Jump to content

What is the cause of sexual assault in the military?


Recommended Posts

There is a program on CNN right now with host Lisa Ling on the widespread sexual assault problem in the U.S. armed forces.  It is a serious problem in the U.S.  It sounds much the same as the problem in Canada. Canada now has about 19,000 claims of assault filed by a deadline.  The current Liberal belief is that it is a problem with the culture that can be corrected.  One of the solutions they seem to be pursuing is to remove the justice system from the military for dealing with offenders and shift it to the civilian justice system.  The new Canadian Forces leader says he believes in inclusiveness.  This sounds much like the same old liberal ideology of mixing men and women in the same units in the military.  So no changes in that structure mentioned. This creates a situation of familiarization and a power structure that can be used to exploit those of lower rank.  Men and women are basically different in psychology, physical makeup, and desires.  The idea of inclusivity is a refusal to recognize the differences between men and women.  But it is at the heart of liberal and left ideology and absolutely nobody would be willing to admit and accept the fact that men and women are completely different.  So they will continue with the belief that they are a kind of unisex.  It is hard to see how this can be blamed on culture when the very power structure of the military creates or encourages sexual abuse.  It will take time to see whether the liberals are successful in rectifying this problem while clinging to the ideology of "inclusivity".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There is a program on CNN right now with host Lisa Ling on the widespread sexual assault problem in the U.S. armed forces.  It is a serious problem in the U.S.  It sounds much the same as the problem in Canada. Canada now has about 19,000 claims of assault filed by a deadline.  The current Liberal belief is that it is a problem with the culture that can be corrected.  One of the solutions they seem to be pursuing is to remove the justice system from the military for dealing with offenders and shift it to the civilian justice system.  The new Canadian Forces leader says he believes in inclusiveness.  This sounds much like the same old liberal ideology of mixing men and women in the same units in the military.  So no changes in that structure mentioned. This creates a situation of familiarization and a power structure that can be used to exploit those of lower rank.  Men and women are basically different in psychology, physical makeup, and desires.  The idea of inclusivity is a refusal to recognize the differences between men and women.  But it is at the heart of liberal and left ideology and absolutely nobody would be willing to admit and accept the fact that men and women are completely different.  So they will continue with the belief that they are a kind of unisex.  It is hard to see how this can be blamed on culture when the very power structure of the military creates or encourages sexual abuse.  It will take time to see whether the liberals are successful in rectifying this problem while clinging to the ideology of "inclusivity".

 

Very true.  It’s more identity politics.  Not every job can be done with equal effectiveness by both genders.  On the whole, for example, females have more strength in medical care-giving roles than men and men have more strength in combat military roles than women.  Does that mean that no men make great nurses and no women make great front-line soldiers?   Of course not, but we have to stop pretending that men and women have the same kinds of bodies and strengths.  Yes Israel has mandatory military service for both women and men.  They’re a small country that needs all the soldiers they can get to defend themselves.  However, unless it was her lifelong dream, I’d be very concerned if my daughter wanted to fight in a combat role.  The idea that she could be deployed in an extremely dangerous situation with other soldiers who have much greater physical strength than her and who might be struggling with PTSD and loneliness, just seems like a recipe for disaster, especially considering the physical strength that an all-male opposing army would have against her in hand-to-hand combat.  The stories of militaries raping and pillaging in invaded territories throughout history are real.

The other problem is that the military rules are harsh by civilian standards.  They’re not exactly family friendly.  I realize that the typical liberal take is to pretend that all of these considerations should be ignored, even if it means watering down basic and other training so that everyone gets a participation ribbon, but I don’t care about having a military where everyone gets a turn to play.  I want a military that can destroy the enemy.

Perhaps we could have all-female units for those females who want to fight, but I’d be making damn sure on their fighting day that backup resources are there in case the unit is over-powered.  Well doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a military?  Soldiers are there to protect civilians, not to be protected.  Too much time and energy in the military is now going to making people who probably never should’ve joined the military feel included.

I’m sure harassment, sexual and otherwise, does take place in the military and needs to be weeded out, but the current strategy of constantly firing people for not doing enough or being part of the problem clearly isn’t working when some of our best soldiers are losing their jobs and being replaced by people who may appear more inclusive but may simply not be as effective soldiers.

Once again merit is subjugated to a twisted kind of representation at all costs.  

