The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Interesting Poll: Should women join the infantry (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7~8~9~10~11..16~17~18 [Next]
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Cohiba?
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
The sports analogy, IMO, is a very poor one.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 14:23, stoneunhinged wrote:
OK, aces, we just have to disagree on this one. I'm sorry you think I'm stupid. But, you know, maybe I am.


OK. So we disagree. Fine.

However If I was to call you stupid I would be laughed off this forum. You may be a lot of things but stupid is not one of them...far from it.

I am busy now, I am going out to start a womans football team...ok ladies...hit the showers right after the jumping jacks. Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
...and I'm going to go throw a punch at Laila Ali. Somebody had better wish us luck.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
George Ledo
View Profile
Magic Café Columnist
SF Bay Area
2909 Posts

Profile of George Ledo
I've been following this thread for several days now, and thinking about the original post, and finally figured I'd add my five cents' worth (that's two cents adjusted for inflation).

First, just because I'm anal, I would want to define the OP a bit more, i.e., "women" and "infantry." I met a fair amount of women in the military, and they were as different as the men: some were good at one thing and some at others; some at all and some at none. A few looked like linebackers (with an attitude to match) and the rest didn't. In general, although I tend to agree with the "no" responses, I find it hard to make that generalization.

Then there's the term "infantry," and I'm going to guess that we're talking about a rifle company or a similar unit that takes part in close combat.

But the question is "should they join?" and here's where I start thinking in terms of a military unit and its purpose and its mission. First, as a CO, I'd want to know why (or if) she wants to be in the front lines: does she want to serve, or does she have something to prove? If she wants to serve, she can serve in another part of the infantry besides the front lines, and if she has something to prove, I'd want her re-assigned to another unit (and I'd do the same thing with a man). Nothing personal, but I wouldn't want my unit's effectiveness (and survival) weakened by someone with a personal issue.

Along the same lines, someone above mentioned the tendency of American men to protect women, and here again I'd question whether the unit's effectiveness would be weakened by well-meaning guys playing big brother and endangering the unit instead of sticking to their training. Would I respond differently if the soldier next to me were hit, if it was a man or a woman? I can't answer that.

Finally, as a CO, I wouldn't want anyone in my unit to get captured, but I especially wouldn't want a woman to get captured. It's bad enough to be a male POW, but I can't even imagine (or want to) what our current adversaries would do with a woman. We had an issue a couple of years back, and it did raise some very interesting questions.

So, for me, it comes down to the purpose and the mission. Join the infantry and serve the country? Sure, no problem. Grab a SAW and go on a night raid? Probably not.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net

Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here"
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 19:23, George Ledo wrote:
But the question is "should they join?" and here's where I start thinking in terms of a military unit and its purpose and its mission. First, as a CO, I'd want to know why (or if) she wants to be in the front lines: does she want to serve, or does she have something to prove? If she wants to serve, she can serve in another part of the infantry besides the front lines, and if she has something to prove, I'd want her re-assigned to another unit (and I'd do the same thing with a man). Nothing personal, but I wouldn't want my unit's effectiveness (and survival) weakened by someone with a personal issue.


That's so weird...I was just thinking that I'd ask the men the same thing. By the same logic, If a man wants to serve, he can serve in another part of the infantry beside the front lines, and if he has something to prove, I'd want him re-assigned.

So I guess I'm left with an all-female front line, or just no front line at all.


None of which is intended to attack the other prongs of your analysis.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Like you Laila Ali reference Lobo.

To paraphrase the old Lenny Bruce line- "Who would you rather have as your partner in a combat situation, a man or a woman?"

"What if the man is Woody Allen and the woman is Laila Ali?"
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 14:23, critter wrote:
Who here likes cigars?

