Co-Ed Combat
This woman really aced the grenade toss exercise. (In the spirit of putting it all out there: In ability to throw, I suck slightly more than she does.)
Wayne State law prof Kingsley Browne on co-ed combat -- why it will mean more dead men.
Let me just try to stem the tide of stupidity that attends this topic by pointing out something obvious:
If the genders were truly equal, then the NFL and MLB would have women on the field in direct competition, and the NBA would fold the WNBA in. NASCAR, Formula 1 and MotoGP would have multiple women in front-running positions.
They don't. They are not going to. I say this even as I know I can't fly like Patty Wagstaff or ride a motorcycle as well or fast as Elena Myers or Melissa Paris.
You can make all the noises you want to about "technology blahblahblahblah...", but there is nothing remotely technological about occupying enemy territory.
I know it's not enough for some women that they actually give birth - that they must do everything, but this idea is addle-pated at best. Let us admire what each of us does best and keep standards high. Please.
Radwaste at December 20, 2014 11:01 PM
Is it terrible that I laughed?
Lizzie at December 21, 2014 4:12 AM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko
See also
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Yegorovna_Shanina
The issue is not that most women, and quite a few men cant do it.
It is, that there are some women who can.
My daughter can throw a baseball from home plate to a center fielder with no bounces. She can also hit a tennis serve over a hundred miles an hour.
She wouldn't want to be in the combat arms, but she is stronger, faster, and better suited than quite a few men who end up there.
Isab at December 21, 2014 6:20 AM
But see Kingsley's thinking on why it's a mistake to have women in combat. Click -- really click on the link!
And Lizzie, I laughed, too.
Especially noticing somebody else who throws like I do.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2014 6:43 AM
But see Kingsley's thinking on why it's a mistake to have women in combat. Click -- really click on the link!
I am not generally in favor of women in the infantry, for social reasons.
There are many reasons not to have women in combat, but the 20 percent less muscle mass is one of the worst ones.
Throwing is a learned skill. I used to be rather good at it 40 years ago, but am not anymore.
Combat these days consists mostly of riding around in armored vehicles, with occasional but rare firefights. Actually throwing grenades was not useful much after World War II because a grenade launcher is so much better than a human arm.
A woman who can shoot well has as much or more to contribute than the man who can lift, or throw 20 percent better (on average)
Make your case, but don't do it with strawman arguments.
Isab at December 21, 2014 7:13 AM
Isab, would my guess that you've never served in the armed forces at all, let alone in a ground combat MOS, be that far off?
(Here's a hint-- a grenade launcher has a min-safe distance further than you can throw a frag. The fact that you threw that out as a substitute was really just confirmation that you're speaking from "wouldn't it be nice" vs actually knowing what you're about).
Perhaps you should do some reading. I could suggest starting with Capt Katie Petronio's article on the subject since I get the feeling you'll write off anything written by a man, but LTC Tom Kratman really has the most in-depth writings on why it's a horrible idea. Really what it comes down to is "at the end of the day, it matters far less what your daughter could do, than it matters that introducing women to an all male field may do harm, and the population of women with the physicality to be an asset is so small that any good that may be gained by having them is inconsequential, while the downside is huge."
Former active duty, current reserve Marine combat support MOS officer. Commanded both all-male and mixed units.
Paul at December 21, 2014 7:30 AM
"Combat these days consists mostly of riding around in armored vehicles"
Wrong. I suggest you talk to an infantryman that has been to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Bill O Rights at December 21, 2014 7:35 AM
"Isab, would my guess that you've never served in the armed forces at all, let alone in a ground combat MOS, be that far off?"
Seven years as an officer in the Field Artillery.
But that has very little to do with my arguments.
Combat has to a large extent been mechanized, but in a desperate situation, everyone fights, even that 40 year old male Colonel who lost his ability to outrun and out lift that 18 year old woman private ten years ago.
You had better hope that he, and everyone else in the unit, has a few more combat skills than just the ability to do ten chin ups.
Also for the same social reasons that women don't belong in an infantry unit, gay males, should also be excluded.
So if you want to go down that line of reasoning, and also include an IQ score cut off of 115 and above for officers, I would be happy to support you.
Isab at December 21, 2014 7:58 AM
(Here's a hint-- a grenade launcher has a min-safe distance further than you can throw a frag. The fact that you threw that out as a substitute was really just confirmation that you're speaking from "wouldn't it be nice" vs actually knowing what you're about).
I've thrown a grenade before. Also saw a guy killed by one. Training accident.
I have also fired just about every weapon in the inventory 30 years ago.
Care to have a friendly little match with a 1911, or an M9 Beretta?
Fifty yards one handed, in my preferred distance, and style, but I will let you cheat with two hands if you cant hack it.
Isab at December 21, 2014 8:09 AM
Fifty yard pistol shooting is about as relevant to combat marksmanship and practical as off-hand masturbation, but it wouldn't be a walk off for you. Especially if I can use my own 1911 instead of a Beretta.
The requirements for commissioning do amount to a practical IQ cutoff for officers in more or less that neighborhood, if you think about it. Service academy grads (not me) are going to be there (by and large, with some getting in to play sports but still smarter than your typical d1 college athlete) by virtue of having gotten into some of the most selective colleges in the country.