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Very true.  It’s more identity politics.  Not every job can be done with equal effectiveness by both genders.  On the whole, for example, females have more strength in medical care-giving roles than men and men have more strength in combat military roles than women.  Does that mean that no men make great nurses and no women make great front-line soldiers?   Of course not, but we have to stop pretending that men and women have the same kinds of bodies and strengths.  Yes Israel has mandatory military service for both women and men.  They’re a small country that needs all the soldiers they can get to defend themselves.  However, unless it was her lifelong dream, I’d be very concerned if my daughter wanted to fight in a combat role.  The idea that she could be deployed in an extremely dangerous situation with other soldiers who have much greater physical strength than her and who might be struggling with PTSD and loneliness, just seems like a recipe for disaster, especially considering the physical strength that an all-male opposing army would have against her in hand-to-hand combat.  The stories of militaries raping and pillaging in invaded territories throughout history are real.

The other problem is that the military rules are harsh by civilian standards.  They’re not exactly family friendly.  I realize that the typical liberal take is to pretend that all of these considerations should be ignored, even if it means watering down basic and other training so that everyone gets a participation ribbon, but I don’t care about having a military where everyone gets a turn to play.  I want a military that can destroy the enemy.

Perhaps we could have all-female units for those females who want to fight, but I’d be making damn sure on their fighting day that backup resources are there in case the unit is over-powered.  Well doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a military?  Soldiers are there to protect civilians, not to be protected.  Too much time and energy in the military is now going to making people who probably never should’ve joined the military feel included.

I’m sure harassment, sexual and otherwise, does take place in the military and needs to be weeded out, but the current strategy of constantly firing people for not doing enough or being part of the problem clearly isn’t working when some of our best soldiers are losing their jobs and being replaced by people who may appear more inclusive but may simply not be as effective soldiers.

Once again merit is subjugated to a twisted kind of representation at all costs.  

Very well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

There is a program on CNN right now with host Lisa Ling on the widespread sexual assault problem in the U.S. armed forces.  It is a serious problem in the U.S.  It sounds much the same as the problem in Canada. Canada now has about 19,000 claims of assault filed by a deadline.  The current Liberal belief is that it is a problem with the culture that can be corrected.  One of the solutions they seem to be pursuing is to remove the justice system from the military for dealing with offenders and shift it to the civilian justice system.  The new Canadian Forces leader says he believes in inclusiveness.  This sounds much like the same old liberal ideology of mixing men and women in the same units in the military.  So no changes in that structure mentioned. This creates a situation of familiarization and a power structure that can be used to exploit those of lower rank.  Men and women are basically different in psychology, physical makeup, and desires.  The idea of inclusivity is a refusal to recognize the differences between men and women.  But it is at the heart of liberal and left ideology and absolutely nobody would be willing to admit and accept the fact that men and women are completely different.  So they will continue with the belief that they are a kind of unisex.  It is hard to see how this can be blamed on culture when the very power structure of the military creates or encourages sexual abuse.  It will take time to see whether the liberals are successful in rectifying this problem while clinging to the ideology of "inclusivity".

 

I want to make this claim, sexual assault and harassment are not JUST a military cultural problem, But rather a Western cultural one, it effects every Canadian in every job description. Justin government and the media has pushed this detail that everyone in the military is nothing more than some horny perv that needs to be reeled in some how and the best people to do that are the people that know nothing of military culture.... Everyone is thinking this is taught or even suggested to be OK within the military , it is not... They arrive with this preconceived notion well before joining the military....the military has even gone as far to put military laws and restrictions on any of this behavior yes it has not been 100 % effective, but there is laws and policies on the books. Had justins behavior with that reporter back in the day been done in the military or any other government department he would be on the unemployment line today. 

Some of the problem is the definition of sexual assault, it could be considered as simple as someone calling you a sexualized word, and that person takes offense to it, or on the other side of the spectrum it could mean rape.  Once this is worked out i'm sure the case count is going to go down... . There also needs to be the same type of punishment if the allegations prove to be false, using it as a tool for revenge needs to stopped as well. 