I like them, but no longer smoke them for health reasons.
My favorites were the Hoyo De Monterey panatella, and the Cuesta Rey 95 Maduro.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
Dreadnought
View Profile
Special user
Athens, Georgia
836 Posts

Profile of Dreadnought
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 19:49, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 19:23, George Ledo wrote:
But the question is "should they join?" and here's where I start thinking in terms of a military unit and its purpose and its mission. First, as a CO, I'd want to know why (or if) she wants to be in the front lines: does she want to serve, or does she have something to prove? If she wants to serve, she can serve in another part of the infantry besides the front lines, and if she has something to prove, I'd want her re-assigned to another unit (and I'd do the same thing with a man). Nothing personal, but I wouldn't want my unit's effectiveness (and survival) weakened by someone with a personal issue.


That's so weird...I was just thinking that I'd ask the men the same thing. By the same logic, If a man wants to serve, he can serve in another part of the infantry beside the front lines, and if he has something to prove, I'd want him re-assigned.

So I guess I'm left with an all-female front line, or just no front line at all.


None of which is intended to attack the other prongs of your analysis.


Regarding the part of your post I put in bold and italics, I think I know what you're saying here, but not sure. I think you are saying that the men have the opportunity to serve elsewhere in the military as opposed to an infantry unit in the front line which I agree with. If you meant they can serve in the infantry but serve elsewhere in the infantry besides the front line, then that place does not exist as even the rear echelon units (the S Shops, Personnel, Intelligence, Plans and Operations and Logistics) of the infantry are still considered the front lines. One may not be actively exchanging gunfire or taking part in hand to hand combat but they are most definitely, at the very least, one mortar round from becoming a grease spot. And if the tide changes, then they could very quickly be actively fighting for their life, which is what all soldiers fight for, no one fights for God, Duty Honor or Country.

As for wanting to prove something, in a way everyone who joins such units have something to prove to themselves, be it pushing themselves to their physical, mental and emotional extremes, or because family tradition. But if a person has something really extreme to prove, such as testing their courage or trying to prove something to someone back home, then yes they should be sent elsewhere. In an airborne drop, the last thing the jump master does is go person to person and ask them if they are scared. If they are not scared, then they don't jump.

Peace and Godspeed.
Peace

"Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum..."

Scott

Would you do anything for the person you love?
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 20:44, Dreadnought wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 19:49, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 19:23, George Ledo wrote:
But the question is "should they join?" and here's where I start thinking in terms of a military unit and its purpose and its mission. First, as a CO, I'd want to know why (or if) she wants to be in the front lines: does she want to serve, or does she have something to prove? If she wants to serve, she can serve in another part of the infantry besides the front lines, and if she has something to prove, I'd want her re-assigned to another unit (and I'd do the same thing with a man). Nothing personal, but I wouldn't want my unit's effectiveness (and survival) weakened by someone with a personal issue.


That's so weird...I was just thinking that I'd ask the men the same thing. By the same logic, If a man wants to serve, he can serve in another part of the infantry beside the front lines, and if he has something to prove, I'd want him re-assigned.

So I guess I'm left with an all-female front line, or just no front line at all.


None of which is intended to attack the other prongs of your analysis.


Regarding the part of your post I put in bold and italics, I think I know what you're saying here, but not sure. I think you are saying that the men have the opportunity to serve elsewhere in the military as opposed to an infantry unit in the front line which I agree with. If you meant they can serve in the infantry but serve elsewhere in the infantry besides the front line, then that place does not exist as even the rear echelon units (the S Shops, Personnel, Intelligence, Plans and Operations and Logistics) of the infantry are still considered the front lines. One may not be actively exchanging gunfire or taking part in hand to hand combat but they are most definitely, at the very least, one mortar round from becoming a grease spot. And if the tide changes, then they could very quickly be actively fighting for their life, which is what all soldiers fight for, no one fights for God, Duty Honor or Country.

As for wanting to prove something, in a way everyone who joins such units have something to prove to themselves, be it pushing themselves to their physical, mental and emotional extremes, or because family tradition. But if a person has something really extreme to prove, such as testing their courage or trying to prove something to someone back home, then yes they should be sent elsewhere. In an airborne drop, the last thing the jump master does is go person to person and ask them if they are scared. If they are not scared, then they don't jump.

Peace and Godspeed.