As for the rest, IIRC The Bell Curve said that the average for people with a bachelors degree was 115 or so. Factor in GPA requirements to earn a ROTC scholarship/slot to OCS/commission (even during wartime, higher than just to graduate, and during peacetime much higher) and I don't think it's much of a reach to say the vast majority of today's officers are at or beyond 115.
And the difference between gay males and females, when it comes to unit social dynamics, is competition. I had one openly gay Marine that I knew of. He was a squared away LCpl and never caused a problem. If the gay Marine doesn't make his sexuality a social issue, it isn't one (the gay marine becomes a problem if his behavior is making the others uncomfortable. If it isn't its easy to think of him as one of the guys and ignore what he does on the weekends).
On the other hand, the presence of women who are or even might be sexually "in play" for the bulk of the unit, is going to create competitive tension between (some number less than 'all' but greater than 0) males present aren't invested in monogamous relationships of their own. For the mission I had, I needed to have at least one. With attention from my Plt Sgt, we avoided issues. But day-to-day things would have gone smoother with 0.
Paul at December 21, 2014 8:33 AM
Combat these days consists mostly of riding around in armored vehicles, with occasional but rare firefights
Ummm...no. Many times it consists of humping an 80 pound pack up the side of mountain, then getting into a firefight with the Taliban that lasts the better part of three days.
No potty breaks, no meal breaks. If you're lucky, you can wolf down a cold MRE.
Of course, you can spend those three days going house to house, close quarter, no quarter given, fighting as was done in Fallujah.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 21, 2014 10:24 AM
>> "Isab, would my guess that you've
>> never served in the armed forces
>> at all, let alone in a ground
>> combat MOS, be that far off?"
> Seven years as an officer in the
> Field Artillery.
OK, Isab wins the 2014 Amy Award for Best Slapback to the Heart of a Topic.
Ceremony is February 15 in the Bonaventure. Formalwear is preferred, but you don't have to go nuts on the jewelry. Isab, you can have a speech ready or just wing it, because we'll be required to patiently listen to whatever you want to say. Those are the rules. (Amy herself is pulling the menus together this year... I pretty sure she's going to go with salmon.)
You're not invited, Paul.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 10:50 AM
Damn, Crid, I can't eat salmon. Can you have the kitchen staff make me a peanut buttah sandwich?
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at December 21, 2014 11:18 AM
Dammit Daddy, we shouldn't have to go through this again... I remember the Amys at the MGM in Vegas back in '09, when you threw a hissy fit about the overcooked lamb chops. Amy herself was at the podium awarding the prestigious Singh Trophy for Best Waist-to-Hip Ratio to Gail, and everybody was looking back at the ballroom doors because of the commotion out in the lobby. Almost ruined the moment.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 11:41 AM
Crud, I'm giving Isab the "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog" benefit of the doubt because it frankly isn't worth my time to verify one way or the other.
I still find it somewhat suspect that I've run into the one combat arms officer I've ever met who was an advocate for adding women to the mix, on an anonymous Internet forum, and that said individual is so far out of touch with the tactical reality of today that I could initially take him for an uninformed civilian.
That said, it is entirely possible that he did his time and got out, and is merely extremely out of touch with a profession he left long ago. The "vehicles" thing wouldn't have necessarily been laughable 5 years ago in Iraq, but it certainly is for infantry in afghan. So "benefit of the doubt".
Paul at December 21, 2014 12:40 PM
We're fascinate by your reasoning!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 1:08 PM
> Seven years as an officer in the
> Field Artillery.
Boom!
Not really. But boom is the thing artillery does. Upfront (myself being 11B40), is the infantry. The thing the artillery supports. Isab (she's a she Paul) doesn't seem to know much about close combat.
Can you tell us about your CIB Isab. Oh, that's right, you don't have one.
Dave B at December 21, 2014 1:09 PM
I mean, not really, but it's impressive that you're still twitching... Especially when you describe your time as so dear.
I didn't read the whole thread carefully or anything. You talk a lot about reading things. Have we established that you have any practical experience in the military? Afghanistan is all about warlords, warlords are all about command of stretches of roads, and that means "vehicles."
Even without quotation marks.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 1:13 PM
Knowledgeable people can disagree, but one thing's for sure: The lady in the video is not Isab's daughter.
Lizzie at December 21, 2014 1:31 PM
If I may go onto a tangent...
As soon as I saw the first post, it reminded me of a 2013 book that was written by - surprise - Charles Murray.
It's Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.
What reminded me of it was this: At one point (I can't find the exact question right now) he had a quiz as to how thick the reader's "class bubble" is. One question was something like: "Have you ever been close friends with someone who could never make more than Cs in high school, regardless of effort?"
(One assumes, of course, that only college-educated types - or highly read people - would be reading a Charles Murray book in the first place.)
Anyway, I thought that when it comes to one's friends as adults, that's not the most fair question, since being CLOSE friends with someone whose IQ is about 30 points below yours is sort of like co-ed sports - it just doesn't happen after a certain age. Much in the same way that preteens don't want to play with kids 5 years younger - and adults tend to want to be with other adults far more often than they want to hang out with children.
lenona at December 21, 2014 1:42 PM
What relevant insights about this topic come from wearing a CIB?