The military justice system needs to be totally revamped, we don't have trained law Judges to give out sentences but rather other senior soldiers guided by books and experience...It was designed to look after very minor offences, such as being late to work or rolling your eyes when being spoken to, and in war time very serious ones like being a coward or being a traitor, or refusal of an order under enemy fire, all of which could have resulted in the accused death some on the spot without any proceedings or in front of a court of military men. In WWI military police men used to be called meat heads, anyone refusing to go over the top would be shot on sight in the back of the head, don't worry in the 1990's the military took out the death sentences off their books. 

the US model comes to mind, where a military court can sentence to a maximum of life in a military prison, military prison makes civil prison look like daycare. Not to many repeat offenders in military prison , In Canadian military justice system the normal max is 2 years less a day, there has been exception to that rule where a soldier who murder another soldiers child was sentence to 5 years less a day, then would be tried for murder in a civilian court. After he had served his military sentence of 5 years first... he almost never made it to trail, as there was many attempts to take his life by other soldiers...

Some of this inequality or indifference comes from having 2 different standards for men and women for the same job, it creates a riff between the 2, another riff is the recruitment process is now geared towards finding women or people other than white, and part of the same riff is promoting them over more qualified people because they need more women or racial people in the upper ranks as well, all because some politician has a white board and his graphs do not match his opinion on what our military should look like, another reason to have a riff...this behavior has lead to this inequality in the ranks, political interference... and they know nothing about the military or how it works......Recruiting by quota has never been a good practice...this entire process has never produced good results. To fix that you have one standard for everyone, set by job description if you make the standard then fine you qualify to be an infanteer, or arty, or armor corps, pilot, etc...with no restrictions to either sex, much like the Special forces do, if you can meet standards then your given a chance to try the training...male or female does not matter...having forced civilian equal rights in the military is great in peace time but on the battle field it is not,  everyone is a target and everyone is killed regardless of sex, race, or age, no questions asked.

This means if you qualified to do that job there , your entitled to be there... men and women in the same units has already happened in the CAF, it has been like that for over 20 years now, female infantry soldiers are some what common today...Those that don't live up to the standards are normal forced out men or women...Those that are still there today have earned that right by doing the job as good or better than men...

Not sure what you meant by the military encouraging sexual abuse though it's chain of command, that simply is not true, does it happen yes, it does some men/ women will take advantage of it , same as any other job in the civilian world. Those that do normally don't go very far...

I think inclusivity has a different meaning, meaning the military wants to include everyone, the LGBT groups, or any of the million different genders, it has for years paid for this surgeries to become man or women, and they just announced a new dress policy for all soldiers, men are now allowed to have man buns, wear make up, and wear female jewelry when they want...this lets you know what inclusivity really means...  I don't agree with these new policies for many reasons, i think it is one more riff to encourage this behavior... 

Besides all of this is a major distraction to keep the people occupied here so they are not looking at what is happening over there. Canadians don't really care about what happens in the military or we would not be in the condition we find ourselves in...most don't even know what the military does, or what equipment they have or don't have...So why would Canadians get upset that there is 19,000 sexual assault cases in the military.. because that is what the media is selling right now...do we care how many are in the RCMP, coast Guard, or any other government department, no one gave a shit about Justins assault case...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just a gigantic shitshow now.

As soon as they turn it into a class action suit then every Dr Ford-type floozy in the country chimes in with a claim.

It will probably be easier and more lucrative for women to say "I had my butt grabbed" than for men to collect for actually having their legs blown off. 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

  but we have to stop pretending that men and women have the same kinds of bodies and strengths.  Yes Israel has mandatory military service for both women and men.  They’re a small country that needs all the soldiers they can get to defend themselves. I’d be very concerned if my daughter wanted to fight in a combat role.  The idea that she could be deployed in an extremely dangerous situation with other soldiers who have much greater physical strength than her and who might be struggling with PTSD and loneliness, just seems like a recipe for disaster, especially considering the physical strength that an all-male opposing army would have against her in hand-to-hand combat.  The stories of militaries raping and pillaging in invaded territories throughout history are real.

The other problem is that the military rules are harsh by civilian standards.  They’re not exactly family friendly.  I realize that the typical liberal take is to pretend that all of these considerations should be ignored, even if it means watering down basic and other training so that everyone gets a participation ribbon, but I don’t care about having a military where everyone gets a turn to play.  I want a military that can destroy the enemy.

Perhaps we could have all-female units for those females who want to fight, but I’d be making damn sure on their fighting day that backup resources are there in case the unit is over-powered.  Well doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a military?  Soldiers are there to protect civilians, not to be protected.  Too much time and energy in the military is now going to making people who probably never should’ve joined the military feel included.