I'm saying nothing more nor less than what George is saying; he's giving women a Hobson's Choice - if they have something to prove, they're disqualified, and if they don't, then it's no big deal if they're reassigned. You could just as easily give men then same no-win decision.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Dreadnought
View Profile
Special user
Athens, Georgia
836 Posts

Profile of Dreadnought
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 20:01, mastermindreader wrote:
Like you Laila Ali reference Lobo.

To paraphrase the old Lenny Bruce line- "Who would you rather have as your partner in a combat situation, a man or a woman?"

"What if the man is Woody Allen and the woman is Laila Ali?"


I didn't care who the person was, as long as they did their job, pulled their weight and, at times more than their fair share, and got down to the dirty business, I could care less about their gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race or ethnic background.

Peace and Godspeed.
Peace

"Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum..."

Scott

Would you do anything for the person you love?
Dreadnought
View Profile
Special user
Athens, Georgia
836 Posts

Profile of Dreadnought
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 20:49, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[

I'm saying nothing more nor less than what George is saying; he's giving women a Hobson's Choice - if they have something to prove, they're disqualified, and if they don't, then it's no big deal if they're reassigned. You could just as easily give men then same no-win decision.


yep.
Peace

"Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum..."

Scott

Would you do anything for the person you love?
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 20:05, Steve_Mollett wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 14:23, critter wrote:
Who here likes cigars?

I like them, but no longer smoke them for health reasons.
My favorites were the Hoyo De Monterey panatella, and the Cuesta Rey 95 Maduro.


Excellent choices. I don't smoke them often enough to do any serious damage, only when I really need to relax will I bust out a cigar and some good Scotch.
My favorites are Graycliff, Cohiba, and Punch. I'm also a maduro guy. The darker the better.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 20:50, Dreadnought wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 20:01, mastermindreader wrote:
Like you Laila Ali reference Lobo.

To paraphrase the old Lenny Bruce line- "Who would you rather have as your partner in a combat situation, a man or a woman?"

"What if the man is Woody Allen and the woman is Laila Ali?"


I didn't care who the person was, as long as they did their job, pulled their weight and, at times more than their fair share, and got down to the dirty business, I could care less about their gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race or ethnic background.

Peace and Godspeed.


Right on. But, personally, given the options I gave, I'd go with Laila.

Best-

Bob
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 22:04, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 20:50, Dreadnought wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 20:01, mastermindreader wrote:
Like you Laila Ali reference Lobo.

To paraphrase the old Lenny Bruce line- "Who would you rather have as your partner in a combat situation, a man or a woman?"

"What if the man is Woody Allen and the woman is Laila Ali?"


I didn't care who the person was, as long as they did their job, pulled their weight and, at times more than their fair share, and got down to the dirty business, I could care less about their gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race or ethnic background.

Peace and Godspeed.


Right on. But, personally, given the options I gave, I'd go with Laila.

Best-

Bob


Well as long as we get to pick I take Anderson Silva. Now lets have some hand to hand combat. Smile Of course this is just as silly as the Woody Allen senario. We are not playing a game here and choosing sides. Jeeez.

Do you guys stay awake nights thinking up these senarios? Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
George Ledo
View Profile
Magic Café Columnist
SF Bay Area
2909 Posts

Profile of George Ledo
Quote:
I'm saying nothing more nor less than what George is saying; he's giving women a Hobson's Choice - if they have something to prove, they're disqualified, and if they don't, then it's no big deal if they're reassigned. You could just as easily give men then same no-win decision.

Okay, I can see how you may have read that into my comment, so I guess it's my bad I wasn't clear.

It's not a Hobson's Choice. It's just a matter of figuring out why someone wants to be in the front lines. The days of soldiers being cannon fodder are over, at least in our Western society. Things are too complicated nowadays to just send a division of infantry against the other side and watch them break through or not break through. If I were a CO in a combat arms unit, I'd want professionals in the unit, people who understand the real purpose of the military and who want to do their jobs. I would not want John Wayne-wannabees or grown-up bullies or guys on steroids. When the doo-doo hits the fan, these are the first people who will panic, or forget their training, or start doing weird things, and endanger everyone else. That's why I'd find out why they want to be there.