If CIBs come from being taught, specifically, all the reasons why a woman shouldn't wear one, then they aren't going to he much use to people preparing for war.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 2:54 PM
"What relevant insights about this topic come from wearing a CIB?"
Uh, because the subject is about co-ed combat? Or maybe I should defer to a pointy head officer. I am not as smart as most, but I've been in combat. Women do not belong in the infantry. Once you've been there you seem to know that; others get it. Some want to talk about their daughter's ability to throw something or their ability to shoot a 1911 at a target. Combat is different, you'd think people would know that.
Isab said "Actually throwing grenades was not useful much after World War II because a grenade launcher is so much better than a human arm." One of those things a combat veteran would never say.
"If CIBs come from being taught" - no Crid, they don't. Not the subject. Male of female has no impact on who can earn a CIB.
Dave B at December 21, 2014 3:44 PM
No one should be allowed in combat who is unable to throw a hand grenade farther than the radius of the explosion.
Ken R at December 21, 2014 3:51 PM
Can you tell us about your CIB Isab. Oh, that's right, you don't have one.
Posted by: Dave B at December 21, 2014 1:09 PM
You are correct. I don't. I was a Recon and Survey officer.
And my father, a bronze star winner in the South Pacific, didn't have one either. :-)
Somehow being an Aircraft armorer in the 13th Air force didn't save him from combat.
However, I would be more than happy to test at least my shooting skills against yours with the military issue sidearm of your choice.
Please don't forget that I am almost 60 years old at this point in time, and if you can beat me with a 1911 or an M9 feel free to show up at Camp Perry next July, and give it a go, in the President's 100.
Being a fair person, I will happily buy you dinner in Port Clinton if you win.
And Paul, I think you must have a reading comprehension problem. Common in Marines. ( Although in general I like Marines. They pay more attention to marksmanship and weapons skills than the Army does.)
I never said I was in favor of women in ground combat.
All I said, was a 20 percent average differential in physical strength was not a good enough "sole" reason to exclude them especially for high skill occupations like sniper, where Russian women have a long track record of successful military service.
My hypothesis, which I can provide a lot of evidence for, is that stupidly and poor decisions on the battlefield cost far more lives than a simple issue like physical strength.
This is why the FA went to mechanized, computerized artillery pieces. The Army no longer needs big dumb guys with an IQ of 70 to load those rounds into Howitzers. They need smart guys who can fix the vehicles, and the on board computer targeting systems.
If you know anything about Venn diagrams you will be able to understand that there is subset of women who are both stronger and more fit than the average man,
And if you want to exclude women on the social/sexual aspects, you should, on the same grounds, be excluding openly gay men.
On legal grounds, I am hard pressed to figure out how it is going to be possible to exclude qualified women from the ground combat arms and at the same time, allow openly gay men. All sorts of thorny constitutional issues.
The same ones, by the way, that brought down racial segregation in the Armed Forces.
The same *social arguments * that Amy linked to were made against racial integration of the military. Read your history.
Ugly ugly implications there for all you libertarian types.
Isab at December 21, 2014 3:52 PM
"However, I would be more than happy to test at least my shooting skills against yours with the military issue sidearm of your choice."
Well, young Isab, that right there is a problem. I am talking about killing skills and dear lady is talking about shooting skills.
Dave B at December 21, 2014 4:05 PM
> Uh, because the subject is about
> co-ed combat?
Yes, exactly. Because the subject is co-ed combat, I'm asking what insights come from having the CIB.
Look, no one's excused from making their arguments just because they have badges, diplomas or trophies. If you've been thinking about this as much as your achievement would suggest, you ought to do real well with this.
Telling other people that they don't know enough isn't persuasive... Not for brain surgeons, soldiers, politicians or flirts in bars.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 4:35 PM
> being CLOSE friends with someone
> whose IQ is about 30 points below
> yours is sort of like co-ed sports
> - it just doesn't happen after a
> certain age.
Perhaps it should. Perhaps the worst force in the culture is the ever-expanding(!) fraction of our population that wants to make social distance from those they regard, or want to regard, as stoo- pit.
…Because they always seem to want to spend someone else's money to make that distance happen.
DrCos is a convenient example: "Faux News"... NudgeNudge WinkWink! Get it?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 4:54 PM
"Yes, exactly. Because the subject is co-ed combat, I'm asking what insights come from having the CIB."
Uh, killing? Not sure what your point is Crid. Not that that's unusual.
"Telling other people that they don't know enough isn't persuasive"
Did I do that?
Dave B at December 21, 2014 4:55 PM
> (One assumes, of course, that only
> college-educated types - or highly
> read people - would be reading a
> Charles Murray book in the first
> place.)
By no means "of course": I've always felt the truly bright and well-read make no room for him at all.
Also, Gould harshed him pretty deeply.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 4:59 PM
> Uh, killing?
What about it?
> Not sure what your point is
And I don't know what your argument is, other than that you have a CIB.
> Did I do that?
