Latest news women in combat roles

tpg said:
But I've never had to deploy without a Marine due to pregnancy! However if you make females part of an infantry unit and they get pregnant, then I now loose that very valuable member of my team.

With a pregnancy, that Marine will not be available for training during the 9 months before the baby is born and at least a couple of months after the baby is born. Once she is back, I need to know how long it is going to take before she's back to her old level of fitness?

A pregnancy could keep a member of my team out of a deployment workup and possibly the deployment. But what would concern me even more is the possibility that the female misses the deployment workup but then gets cleared for full duty just prior to the deployment. Now she is with a fireteam, squad, and platoon that she hasn't trained with. They don't know her, and as a result, don't trust her. That becomes a huge problem. Now I am not saying that every every female in an infantry unit is going to get pregnant but I will bet a few will. I can guarantee though that not a single one of the males will get pregnant. This relates to combat effectiveness.
Click to expand...

This is my feeling too. I wonder how they are going to address pregnancy? Will they mandate she take a depo-provera shot with her annual physical?

I remember when Bullet went to the Green Zone, his exec was to be a female officer. While they were in Kuwait awaiting to leave, she came to him and informed Bullet she was pregnant and now could not deploy.

They had to find a replacement for her with little notice. Another officer had to take over her place, and it took time to get them there from the states. Meanwhile, the officer she was replacing was forced to stay until the replacement arrived.

Two military members lives were changed because she got pregnant days before deployment. The disruption caused issues, and the fact is their jobs were not anything near Rangers and Seals.

I am also not against woman serving, but I also feel part of this is not being logical from a medical position regarding women's reproductive cycles. The only option for this is issue would be birth control methods like depo or norplant.


Curiosity questions for any AD member.
How many women do you think will say sign me up? What are your female peers saying about this?

I ask because they say that AD members will be taking a survey, and they will go from there.
 
"Over the years, I have had to leave Marines of my squad, platoon, company, etc at home when going on deployment due to family emergencies, injuries, and other countless reasons. During deployments, I have had to give up Marines for CO's security detail, camp guard, mess duty, other items as well."

So it sounds like you should have developed plans and systems to minimize the eefect of losing people days/minutes before and during deployment. Pregnancy is just another thing that can go wrong. However it is one that is very easily preventable. (unlike many of the other reasons you stated above.)

I would have no problem with men and women preventing pregnancies if they are in combat units. Notices I say men and women. I wonder how much you can trust a guy in combat who's wife is about to give birth. Are they 100% committed. They should be but are they?

PS Not too much to ask my DS has to not marry and not have kids while attending VMI
 
Last edited:
pathnottaken said:
I wonder how much you can trust a guy in combat who's wife is about to give birth. Are they 100% committed. They should be but are they?
Click to expand...

Heck yes they are! They are probably the most motivated regarding the mission. They know that a new life is there waiting for them, and if they don't keep their eye on the ball, than they may never see that child.

Bullet was called back from a flying mission because I was in labor; DD was born 3 hrs later. It wasn't war, it was training. He still had to land the plane. More flying deaths occur in training than in war, because they are lax.

He was deployed with the 82nd for a 10 day field training mission where they jumped in when I was pregnant with DS2. He was told they would not release him until I was in the hospital.

That is their life. They compartmentalize what is going on at home. They place the lives standing shoulder to shoulder with them as their only way to get back home.

Military spouses know it too. That is why they have such a great social network.

To compare men and their spouse having a child with a pregnant military member is leaving me with :confused:

That ties in with your statement to TPG.
pathnottaken said:
So it sounds like you should have developed plans and systems to minimize the eefect of losing people days/minutes before and during deployment. Pregnancy is just another thing that can go wrong. However it is one that is very easily preventable. (unlike many of the other reasons you stated above.)
Click to expand...
What exactly did you think he could have done? His mission was not personnel at the Pentagon, it was completing his mission that the Pentagon set.

As far as easily preventable...that is true abstinence will prevent pregnancies, but the last I knew even birth control has OOPS.

Norplant and Depo are probably the only BC options that I can think of without major lawsuits against them like IUD. However, medically I would assume that they would create issues.

Do you give the Depo prior to deployment like yellow fever? What if they got the shot and it expires in 4 months, but the deployment will be 5 months? Can they get another shot, or are they now non-deployable?

How long do they wait to see if there is a reaction to Norplant?

What if they fail, and now are out in Timbucktoo? What now? How do they get them back?

It is not easy to get someone out of a remote location.

Honestly, as a woman, my issue is due to reproductive systems. I truly believe women can do it without reducing the stds. Look at Lyn Lemaire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_Lemaire Ironman 5th place in 1979.

That still leaves reproduction as the biggest issue which no matter the std level set it will be a factor.
 
Last edited:
If pregnancy is the only issue I would take my chances on the success of prevention.

There is a far greater chance of someone getting injured during training and become medically discharged than of a women becoming prenant when using modern preventivites (see below).

I think we should take pregancy out of the arguement of women in combat. It is preventable and should not be the reason to say women should not fight.

Let hear some better arguements against women fighting... My favorite that I have a hard time finding contours arguements with is the possible lack of dicipline of the men if a women is with them in combat.

Implant • Health care provider
places it under the
skin of the woman’s
arm.
• Lasts 3 years.
Almost
100%
• Few side effects.
• Once in, there’s
nothing more to
do.
• Causes changes
in your periods.
• After 3 years,
have it taken out
and have a new
one put in.
 
pathnottaken said:
Implant • Health care provider
places it under the
skin of the woman’s
arm.
• Lasts 3 years.
Almost
100%
• Few side effects.
• Once in, there’s
nothing more to
do.
• Causes changes
in your periods.
• After 3 years,
have it taken out
and have a new
one put in.
Click to expand...

Lots of guarantees there. ALMOST, FEW, CAUSES.


Let's do as you say take pregnancy out of it.

Not to be vulgar, but here goes....monthly reproduction cycles. How will that impact the mission every 28 days? Something men do not have to deal with when it comes to hygienic supplies. Time out guys, I need to go in the woods because of my cycle?

Missions are not timed...it can last hours upon hours, and days upon days in no man's land. Toxic shock is not an old wives tale, it is reality. Dust storms are an issue from a hygienic issue for a woman more than a man.

This to me is not about stds., it is about the mission, and women unless they have no period, will be a factor.

Women are different. Here is something to look at when you think about the big picture.
http://www.euronews.com/2012/08/09/sick-american-scientist-successfully-evacuated-from-antarctica-/
The rescue flight was flown into Antarctica under risky weather conditions with temperatures as low as -30 degrees Celsius.
Click to expand...

Granted it is not like ops in the military, but the fact is that flight occurred because the patient was a female. It was because of genetics, and that made her a higher risk. It meant others risked their lives too, for her life.
 
Last edited:
Pima said:
Lots of guarantees there. ALMOST, FEW, CAUSES.


Let's do as you say take pregnancy out of it.

Not to be vulgar, but here goes....monthly reproduction cycles. How will that impact the mission every 28 days? Something men do not have to deal with when it comes to hygienic supplies. Time out guys, I need to go in the woods because of my cycle?

Missions are not timed...it can last hours upon hours, and days upon days in no man's land. Toxic shock is not an old wives tale, it is reality. Dust storms are an issue from a hygienic issue for a woman more than a man.

This to me is not about stds., it is about the mission, and women unless they have no period, will be a factor.

Women are different. Here is something to look at when you think about the big picture.
http://www.euronews.com/2012/08/09/sick-american-scientist-successfully-evacuated-from-antarctica-/


Granted it is not like ops in the military, but the fact is that flight occurred because the patient was a female. It was because of genetics, and that made her a higher risk. It meant others risked their lives too, for her life.
Click to expand...

+1 now that is an arguement that needs to addressed!
 
And more on biology:

1) women in peak of her cycle (most fertile) cause male testosterone level to rise.

2) Studies prove that, on contrary to the general misconception, it’s the high testosterone levels that cause men to behave in a more pro-social way and act calmly in situations in an anti-aggressive manner. The greater level of testosterone in men leads to:

•A better mood and self confidence that makes men to exhibit less aggression
•A less hostile and less egocentric behavior on part of men


So do we want to have a bunch of non-agressive soldiers if the battle happens to correspond to the wrong time in a cycle...
 
My bad.

Here is the doc I was thinking of.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/23/obit.jerri.nielsen/


I am checking out of this argument.