This is not unique to the military. There are cops who want to protect and serve, and there are cops who are just grown-up bullies. There are doctors who want to heal, and there are doctors who want to play God. In my field, there are set designers who want to contribute to presenting a story, and there are prima donnas who just want to create monuments to themselves. And don't even get me started on people in "public service."

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but, for me, in a military scenario, the mission comes first. I want people who understand their purpose and who want to do the job, and who are physically and mentally qualified to do the job. If someone wants to be part of it, but doesn't meet my criteria for front-line duty, I would rather have them serve elsewhere. As someone pointed out above, the back-end people in an infantry unit could end up in the front end at a moment's notice, which is why I'd want everyone trained -- equally -- to do the front-end job. But that training is exactly where some (men and women) would fall by the wayside.

And that's the way I'd want it.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net

Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here"
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 23:05, George Ledo wrote:
Quote:
I'm saying nothing more nor less than what George is saying; he's giving women a Hobson's Choice - if they have something to prove, they're disqualified, and if they don't, then it's no big deal if they're reassigned. You could just as easily give men then same no-win decision.

Okay, I can see how you may have read that into my comment, so I guess it's my bad I wasn't clear.

It's not a Hobson's Choice. It's just a matter of figuring out why someone wants to be in the front lines. The days of soldiers being cannon fodder are over, at least in our Western society. Things are too complicated nowadays to just send a division of infantry against the other side and watch them break through or not break through. If I were a CO in a combat arms unit, I'd want professionals in the unit, people who understand the real purpose of the military and who want to do their jobs. I would not want John Wayne-wannabees or grown-up bullies or guys on steroids. When the doo-doo hits the fan, these are the first people who will panic, or forget their training, or start doing weird things, and endanger everyone else. That's why I'd find out why they want to be there.

This is not unique to the military. There are cops who want to protect and serve, and there are cops who are just grown-up bullies. There are doctors who want to heal, and there are doctors who want to play God. In my field, there are set designers who want to contribute to presenting a story, and there are prima donnas who just want to create monuments to themselves. And don't even get me started on people in "public service."

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but, for me, in a military scenario, the mission comes first. I want people who understand their purpose and who want to do the job, and who are physically and mentally qualified to do the job. If someone wants to be part of it, but doesn't meet my criteria for front-line duty, I would rather have them serve elsewhere. As someone pointed out above, the back-end people in an infantry unit could end up in the front end at a moment's notice, which is why I'd want everyone trained -- equally -- to do the front-end job. But that training is exactly where some (men and women) would fall by the wayside.

And that's the way I'd want it.


How is it not a Hobson's choice if whatever answer they give is going to be used to get them off the front line?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 23:05, George Ledo wrote:
Quote:
I'm saying nothing more nor less than what George is saying; he's giving women a Hobson's Choice - if they have something to prove, they're disqualified, and if they don't, then it's no big deal if they're reassigned. You could just as easily give men then same no-win decision.

Okay, I can see how you may have read that into my comment, so I guess it's my bad I wasn't clear.

It's not a Hobson's Choice. It's just a matter of figuring out why someone wants to be in the front lines. The days of soldiers being cannon fodder are over, at least in our Western society. Things are too complicated nowadays to just send a division of infantry against the other side and watch them break through or not break through. If I were a CO in a combat arms unit, I'd want professionals in the unit, people who understand the real purpose of the military and who want to do their jobs. I would not want John Wayne-wannabees or grown-up bullies or guys on steroids. When the doo-doo hits the fan, these are the first people who will panic, or forget their training, or start doing weird things, and endanger everyone else. That's why I'd find out why they want to be there.

This is not unique to the military. There are cops who want to protect and serve, and there are cops who are just grown-up bullies. There are doctors who want to heal, and there are doctors who want to play God. In my field, there are set designers who want to contribute to presenting a story, and there are prima donnas who just want to create monuments to themselves. And don't even get me started on people in "public service."