Pending delivery of other rhetoric, yes.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 5:02 PM
"Isab (she's a she Paul) doesn't seem to know much about close combat." I said that Crid in my first comment on this thread. It came as my reaction to Isab's earlier comments and others response. Also, to your BOOM. Your ignorance of combat, and your ignoring Isab's ignorant statements is enlightening. Do you want me to repeat what everyone pointed out to her.
Isab has her reasons for saying she doesn't like women in combat. Why does she attack others for saying their reasons? She obviously doesn't think their reasons are important or as valid as hers.
Crid, she says "The issue is not that most women, and quite a few men cant do it.
It is, that there are some women who can."
I don't give a fuck that some women can. Combat, as the others have pointed out is different from can. Isab shoots targets, and very well she says. So fucking what. Her daughter throws a baseball. So fucking what.
Crid, you said "Telling other people that they don't know enough isn't persuasive." I asked you if I did that and you said yes. Care to give an example so I can see what you see?
Dave B at December 21, 2014 5:27 PM
You (Dave B) haven't provided any actual reasons. You just keep repeating that she (we?) doesn't understand close combat and that women don't belong there, but you haven't said why. Enlighten us.
Lizzie at December 21, 2014 5:36 PM
While there are a few women who would do well fighting; there are few men who wouldn't have their "instinct" kick in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULlJEgvnIu8
The guys in this link at the movie theater shooting were NOT trained to protect the women by their sides. They just instinctively did so.
In a combat situation can we really be sure that their instinct to protect women by their side wouldn't cause more harm than good?
Will the military have to spend more time and effort to get this instinct trained out? Would it really be worth it? To what end? Just so we can claim that our military is gender blind - that hardly seems worth the extra risk.
charles at December 21, 2014 5:38 PM
Let me try this Lizzie. http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/01/25/more_on_why_co-.html
Read the fuckin link. Am I supposed to repeat it? I thought that is what we were taking about?
Amy even said it at 6:43am - But see Kingsley's thinking on why it's a mistake to have women in combat. Click -- really click on the link!
Dave B at December 21, 2014 6:11 PM
I already read the link. I was asking for your insight based on your experience. My mistake.
Lizzie at December 21, 2014 6:17 PM
"I was asking for your insight based on your experience."
The way of the world (gave to Crid awhile back).
Men from cave number one, leave their women at the cave, go and kill all the men and ugly women, in cave number two. They return to cave number one with the good looking women.
It is in our genes.
As I said at 3:44pm "Uh, because the subject is about co-ed combat? Or maybe I should defer to a pointy head officer. I am not as smart as most, but I've been in combat. Women do not belong in the infantry. Once you've been there you seem to know that; others get it. Some want to talk about their daughter's ability to throw something or their ability to shoot a 1911 at a target. Combat is different, you'd think people would know that."
Dave B at December 21, 2014 6:28 PM
Exactly how is it different? Don't bother responding to me. You've avoided answering the question umpteen times, and I'm no longer interested in your answer.
Lizzie at December 21, 2014 6:34 PM
"Exactly how is it different?"
Really? You really asked that?
In the one case, the target shoots back.
I'm surprised I have to explain such things. It doesn't require boasting about one's qualifications, achievements or history (especially when it doesn't seem to support anything my reservist buddies at work say after their tours in Afghanistan). It's obvious.
Again: there is nothing remotely technological about occupying enemy territory. Nobody's mentioned something found in the Middle East, either: women have to be rotated out of forward positions for hygiene reasons. Where water is so scarce it is a commodity, the lack forces this for physical, not social reasons.
-------------------------
I note the requirement for technical skills pushing the academic qualifications to enter military service upwards, and also note that this has always been the case. An acceptable pilot in WW1 simply may not have the wits to manage an F-22; wars will always be entered by the old and fought by the young. Lately, Americans have it so good they can just put a little ribbon on their car and think they have actually done something good - as they drive to a polling place and elect someone as a popularity contest. How's that working out for ya?
Radwaste at December 21, 2014 7:16 PM
Well I'm appalled by that friggin throw. The thing Isab said that I agree with is - throwing is a learned thing. That girl obviously never played any throwing sport in her life. What genius gave her a live grenade without first putting a dead one in her hand and seeing how that went? I mean, that was pretty friggin ridiculous right there. That's why you shouldn't mix up the men and women in combat. Big-eyed officer trying to impress the cute girl made a stupid decision to let her throw a grenade and bout got them all killed. That's the whole case in point right there.
gooseegg at December 21, 2014 7:21 PM
Back to the link:
I hope the instructors were a) chastised for not testing this woman with an inert round first, before handing her the real thing; b) not forced by policy to hand her the live round; c) not forced to declare her "qualified" for some position because of quotas. I cannot believe the abject stupidity of "throwing" a grenade as if it were a toy for the cat. The woman is already a danger to herself and others simply because of her inability to recognize how she could be killed by her own actions. The dumbest kid on my block, back in the day playing "Army", knew what explosives do - we watched documentaries, not Hollywood crap. Even Call of Duty would have given her a hint.
If she was in the US Navy, she could get pregnant if she learned that she was being assigned an unpleasant tour, and be a single mother on the taxpayer's dime. Then, a male sailor would be pulled from the shore duty he had earned already and sent to sea again in her place. (I hope this policy has been changed.)
Radwaste at December 21, 2014 7:28 PM
☑ gooseegg at December 21, 2014 7:21 PM
> Care to give an example so I can
> see what you see?
#1:
> Uh, because the subject is about
> co-ed combat?
#2:
> Uh, killing?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 7:31 PM
Moar- I done been thankin' about it while pretending to do chores:
> I don't give a fuck that some
> women can.
Well, what fuck is there to give? I mean, look at what Isab is saying here. She's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong... And actually, she's welcome to correct me if I'm not, too. But the thesis she wants to share —for those of you with military experience, and for those of us without any— seems to go like this:
That rhetoric doesn't seem any too outlandish. Those aren't the words of a tie-dyed/dope-smoking hippie, or of an academically-coddled feminist.A political culture and senior military leadership which took Isab's position as a baseline would no doubt lead our armed forces in a direction you'd find more agreeable than the place we're actually headed... And I bet Amy's academic friend would concur.
When someone's offering to substantiate a position like that, we're free to disregard them or to plainly disagree. Grunts of 'uh, sarcasm' aren't instructive.
I won't post the links again unless you beg pretty-please, but I've cited videos from authors and speakers about the direction of American military power in the years ahead. Two themes in particular make these comments seem silly.
First— If the American military can correctly adapt for its place in the world, most of its overseas personnel are going to be doing things other than killing. That's going happen whether we like it or not.
(One of the obnoxious examples of this in 2014 was the presumption —by our civilian government, by too many taxpayers and by goofballs in dozens of other nations— that our soldiers could and should be deployed to contain Ebola in Africa.)
Yet that's the future. And it describes our success in world affairs, not our failure. American servicemen will be serving in mainland China, perhaps in our lifetimes... But they'll probably be assisting a desperately resource-poor nation in which two-thirds of the population lives on a flood plain.
No one —no government, and no private force— is even trying to build a military to countermand the United States.
For many of the chores assigned to the military, duty will from now on be logistical and administrative... Older and more feminine. It would be great if we were ready for that future. Even if we aren't, there are things to worry about besides combat.
Second— For all her clumsiness and atrocities, no nation has ever done as much for people around the world as has the United States. Our overwhelming military power was a big part of that blessing.
But the last 15 years have seen Americans lose interest in aggressive participation in world affairs. Most people don't want to lose even one drop of blood to defend anyone else, no matter how great their need.
I think that means the fantastic expansion of wealth and safety that's happened across the globe in my lifetime might be coming to an end.
But it certainly means that you shouldn't worry too much about women on the battlefield, because we're not going to be prepared for any kind of fighting anyway.
Links upon request.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 10:38 PM
Not kidding: I stole every word of that from guys who actually know what they're talking about.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 11:30 PM
"but I've cited videos from authors and speakers about the direction of American military power in the years ahead. Two themes in particular make these comments seem silly."
I watched hours of your links which sucks when you pay for time on the internet. I commented that I even had a come to Jesus moments with some of things he said about China. In my lifetime, and I'm older than Isab who is older than Crid, many very smart people have said things were going to happen and of course we should listen and take heed. Of course they didn't happen. We are running out of oil. Global cooling. Global warming. Climate change. Aids will kill us all, not just gays. We running out of water. Japan will buy America. China will buy America. Smog will kill Los Angeles. The list goes on and on.
Crid, you say your themes make these comments silly. Bullshit. They are projections. All anyone can say is their viewpoint of future. No one knows for sure.
You want to defend Isab with your usual flair and style. Good for you. It may be your nature to defend a woman against those that point out her foolishness. It's the man in you.
But why don't you just go back to Isab's initial post at 6:20am and read it for maybe the first time. Then read, maybe for the first time, Amy's linked article from Prof. Browne. You'll note that Browne's point wasn't about women not being able to do combat. Isab brings her issue that "The issue is not that most women, and quite a few men cant do it. It is, that there are some women who can." Not what Browne was saying about co-ed combat. She brings a new issue - her issue. Dude, combat is about killing and being killed. Those of us that have combat experience know this. It is not about shooting targets or ability at throwing anything. And Crid, her statement that " Actually throwing grenades was not useful much after World War II because a grenade launcher is so much better than a human arm." is about as dumb as it gets as others also pointed out.
"Well, what fuck is there to give?" Lives dipshit. Women do not belong in combat. That's the comment you find silly.
Dave B at December 21, 2014 11:43 PM
"Not kidding: I stole every word of that from guys who actually know what they're talking about."
Were they High Priests or just regular priests. Are they also infallible like the Pope so we can take their word as gospel. How do they know the new way of the world? Do they do it with chicken bones or do they have some new fangled way to see the future?
Dave B at December 21, 2014 11:48 PM
Worry about that: Twitch in your chair with spasms of congestive rage when distant strangers don't instantly fall to silence when you describe your beliefs about women in combat. Allow no adjacent contexts for the discussion. Impugn the motives of others... And no matter what happens, remember that guttural sarcasm betokens virtue of the purest cane.
Later, we'll all be dead.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 11:55 PM
"Worry about that: Twitch in your chair with spasms of congestive rage when distant strangers don't instantly fall to silence when you describe your beliefs about women in combat. Allow no adjacent contexts for the discussion. Impugn the motives of others... And no matter what happens, remember that guttural sarcasm betokens virtue of the purest cane.
Later, we'll all be dead."
Well, I've never! Such rhetoric!
Dave B at December 22, 2014 12:01 AM
"Really? You really asked that?"
Yeah! Finally, somebody understands English!
"In one case, the target shoots back."
Okay. But when the female soldier in question is an expert marksman (marksperson?) like Isab, why doesn't that give her an advantage?
"It's obvious."
So some of you keep saying, and indeed it may be to you. I know virtually nothing about combat. But for being so obvious, the same some of you are curiously reluctant to provide concrete, detailed examples to back up your position. "Combat is different" is a non-answer. And a conversation where I have to drag syllables out of people one at a time quickly loses its appeal.
Lizzie at December 22, 2014 2:30 AM
"Okay. But when the female soldier in question is an expert marksman (marksperson?) like Isab, why doesn't that give her an advantage?"
Nice shift of the goalpost.
One more time: the target shoots back. You should know that SEALs get killed in this manner. "an advantage" does not mean she wins.
Radwaste at December 22, 2014 2:50 AM
> "an advantage" does not mean
> she wins.
Whence then this preference for masculinity?
Does it 'win'?
Only half the time, says Keegan.
Ya gotta think big: Half the human excellence is female. We can quibble about individual contexts, but only about those, and not forever… The culture that can exploit half-again more brilliance (and yes, viciousness) won't be defeated.
If women made better drone pilots, what would you want to happen?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 22, 2014 3:07 AM
"Th target shoots back"
Got it. So why is a male less likely than a female to be hit by the target shooting back?
Lizzie at December 22, 2014 3:29 AM
I don't comprehend any of this conversation.
Ppen at December 22, 2014 5:39 AM
That makes two of us.
Lizzie at December 22, 2014 6:51 AM
Since when is piloting a drone combat?
Crid: let skilled positions go to the skilled. Let jobs requiring endurance go to those demonstrating endurance. Do not forget that it is not only the forces you intend to engage in combat that are shot at.
Meanwhile, patrols occur on foot, carrying ammunition, supplies and armor. Pick somebody tough. What do they look like?
If you want women to come home in body bags, you are going to get your wish.
Radwaste at December 22, 2014 7:16 AM
The notion that the ACLU lady (another guest on AirTalk) put forward -- that the "Band of Brother" will just have to deal (as if they can retool their psychology to not compete for the lone woman in the group) -- is just silly. Real life doesn't work that way.
The real life reason -- that's why women were taken out of the combat forces in 1948 -- "Men overreact to the dangers to their female comrades ... in order to protect them."
You can legislate that women be thought of as men with boobs, but there's really no way to insert a module into human psychology to get everybody to start thinking and behaving that way.
Wayne State law prof Kingsley Browne on co-ed combat -- why it will mean more dead men.
Too sciency I guess.
Dave B at December 22, 2014 7:41 AM
The first hard cover book I ever read was in my pre-teens. It was called "Brave Men" by Ernie Pyle.
Doncha just hear the whine - "But women are brave too."
Dave B at December 22, 2014 7:49 AM
Apparently a lot of Kurdish women are starting to fight, because the ISIS folk believe that you don't go to heaven if you're killed by a woman. This adds a level of fear.
I am sure there are some situations in which having women serve could be very useful, so I don't think the possibility should be ruled out.
On another note, one thing we all like to think about is whether women should also be subject to the draft. Here in Switzerland, military service is mandatory for men but not for women, which seems unfair. The men complain about having to take time off from jobs to serve, and how it makes their careers take a hit, and how it is unfair that women don't have to do that.
I say, yeah, but, when those women have kids they are going to take time off and their careers would take a hit. If they also have to do military service, their careers will either be VERY hit, or they won't have kids, and we don't need birth rates to plummet.
Yes but, one could reply, not all women have kids. I guess the only thing to do at that point would say that women who've reached 50 without having kids or done service would have to do something? Seems a bit cruel to all the women who tried and failed to have a kid.
I dunno, like abortion, this is one of those areas where true 100% the same equality isn't possible.
NicoleK at December 22, 2014 7:57 AM
"Apparently a lot of Kurdish women are starting to fight, because the ISIS folk believe that you don't go to heaven if you're killed by a woman. This adds a level of fear."
http://www.vox.com/cards/isis-myths-iraq/isis-female-soldiers
I going to my room now for a time out. I just linked to Vox and need to be punished.
Dave B at December 22, 2014 8:07 AM
"I am sure there are some situations in which having women serve could be very useful, so I don't think the possibility should be ruled out."
Well dear, we are just talking about combat here. I know, off to my room now.
Dave B at December 22, 2014 8:10 AM
> That makes two of us.
You should take it from the top. This one's wonderfully comprehensible:
You know how sometimes, unremarkable lefties will talk about some lesser social issue (like free sample-sized Cafe Mocha's for gay-marriage anniversary celebrants at Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, the same one straights enjoy), and they'll take a theatrically petulent 'stand' requiring no courage/at zero cost ('I'm never going to drive MY Prius onto THEIR parking lot again!), and then they expect to be admired like Rosa Parks in Montgomery, or like Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of the church?
This is like that. These guys know exactly what fight they want to have, and they're going to have it with you whether you offer it or not, because they want to feel exactly the same things their grandfathers felt when they made they argument in earlier generations, back when it might have meant something.
Timecheck: 2014. Topic: Women in combat. AAAnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd:
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 22, 2014 8:29 AM
"We" are talking about whatever we want. The overfocus afflicts only certain visitors....
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 22, 2014 8:43 AM
> Since when is piloting a
> drone combat?
For hundreds if not thousands of people around the globe, their families and passersby, your correct answer would be "Since the day that Chicago motherfucker with a Peace Prize put my name on his kill list."
You can bet that those people, and their surrounding neighbors who've seen their national borders violated without notice or recourse, regard it as "combat."
> Meanwhile, patrols occur on foot
You keep saying that… You keep reducing the view to this one little context and screeching 'No girls!' But events decline to be confined within your fascinations.
Maybe Isab or someone can clear this up for me, but I thought "sniper" implied some degree of "remote killing"....
> If you want women to come home
> in body bags, you are going to
> get your wish.
Christ, that is some hoary chatter… It almost rhymes with "Fish without a bicycle." Let's all listen to the new Kingston Trio record on the HiFi!
Pilgrim, WE GET IT. Women are going to die in acts of war, Raddy. They died on 9/11.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 22, 2014 8:56 AM
Besides, I'm trying find the part where you conceded that having only men fight wars had nonetheless, historically, left half as losers. "An advantage" does not mean he wins, either… Apparently.
Wanna talk about combat?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 22, 2014 9:02 AM
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
I am talking about "Wayne State law prof Kingsley Browne on co-ed combat -- why it will mean more dead men."
I have no idea what Crid is talking about.
I do have a tendency to over focus. Obviously you have a problem with that Crid. Unlike you, I try to stay away from predictions on the future. I am not as well versed on the future as you claim to be. I base my knowledge on known information.
"Timecheck: 2014. Topic: Women in combat. AAAnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd:
Go!"
See comments above.
Dave B at December 22, 2014 9:20 AM
Crid: The day the drone operator could die because of anything the enemy does is when it becomes combat. Combat involves two sides fighting, not one simply dying from an invisible hand miles in the sky.
It's killing. It's not combat.
It is also a little more then dishonest to shift the discussion away from those fields in which women would not be competitive, yet somehow it is important to some people to force them into those fields anyway.
If the president orders a strike, he most definitely is not a combatant, and he would not become more of one if he sat at a desk at Beale Air Force Base and ran a drone himself.
Radwaste at December 22, 2014 9:26 AM
"We" are talking about whatever we want.
That is obvious Crid. Us weirdoes try to stay on topic. We were taught that is how communication works. We could be wrong.
Dave B at December 22, 2014 9:27 AM
Didn't want to step on Radwaste response but I just couldn't resist.
"Pilgrim, WE GET IT. Women are going to die in acts of war, Raddy. They died on 9/11."
No you don't GET IT Crid. We are talking about combat not acts of war. You know, the over focus thingy.
Dave B at December 22, 2014 9:45 AM
The ebb and flow of conversation is interesting, but it exposes some interesting holes.
In particular the idea that women cannot be taught to fight in combat.
They can, see Yazidi, see also ISDF.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11069661/Islamic-State-tore-our-families-apart.-Now-were-fighting-back.-Meet-the-Kurdish-womens-resistance-army.html
The larger question is: do we need that in our own armed forces? The forces are huge, well kitted, and capable. Currently an all volunteer force, that nevertheless spans the globe.
Currently and hopefully in the future, we are not defending our homes from invaders.
At that point of invasion, there is no high good, there is no worry over art, or lifestyle, or continuation. You will either live that day to fight another, or you will not.
This is the position that the Yazidi and other Kurds find themselves in. They have often been in that position.
Which is why they all seem to know how to field strip an AK by feel, and fast enough to make your head spin.
This is why the women also tend to keep an extra bullet to kill themselves with, should they be over-run. They are under no illusion that they will not wish to live to be captured.
This is not the case in the US. People bandy about a number of words like "can" "should" "will"... "need".
What about that one?
Do we need women in infantry combat? Why do we need that? IFF we decide that is a need, then there would have to be a minimum physical requirement, yeah?
Is anyone arguing that there SHOULDN'T be a minimum? The problem arises when that requirement is diluted for some misplaced political game.
But then, wouldn't that requirement be a minimum for everyone? EVEN IF I was still young enough to be a reservist or something, my physical issues would preclude it.
So what? Big Deal.
The physical requirements shouldn't be set aside. And once met, we need to figure stuff out for combat roles.
IF and ONLY IF we have a requirement to have women in combat. That question dances right on the edge of reason. The issues of integrating women into combat teams is NOT an illusion, but that also doesn't mean that is cannot be overcome...
But why do we need to? Occam suggests that is isn't a requirement because we aren't in desperate fights door to door at the end of our strength. If that is so, then the OTHER technical and physical issues would seem to make the whole question of physical prowess and force integration, much more important but less easy.
If we boil this down far enough, we get to the politics of it, and it seems to me, that is where we are crashing everything.
The military cannot be EXACTLY like every other part of daily life.
Either we can put all the physical requirements down to Least Common Denominator, and suffer casualties because of that... or we can build combat exoskeletons that equalize strength... which we are doing anyway...
Or we can confront the question of why.
Not just anyone can be a fighter pilot either, but who complains who is washing out of that?
SwissArmyD at December 22, 2014 9:53 AM
On other, other thing. Here is a famous picture of a 14 year old Yazidi:
http://the-eyeontheworld.blogspot.com/2014/08/photo-yazidi-girl-carries-assault-rifle.html
I think about my own 14 y.o. daughter, and I nearly puked my guts out the day I first saw this back in August.
Parents generally will sacrifice themselves to keep their children safe, but my understanding, is that this girl is now the oldest sibling, and is the one protecting her mother and sister.
Is she still alive? dunno. I hope so. But there is no question in their society, that they will do what needs to be done. In the extremity of their existence.
What is our extremity?
SwissArmyD at December 22, 2014 10:06 AM
Obsess. Churn. FEEL, Damn You... Feeeeeeeeeel!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 22, 2014 10:06 AM
"Obsess. Churn. FEEL, Damn You... Feeeeeeeeeel!"
It's going to be ok Crid. Please step off the ledge.
Dave B at December 22, 2014 10:10 AM
Anything you can do I can do better. I can do anything better than you.
No you can't.
Yes I can.
No you can't.
Yes I can.
No you can't.
Yes I can yes I can yes I can!!!!
Lizzie at December 22, 2014 1:12 PM
Lizzie, you're older than you look.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 22, 2014 3:10 PM
My high school boyfriend got a B.A. in musical theater. He did Annie Get Your Gun as a dinner theater production.
"I can get a sparrow with a bow and arrow..."
And I'm younger than you, Crid.
Yes I am yes I am yes I am!!!!
Lizzie at December 22, 2014 3:21 PM
> He did Annie Get Your Gun
> as a dinner theater
> production.
I hope he's OK. It's good that you were there to comfort and sustain him during that punishing cross-generational culture dislocation.
We did it in High School, too. This was the late 70's. I can't remember who played the leads, who sang chorus or anything else about it. This was the late 70's.
Capiche?
This was the late 70's... I can't remember anything about it.
Okay.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 22, 2014 4:06 PM
Early to mid '80s....ah, yes, I remember it well
You wore a gown of gold
I was all in blue
Am I getting old?
Oh, no, not you
Lizzie at December 22, 2014 4:34 PM
> being CLOSE friends with someone
> whose IQ is about 30 points below
> yours is sort of like co-ed sports
> - it just doesn't happen after a
> certain age.
__________________________________
Perhaps it should. Perhaps the worst force in the culture is the ever-expanding(!) fraction of our population that wants to make social distance from those they regard, or want to regard, as stoo- pit.
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 4:54 PM
______________________________________
As I clearly implied, there's a difference between a friend and a close friend, and it's not that easy to be a CLOSE friend to an adult with whom you can't easily make what you consider to be adult conversation; you just run out of things to discuss, pretty fast. How many such long-term close friendships have you witnessed?
(It's also why you don't see that many married couples under 60 these days with huge education gaps; I suspect that a century ago, when upper-middle-class men married women who never went to college, it was only because it was harder, then, to FIND women who had been to college. They also tended to be of the same class, per se; even the fictional Cinderella wasn't "poor," in that she was born into the upper half of society; she was simply forced to dress and work as though she wasn't.)
> (One assumes, of course, that only
> college-educated types - or highly
> read people - would be reading a
> Charles Murray book in the first
> place.)
By no means "of course": I've always felt the truly bright and well-read make no room for him at all.
Also, Gould harshed him pretty deeply.
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 21, 2014 4:59 PM
_________________________________
I'm not saying I'd necessarily agree with any particular book of Murray's; I'm just saying that anyone who's not in the habit of reading challenging, non-fiction books in the first place very often doesn't have a big enough vocabulary to tackle a Murray book.
lenona at December 23, 2014 1:25 PM
> As I clearly implied
We're all ready to be judged by our clear implications!
> there's a difference between a friend
> and a close friend
Well, nobody's asking the class valedictorian to marry the special-needs girl from the short bus. The concern is whether or not there's sufficient social integration, right? Yeah; in many contexts things are better than they used to be, and in other contexts they are not.
Explain to us how you (or Murray) moved so quickly from "class bubble" to "close friend."
I happen to think intimate care (something other than government) is the only thing that can radically improve the lives of typically impoverished and troubled Americans.
But for just sustaining a atmosphere of comity and moderate decency, being attentive to one's "bubble" (and consciously working to expand it as one moves through life) ought to be enough.
Murray, or you, are perhaps being glib.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 24, 2014 9:23 AM
Leave a comment