I’m sure harassment, sexual and otherwise, does take place in the military and needs to be weeded out, but the current strategy of constantly firing people for not doing enough or being part of the problem clearly isn’t working when some of our best soldiers are losing their jobs and being replaced by people who may appear more inclusive but may simply not be as effective soldiers.

Once again merit is subjugated to a twisted kind of representation at all costs.  

I think everyone already knows that physically women are not the same as men, but men come in all sizes as well and they do all right.. being physically strong does not make you a better fighter, having a strong mental health and some skills can pretty much over come anything, military trains infantry soldiers to fight up to 3 to 5 opponents at one time, and it gets bloody... it's not about always winning  its about training you to defend yourself and to ignore pain long enough to hurt others.   ... And don't for a second think rape is just for women, Rape is about control, humiliation, breaking ones ability to over come, want to do that in a hurry, rape a man... it will destroy everything about him, you take a A type personality rape him in front of his comrades and in one stroke you demoralize the entire group, you instill fear, panic, you reduce him to a weak person instead of a warrior.   a lot of nations use it as a tool to break down soldiers pows ... so it can be used against anyone really...

Besides you can not control what the bad guys are going to do to you if your caught, what i do know none of it is going to be any good, even if your caught by a western nation, your in for a rough ride, and if you have killed any of their comrades, well war is hell, and it changes everyone.   , trust me it is not hard to motivate soldiers to fight hard, when they know the consequences of getting caught... getting rape is the least of your worries...war is for the evil, and it does not take much to turn anyone into a sick individual...

Canadians are not willing to do very much for the military, they will not press these facts with our political masters, there is much more to worry about like is the beer store open or when is my check coming in... i say that in jest, but it does have a lot of truth behind it...

I've fought along side of a women in the infantry, DO not under estimate them , you might get a good old fashion ass kicking... and your 100 % right all any Canadians has to do, is show up to basic, and watered down standards are not that hard to meet, separating the chaff from the wheat happens at the unit level, where if you can not meet much higher standards you'll be asked to leave, and if you refuse, life as you know it is going to get very rough...the last thing you want is someone you can not trust with your life...

Soldiers are not there to protect civilians, ask the hundreds of French civilians on Normandy objectives need to be taken regardless of cost if avoidable,  if not then they are collateral damage a price of war... .....when the allied bombed the shit out of the country...ask those at indigenous people at OKA if they were afforded any protection don't get me wrong they might not fire upon civilians on purpose, but you get hundreds of wpns being fired both ways and some body is going to die... most of that time civilians pay that price... 

Women have been doing fighting jobs for almost 15 years now, those that are still doing it are warriors, that have the same skills as any man , and can take a life in the blink of an eye... now living with it after is the hard part, thats the part that kills most careers .. the killing part anyone can do...

Edited by Army Guy
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I think everyone already knows that physically women are not the same as men, but men come in all sizes as well and they do all right.. being physically strong does not make you a better fighter, having a strong mental health and some skills can pretty much over come anything

physicality matters and it does make you a better fighter

physicality can only be overcome when a mentality and/or skills disparity large enough to make a big difference exists

most women can't hang with the men in any of the three categories mentioned

the exceptions are quite rare and even among the best of the women who are exceptions

they are nowhere near the level of the top men

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

physicality matters and it does make you a better fighter

physicality can only be overcome when a mentality and/or skills disparity large enough to make a big difference exists

most women can't hang with the men in any of the three categories mentioned

the exceptions are quite rare and even among the best of the women who are exceptions

they are nowhere near the level of the top men

i should clarify something , the smallest fighting unit size is 2 people, always in pairs, or more....and in the fight these people don't have any rules,  no exceptions everything is on the table rifle, pistol, knife, rock, you name it, and they will not stop until you are no longer a threat, meaning your bleeding out...the very last thing a Infanteer wants is to go hand to hand with anyone, normally that only happens when your out of ammo, or ambushed...

Being physically fit or in shape matters,  size does not, being in the combat trade normally you will see a daily fitness regime that will make a small goat puke, many in the infantry take marshal arts as a back up, most combat trades have combat fighting class rolled into the fitness regime much different than marshal arts class taught down town . 

i think for the most part we are not talking about most women, we are talking about the 1 in a couple hundred that are in combat trades, and have already been tested and passed,  and with their training they have received todate , they are going to give the off the street civilian a run for their money, but don't take my word, find one give them a good slap on the ass and see where it goes...

By top level are you meaning professional like MMA, black belts, Spec ops i would say your right, but then again they could also take most men.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

i should clarify something , the smallest fighting unit size is 2 people, always in pairs, or more....and in the fight these people don't have any rules,  no exceptions everything is on the table rifle, pistol, knife, rock, you name it, and they will not stop until you are no longer a threat, meaning your bleeding out...the very last thing a Infanteer wants is to go hand to hand with anyone, normally that only happens when your out of ammo, or ambushed...

Being physically fit or in shape matters,  size does not, being in the combat trade normally you will see a daily fitness regime that will make a small goat puke, many in the infantry take marshal arts as a back up, most combat trades have combat fighting class rolled into the fitness regime much different than marshal arts class taught down town . 

i think for the most part we are not talking about most women, we are talking about the 1 in a couple hundred that are in combat trades, and have already been tested and passed,  and with their training they have received todate , they are going to give the off the street civilian a run for their money, but don't take my word, find one give them a good slap on the ass and see where it goes...

By top level are you meaning professional like MMA, black belts, Spec ops i would say your right, but then again they could also take most men.  

1) Infantry may prefer not to go hand to hand, but it happens

and when it does, women are at a massive disadvantage

2) size does matter, even if it's importance and utility are often overhyped

3) the fact that even the top women give a random untrained civilian man off the street a run for their money

is indicative of how disadvantaged even the most highly trained women are

relative to men when it come to fighting

that pretty much says it all, right thurr

4) top level women coming nowhere close to measuring up to top level men

is true with spec ops, MMA, or any other kind of fighting you can imagine

and pretty much any other physical activity for that matter

men are bigger, faster, stronger and harder

full spectrum physical dominance

that's the way she goes

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1) Infantry may prefer not to go hand to hand, but it happens

and when it does, women are at a massive disadvantage

2) size does matter, even if it's importance and utility are often overhyped

3) the fact that even the top women give a random untrained civilian man off the street a run for their money

is indicative of how disadvantaged even the most highly trained women are

relative to men when it come to fighting

that pretty much says it all, right thurr

4) top level women coming nowhere close to measuring up to top level men

is true with spec ops, MMA, or any other kind of fighting you can imagine

and pretty much any other physical activity for that matter

men are bigger, faster, stronger and harder

full spectrum physical dominance

that's the way she goes

1. I'm aware it happens, and training will take over, that and remember COLT made every man/ women equal. 

2. look I'm not here to measure penises, and that is why we train and train and train some more, size is not a factor unless you have to carry them.

3. you can believe what ever you want, but I've been in combat with women soldiers and they did what they where trained to do, and what they were pay for. no more no less. 

4. You can say anything you want about women in combat, but they have already proven themselves by doing it, I'd like top know what you base your opinions on,   have you been in combat , and if not how do you know what it takes, do they need to be the best no, do they need to be bigger, stronger, faster, harder... No they don't , because we train and fight as a team  by bringing our strengths and weakness into one group.  she is not going through any door by themselves, and I've yet to see any big guy take on multiple 5.56 rounds to the chest and still have enough strength for a fight... Females would not be on the battle field if they could not be trusted with someone's life.. soldiers are funney that way.

And while no women have made it to the top elite units as of yet, I'm sure the liberals will change that one day...

Edited by Army Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

1. I'm aware it happens, and training will take over, that and remember COLT made every man/ women equal. 

2. look I'm not here to measure penises, and that is why we train and train and train some more, size is not a factor unless you have to carry them.

3. you can believe what ever you want, but I've been in combat with women soldiers and they did what they where trained to do, and what they were pay for. no more no less. 

4. You can say anything you want about women in combat, but they have already proven themselves by doing it, I'd like top know what you base your opinions on,   have you been in combat , and if not how do you know what it takes, do they need to be the best no, do they need to be bigger, stronger, faster, harder... No they don't , because we train and fight as a team  by bringing our strengths and weakness into one group.  she is not going through any door by themselves, and I've yet to see any big guy take on multiple 5.56 rounds to the chest and still have enough strength for a fight... Females would not be on the battle field if they could not be trusted with someone's life.. soldiers are funney that way.

And while no women have made it to the top elite units as of yet, I'm sure the liberals will change that one day...

Colt may have narrowed the gap, but a wide gulf still exists

size is a factor hand-to-hand

men do what they are trained to do to

without the major physical disadvantages of women

I base my opinions on reality

I watch the most highly trained women in the world fight hand to hand on the regular

and I make money doing it

the physical disparity between women and men of the same size when it comes to fighting is obvious af

let alone when there is a size disparity

there is also a wide skills disparity as well, it ain't just physical 

as for insight into the infantry specifically, I get that from a friend of mine who was an RCR Battle School instructor

the team is only as strong as the weakest link, and if that weakest link gets caught in a hand to hand situation

the men have to bail her out, which increases the risk to their own lives and the her life as well

most women can't hack it in the infantry and those that can are extreme outliers, not the norm

you make jokes about the government using affirmative action to get women into the top elite units

because that's the only way they could get in for a reason

and that reason is no women would meet the qualifications otherwise

 

not underestimating women in combat is good advice

but not overestimating women in combat is even better advice

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2021 at 12:13 AM, Yzermandius19 said:

Colt may have narrowed the gap, but a wide gulf still exists

size is a factor hand-to-hand

men do what they are trained to do to

without the major physical disadvantages of women

I base my opinions on reality

I watch the most highly trained women in the world fight hand to hand on the regular

and I make money doing it

the physical disparity between women and men of the same size when it comes to fighting is obvious af

let alone when there is a size disparity

there is also a wide skills disparity as well, it ain't just physical 

as for insight into the infantry specifically, I get that from a friend of mine who was an RCR Battle School instructor

the team is only as strong as the weakest link, and if that weakest link gets caught in a hand to hand situation

the men have to bail her out, which increases the risk to their own lives and the her life as well

most women can't hack it in the infantry and those that can are extreme outliers, not the norm

you make jokes about the government using affirmative action to get women into the top elite units

because that's the only way they could get in for a reason

and that reason is no women would meet the qualifications otherwise

 

not underestimating women in combat is good advice

but not overestimating women in combat is even better advice

-According to you, but 2 to the chest will pretty much evens out any fight.

- Size may play a roll, in some fights, if there is a huge difference in height or weight and both fighter have no skills or the same skills. . But all of those can be over come with skill and training. And there is this getting into hand to hand fight is highly unlikely in the modern battle field...in my 3 tours in Afghanistan i think i seen it twice... the rest of the times we fought at ranges out to 300 meters...and once we closed the distance accurate gun fire had destroyed the targets...I'm not saying it does not happen it is just a rare event . 

- You seem to be under the assumption that all infantry guys are built the same, 6 feet tall and over 200 lbs they are not, there represent all sizes, from small frame to extremely large frames, and on the battle field no one matches up to someone your own size or skill, so that disadvantage your talking about effects men as well. Thats why we train as hard as we do, to become better skilled. 

- I used to think just like you, there was no place for a women on the battle field, no exception, they were all weak and whinny, needing constant attention...and for the most part we were right, that is until i actually went into combat with a female PLT commander, who may have weighed in at a buck 30, and her ruck sack weighed as heavy as mine just over 80 lbs.  she never once faltered, never asked for help, never once complained...she set the example for others to follow.. Is she the normal , i already went over that she is that 1 in every hundred that did complete the training , she also survived meeting unit standards as well. she may not have been the most popular person in the Regiment, but everyone knew she could be trusted to get the job done...These are the women i am talking about, maybe 20 to 30 in total in the entire Infantry Corp. And while the government had lowered the standards of basic training , unit level standards are a whole new ball game, you are either have it or don't , those that don't are weeded out quickly for good reasons 

-They have earned that right to be call Infantry soldier.  just as much as any man has. 

- I am a RCR as well, and i stand by my words, like i said before before i was one of those old school warriors that could not even picture women in the military let alone in the infantry, but my tours in Afghanistan change all of that i seen a female medic run down an narrow ally way under heavy fire pick up a wounded guy, weighing in over 200 lbs with gear, and run a zig zag pattern for over a 100 meters to safety...I seen our female Plt commander, drop her rifle to her side grab her pistol and put 2 rounds into a Taliban's chest at close range and not even blink.. lets just say it made me a believer. 

- The spec ops community are not ready for equality just yet, shit the regular Army is barely ready, and all this inclusivity training is not going to change a thing. 