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but, for me, in a military scenario, the mission comes first. I want people who understand their purpose and who want to do the job, and who are physically and mentally qualified to do the job. If someone wants to be part of it, but doesn't meet my criteria for front-line duty, I would rather have them serve elsewhere. As someone pointed out above, the back-end people in an infantry unit could end up in the front end at a moment's notice, which is why I'd want everyone trained -- equally -- to do the front-end job. But that training is exactly where some (men and women) would fall by the wayside.

And that's the way I'd want it.


Obviously training is important. However it has been stated here as an example that women fire fighters do not have as stringent a course to pass as their male counterparts.

A lot of this discussion is not just about training but about the ability to perform certain tasks under extremely adverse conditions after said training. How about something like a combat situation. Carrying or dragging a wounded comrade that weighs say 160 to 180 lbs a quater mile while also keeping your weapon with you. Can most females do this in ideal conditions much less under adverse conditions such as in a jungle location with all sorts of distractions such as snakes, bugs and almost forgot to mention people who want to kill you? Not only do they need the strength but they need the stamina and mental attitude to survive in this kind of situation.

I can't see how any of you can sit there in front of your computers and honetly feel that a female is an equal on the battle front. Of course on further thought maybe I can, because that is what you are doing sitting in front of your computer and also never had to face the extremes of staying alive in a very hostile enviornment with the exception of "Call of Duty". Smile

While all receive the training that does not make them a canadiate for serving on the front lines whether they are male or female. However I really have to feel you have to go with the odds in this situation and it is overwhelming in favor of a male coming out on top (no pun intended). Smile

You need the best tool for the job and in this instance the odds are overwhelming in favor of the male. This probably like most discussions here can go on forever and nothing anyone says will sway either camp. So believe what you want. If you feel females are just as competent as males in combat good for you believe it and be happy. I just hope you never have to put your belief to the test.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
George Ledo
View Profile
Magic Café Columnist
SF Bay Area
2909 Posts

Profile of George Ledo
Okay, got it. Smile

If someone said to me, "I want to be out there because I'm the meanest SOB that ever came down the path," I'd start wondering if they (he or she) could follow orders - especially when the poop hits the fan. Just like in a sports team: can he or she be part of the team and help the team instead of doing it for himself at the expense of the team?

Now that you're making me think about it, maybe that's my bottom line: can this person be part of a team where everyone's life is on the line and where they all depend on each other?

If I feel he or she can (mentally and physically) be on the front line, I'll give them a chance; if not, I'd rather find a place where they can help without compromising the mission and putting other people's lives in danger.

Eisenhower and his staff did this repeatedly during WWII, both in Africa and Europe. They assigned and reassigned generals to specific commands according to their skills and abilities and temperaments. Patton was brilliant in the field, but Ike felt he couldn't stay out of trouble long enough to command a larger unit, so he was kept where he could be the most effective. Patton wans't happy about it, but he did his job and did it very well.

Am I clearer now?
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net

Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here"
George Ledo
View Profile
Magic Café Columnist
SF Bay Area
2909 Posts

Profile of George Ledo
Quote:
On 2012-07-18 23:42, acesover wrote:
Obviously training is important. However it has been stated here as an example that women fire fighters do not have as stringent a course to pass as their male counterparts.

A lot of this discussion is not just about training but about the ability to perform certain tasks under extremely adverse conditions after said training.

While all receive the training that does not make them a canadiate for serving on the front lines whether they are male or female. However I really have to feel you have to go with the odds in this situation and it is overwhelming in favor of a male coming out on top (no pun intended). Smile

No argument there, and that's why I said they would all train equally. I have to believe that, under "realistic" close combat training, the less physically able people would fall by the wayside, and, like it or not, in reality that would probably include most of the female soldiers. I would not want to have my unit fail a mission (or get decimated) because some of the team could not meet the physical or mental demands of the job. Yes it happens, but I would feel it extremely important to go out there ready, not just politically correct. Smile
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net

Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here"
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Interesting Poll: Should women join the infantry (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7~8~9~10~11..16~17~18 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.34 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL