of soldiers (looks like we're actually laying them off), then why choose people that are less fit for the job when you have more qualified candidates?

[hepcat]

Do you endorse taking men out of frontline duty the moment they come down with a cold?

[Anonymous Bosch]

First, I think her opinion is valuable.

Second, I'm not going to cherry pick opinions on this, despite thinking it's a good thing to have women on the frontline.

Third, I find it ironic that a woman with experience in combat and command is not claiming that she herself is not capable of commanding in combat, just that it's a bad idea for other women to do it. She is literally an example of women being capable in the battlefield. So.

Capable, certainly. But also an example of the gender-specific medical issues, and realistic physical and physiological toll that women serving in sustained U.S. front-line combat operations are likely to endure.

Fourth, I think it would be foolish to listen to a single voice as the sole expert on the subject. Pro or Con. And while I said her opinion is valuable (it is) it's not definitive.

I'm not suggesting it is (and from what I gather, neither was she).

Fifth, as with lots of things, the rest of the world got there first. It may be a new and scary thing for the US to experience, but there are plenty of countries already doing it. You're not leading the pack and you don't have to rely on what you *think* will happen. You can get all the information you want on the subject just by playing nice with militaries from other countries, who will provide you with an endless supply of data and studies and case studies.

All the US military has to do is find out from others what the pros are, what the cons are, then decide if the pros outweigh the cons.

Problem solved and we can avoid months and years of hand ringing.

Perhaps so, but none of the other nations you mention must do it on a comparable size and scale to a military superpower like the US. And even in nations like Israel, certain roles do remain closed to female candidates in their military. As many roles as they have open to female candidates (92% according to that IDF link), it's highly unlikely that sexism is preventing them from opening the full 100% of military roles to female candidates.

[GreenGoo]

Do you endorse taking men out of frontline duty the moment they come down with a cold?

Or when they feel sad that Isgrim and ND are bonking their girlfriends/wives while the men are serving abroad? Do dear John letters automatically mean they are on leave until they feel better?

Menstruation can be extremely difficult, with lots of complications. Those are medical issues and would be dealt with as such. For normal menstruation, while not fun I'm sure, is hardly disabling.

[Rip]

We have already seen favoritism on a political level so no reason to expect it not to exist in the field. There is no way that the same attention and resources would have been paid to rescuing Jessica Lynch if it had been John Lynch instead.

Considering that Jessica Lynch's "rescue" was a botched PR job by the military by most accounts, you probably don't want to cite that particular instance in an analogy.

That makes my point. Why is the military turning the rescue of a soldier into a bothched PR job. What exactly were they trying to PR? Women in the military? That they will do a lot more to recover a female POW than one who isn't?

I think they were a little taken back by her lack of cooperation in turning her into the poster child for women in combat. I would love to hear what she would say about being placed in a combat role had she not been captured.

So what about when/if there is another draft? Are we going to draft women into combat roles? If not isn't that discrimination?

[GreenGoo]

Perhaps so, but none of the other nations you mention must do it on a comparable size and scale to a military superpower like the US. And even in nations like Israel, certain roles do remain closed to female candidates in their military. As many roles as they have open to female candidates (92% according to that IDF link), it's highly unlikely that sexism is preventing them from opening the full 100% of military roles to female candidates.

Scale could create new issues I guess. While I was being a little flippant, I would still expect the military to do their homework before implementing, even with data from other first world militaries.

I'm sure there are roles that women can't fill, for one reason or another. Size or strength based positions perhaps. Penis dependent positions I guess. It's possible the 2 man heavy machine gun support can never be the primary gunner, since gunner needs to carry the gun and it weighs more than 80 lbs and so far no woman has qualified for it. I don't know.

I still don't see anything that would specifically stop a woman from carrying an M16 and some grenades + field pack.

I said earlier that I absolutely would want someone I trust with my life in a foxhole (do modern military even dig foxholes?) with me. That doesn't automatically preclude women.

[GreenGoo]

Congrats, you guys now have your own entry in the Women in Combat entry in the wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_c ... ted_States" target="_blank

[Gavin]

Congrats, you guys now have your own entry in the Women in Combat entry in the wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_c ... ted_States" target="_blank

That article is great. It points out a few of the areas that women are actually superior to men in. Dealing with pressure (physical pressures, like atmospheric or g-forces) is surprisingly easier for females than males. I've always found it fascinating that women could potentially make better pilots and submariners than males. Ever since I came across the fact in the novel Sphere.

Do you endorse taking men out of frontline duty the moment they come down with a cold?

That depends, does this person have a regularly scheduled "cold" every month that is potentially severe enough to impact their performance? Most people don't get sick once a month. If someone had a condition that flared up regularly I would advocate pulling them from frontline duty because their unit depends on them to make it back home alive. If lives didn't depend on it I wouldn't give a shit.

Likewise, menstrual side effects can be a lot worse than a simple cold. More debilitating and potentially longer lasting. Again, I point to the fact that menstrual pain remains the number one reason for missed time at school and work for women in their teens and twenties. This may surprise you, but it isn't even on the list for men (90 % joke). Why should this condition not be considered similarly to someone that had asthma when they were a kid and no longer show signs of it?

Also, and this may be important to you or may not be. Women have a far worse time in POW camps than men. The ones that have been captured were pretty much all molested. I'm not saying the risk isn't there for guys, it is, but not as much or as severe as women. Putting women on the frontline increases the risk of capture (though that's a no brainer).

[noxiousdog]

Do you endorse taking men out of frontline duty the moment they come down with a cold?

Or when they feel sad that Isgrim and ND are bonking their girlfriends/wives while the men are serving abroad? Do dear John letters automatically mean they are on leave until they feel better?

Menstruation can be extremely difficult, with lots of complications. Those are medical issues and would be dealt with as such. For normal menstruation, while not fun I'm sure, is hardly disabling.

I'm drawing no conclusions. I just think it's a fair question to ask.

I'm with you that it's probably bullshit, but so was my "asthma."

I figure if someone wants to be in a combat role, it's pretty unlikely they are going to be a net detriment.

[hepcat]

That depends, does this person have a regularly scheduled "cold" every month that is potentially severe enough to impact their performance? Most people don't get sick once a month. If someone had a condition that flared up regularly I would advocate pulling them from frontline duty because their unit depends on them to make it back home alive. If lives didn't depend on it I wouldn't give a shit..

Frequency shouldn't matter. If they're a weak link (your words again) then they're a weak link. How often it happens is completely irrelevant as it needs to happen only once to be a liability.

[dbt1949]

Actually I don't have any problems with women in combat roles if they can meet the physical and mental standards of men. There lies the rub tho. While there are those that can there are many who can't, they're naturally smaller and physically weaker as a whole.
While in combat I don't someone next to me who's not on par with the rest of us but was given a handicap (the golf term) to even things out.
When I was in the air force they first started letting women work on the flight line but they wouldn't let them work the night shifts as they were afraid we would molest them. Thing was some of these women were uglier and stronger than me.
So altho I have olde fashioned thoughts on the matter I can't really object to the whole idea as long as they meet the same standards.

[Gavin]

That depends, does this person have a regularly scheduled "cold" every month that is potentially severe enough to impact their performance? Most people don't get sick once a month. If someone had a condition that flared up regularly I would advocate pulling them from frontline duty because their unit depends on them to make it back home alive. If lives didn't depend on it I wouldn't give a shit..

Frequency shouldn't matter. If they're a weak link (your words again) then they're a weak link. How often it happens is completely irrelevant as it needs to happen only once.

Uh, no. Frequency does matter. I'm not sure why you'd dismiss frequency so readily. But yeah, if a soldier had a bad flu or something they should be shelved until it's over. Anything that prevents them from doing their job should be treated that way. Anyone here know how flus/colds are currently treated? I know that those work days would be hell.

[hepcat]

I'm not sure why you'd dismiss frequency so readily. But yeah, if a soldier had a bad flu or something they should be shelved until it's over.

I'm dismissing your attempt to make it a factor in this discussion because it's completely irrelevant, as I stated. If you're a liability, you're a liability.

Also, do you truly believe a woman's time of the month is equivalent to getting a bad flu once a month?

[LawBeefaroni]

If this would be a significant problem and if we are not experiencing a shortage of soldiers (looks like we're actually laying them off), then why choose people that are less fit for the job when you have more qualified candidates?

Just a comment here, a shortage of soldiers and "laying off" soldiers are not mutually exclusive. Combat time is a finite resource for any soldier.

I guess we just have to wait to see if women have to start registering for selective service.

[silverjon]

Also, do you truly believe a woman's time of the month is equivalent to getting a bad flu once a month?

In my teens, cramping was pronouncedly worse than in my 30s. That said, an excuse to beg off school that sounds legit, that nobody is going to question too deeply because that would be either insensitive or squicky, and that entails nothing more than loafing around home for a day or two as "treatment"... um, yes, please.

Actual endometriosis or other conditions causing debilitating menstruation (abnormal) could easily be legit medical grounds for exclusion from frontline service.

[GreenGoo]

Frequency shouldn't matter. If they're a weak link (your words again) then they're a weak link. How often it happens is completely irrelevant as it needs to happen only once to be a liability.

Of course frequency would matter. Even more important is predictibility, in that do you *know* a soldier is going to get a cold. And not just one cold, but many of them over the year.

(not sure if Hep has me ignored or not. Posting anyway)

[hepcat]

Also, do you truly believe a woman's time of the month is equivalent to getting a bad flu once a month?

In my teens, cramping was pronouncedly worse than in my 30s. That said, an excuse to beg off school that sounds legit, that nobody is going to question too deeply because that would be either insensitive or squicky, and that entails nothing more than loafing around home for a day or two as "treatment"... um, yes, please.

Actual endometriosis or other conditions causing debilitating menstruation (abnormal) could easily be legit medical grounds for exclusion from frontline service.

How normal are these abnormal instances of debilitating menstruation?

[GreenGoo]

How normal are these abnormal instances of debilitating menstruation?

They are medical conditions, mostly. So if you can't serve because you have asthma, you can't serve if you have {name of medical condition menstrual cycles}. I guess what I'm saying is that it is a matter of the individual and her uterus, rather than an affliction that shows up because of random chance (although these exist too I guess. Pretty rare though) and then goes away again a cycle or two later.

[noxiousdog]

How normal are these abnormal instances of debilitating menstruation?

It's a good question, and it's probably more dependent on the person than the menstruation, though it can be related. My wife gets migraines, for example, several times a year and they are hormone related. General internet searching says that they are 3 times more common in women than men, and that it's well over 15%.

[Gavin]

I'm dismissing your attempt to make it a factor in this discussion because it's completely irrelevant, as I stated. If you're a liability, you're a liability.

Not really, everyone is going to get colds, women too. It's just that in addition to them getting a cold they'll also have something else impacting them once a month. It's literally as if they have an illness. If it happened once a year this discussion wouldn't be happening. It happening 12 times in addition to all the other stuff men deal with is significant.

And again, it's the number one reason for missed time at work and school for women of serving age. That's a significant point since this would be work.

Also, do you truly believe a woman's time of the month is equivalent to getting a bad flu once a month?

Nope. But it can be every bit as debilitating. Severity can greatly differ from month to month. What do we do with soldiers that get really bad migranes, for example? We also aren't sure how estrogen/progesterone fluxuations impact reactions to battle stress. Would it make things worse on women pyschologically? Don't know that. But considering having seen complete breakdowns in real life in the workplace due to it I wouldn't imagine that situations 100% worse would be any better. Don't get me wrong, this isn't that women are somehow emotionally weak. It's that they're having hormones literally pumped into their blood stream by their own bodies. If men took the same levels of hormones we'd be emotionally unstable too around that time.