- You are painting all women with the same brush, and thats not true in all cases, the women that sign up for infantry already know it is going to be a hard road to travel, and that the failure rate is high... but it does not mean that it can not be done.. as we have seen many times already... And trust me, making infantry standards are not the same as Basic training...your buddy should be able to tell you that...

Women in the combat arms trades get a bad rap, from other females in the military, yes not all soldiers are equal, those women have adapted tradition female values, don't like to get dirty, or need constant attention.... these are not the same class of women that join the military. Our Plt commander was a ultra marathoner running just over 150 kms in a week end...before that had trained for Canada's Olympic biathlon team. She was in top physicals form.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Army Guy said:

-According to you, but 2 to the chest will pretty much evens out any fight.

- Size may play a roll, in some fights, if there is a huge difference in height or weight and both fighter have no skills or the same skills. . But all of those can be over come with skill and training. And there is this getting into hand to hand fight is highly unlikely in the modern battle field...in my 3 tours in Afghanistan i think i seen it twice... the rest of the times we fought at ranges out to 300 meters...and once we closed the distance accurate gun fire had destroyed the targets...I'm not saying it does not happen it is just a rare event . 

- You seem to be under the assumption that all infantry guys are built the same, 6 feet tall and over 200 lbs they are not, there represent all sizes, from small frame to extremely large frames, and on the battle field no one matches up to someone your own size or skill, so that disadvantage your talking about effects men as well. Thats why we train as hard as we do, to become better skilled. 

- I used to think just like you, there was no place for a women on the battle field, no exception, they were all weak and whinny, needing constant attention...and for the most part we were right, that is until i actually went into combat with a female PLT commander, who may have weighed in at a buck 30, and her ruck sack weighed as heavy as mine just over 80 lbs.  she never once faltered, never asked for help, never once complained...she set the example for others to follow.. Is she the normal , i already went over that she is that 1 in every hundred that did complete the training , she also survived meeting unit standards as well. she may not have been the most popular person in the Regiment, but everyone knew she could be trusted to get the job done...These are the women i am talking about, maybe 20 to 30 in total in the entire Infantry Corp. And while the government had lowered the standards of basic training , unit level standards are a whole new ball game, you are either have it or don't , those that don't are weeded out quickly for good reasons 

-They have earned that right to be call Infantry soldier.  just as much as any man has. 

- I am a RCR as well, and i stand by my words, like i said before before i was one of those old school warriors that could not even picture women in the military let alone in the infantry, but my tours in Afghanistan change all of that i seen a female medic run down an narrow ally way under heavy fire pick up a wounded guy, weighing in over 200 lbs with gear, and run a zig zag pattern for over a 100 meters to safety...I seen our female Plt commander, drop her rifle to her side grab her pistol and put 2 rounds into a Taliban's chest at close range and not even blink.. lets just say it made me a believer. 

- The spec ops community are not ready for equality just yet, shit the regular Army is barely ready, and all this inclusivity training is not going to change a thing. 

- You are painting all women with the same brush, and thats not true in all cases, the women that sign up for infantry already know it is going to be a hard road to travel, and that the failure rate is high... but it does not mean that it can not be done.. as we have seen many times already... And trust me, making infantry standards are not the same as Basic training...your buddy should be able to tell you that...

Women in the combat arms trades get a bad rap, from other females in the military, yes not all soldiers are equal, those women have adapted tradition female values, don't like to get dirty, or need constant attention.... these are not the same class of women that join the military. Our Plt commander was a ultra marathoner running just over 150 kms in a week end...before that had trained for Canada's Olympic biathlon team. She was in top physicals form.

 

 

20 to 30 women by your count

who can hack it in all of the infantry more than proves my point

you just wish to preface agreeing with me

with a bunch of virtue signalling about women in combat

and tone policing me for not doing the same

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes 20 to 30 in total, those are the women that decided to join the infantry , it is not a very popular choice for many reasons, it's more that they want to take the easy road taking another job, vice the hard way by joining the infantry... More would apply if the attitudes would change, like yours and mine use to be...that is my point. 

And no i don't agree with you, you are telling the world that women are weaker, slower, not tough enough, and would be useless in combat or hand to hand fighting...  and i said yes there are women have already proven they can do the job...it does not have anything to do with how many women have to try before one succeeds many men also have the same issues with infantry training... and many do not make it...it has nothing to do with size or strength, it has everything to do with your mental state and how bad you want to be a infantry soldier...the average class of 150 will graduate maybe 70 to 80.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...