The fact is women have periods. We have not a clue the minute it will start, nor the minute it will end. Medically, we can be an issue for the mission when the need arises, we need to address the issue as soon as possible

That is my bottom line.

I believe women can meet the stds. I just don't believe due to genetics this is something the military is placing into the equation when it comes to the mission.

Quick question...would the military DQ a male if every 4-6 hrs they had to deal with a medical issue for 3,5,7 days every month? Would they require extra testing to determine other aspects, such as, cramping?

I bet they would.

You may defend women and say it is not an issue, but that is my opinion.

Checking out!
 
I'm confused. Women can be the COs of ships. Hundreds, if not thousands report to the CO. She is just as likely to get pregnant (although she's older if she's a CO). She is relied on to be ready. People have to trust she'll be ready.

Now I would argue she's far more important that a single E-4 in the Marine Corps.

Pregnancy gets in the way? Sure. And yet somehow it doesn't bring the military to a grinding halt.

I don't buy it.
 
Of course, Dr. Nielsen's evacuation had nothing to do with her menstrual cycle. I venture to say that if a male "Dr. Nielsen" needed evacuation due to complications of prostate cancer, the same flight would have been made.

The menstrual cycle can be controlled. Sometimes nature itself takes care of it -- athletic amenorrhoea might be quite prevalent among females fit enough to meet combat duty standards.
 
LineInTheSand said:
I'm confused. Women can be the COs of ships. Hundreds, if not thousands report to the CO. She is just as likely to get pregnant (although she's older if she's a CO). She is relied on to be ready. People have to trust she'll be ready.

Now I would argue she's far more important that a single E-4 in the Marine Corps.

Pregnancy gets in the way? Sure. And yet somehow it doesn't bring the military to a grinding halt.

I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Driving a ship is a little different than going out on a 72 hour combat patrol
 
So I'm going to post my own two cents here, take them as you will. My dad did three tours in Iraq in charge of an MP BN that stretched from Baghdad up through the far north of the country. As a result he did month long tours of all of his far flung units. About 80% of the team he took with him on patrol were females. They would be gone from the FOB for a month or two at a time, they were fired upon and took fire, one of them pulled my father from a burning vehicle after an IED explosion (and let me inform you that he is NOT a tiny man). They managed to find ways AROUND their "womany" problems interfering with their mission.

It bothers me to see these posts because they all talk about the mission effectiveness being decreased because of certain problems that will be brought to the table. My question is, we talk about the negatives all the time... but have we ever thought about what we're missing by not even giving the females a chance to serve on the front lines? Some of the best soldiers in the military are females, and you are depriving them of a chance to lead in combat. Are the women at WP given a less rigorous training then the males? If not then they are just as likely to be good leaders, maybe even better than some of their male counterparts who branch into Combat units.

So my personal opinion is this... if they can hoof the pack and pass the tests, let 'em in. The military has been making accommodations for people for generations: letting mixed units fight and train together in the early Vietnam years etc.

Yes, some changes might have to be made, but if you only look at what is lost to a unit by incorporating women you only get half the story. I believe you have to look at the other side of the coin and realize that by increasing the pool of soldiers and officers, you increase the quality of officer and soldier.

And I honestly can't believe hygiene was actually used as an argument as to why women shouldn't be in combat. If they're grown up enough to be in combat, I'm sure they're grown up enough to take care of their hygiene and know how to best look after themselves.


Once again, just my two cents, take them or leave them.
 
pathnottaken said:
PS (a little statistical analysis)
Luigi59 article above stating the two women who tried and failed compared to the 108 men who tried and 12 failed has no statistical difference ie there is no difference statistically between 2/2 and 12/108. The sample size is too small to make any conclusions.
Click to expand...
It's been 30 years since I took statistics but doesn't the sample have to be random in order for the n=30 or greater heuristic to be valid? If the two women who failed weren't random female marines, but a subset of the larger cohort, then the sample size argument is irrelevant.
 
USCGA13STN said:
So I'm going to post my own two cents here, take them as you will. My dad did three tours in Iraq in charge of an MP BN that stretched from Baghdad up through the far north of the country. As a result he did month long tours of all of his far flung units. About 80% of the team he took with him on patrol were females. They would be gone from the FOB for a month or two at a time, they were fired upon and took fire, one of them pulled my father from a burning vehicle after an IED explosion (and let me inform you that he is NOT a tiny man). They managed to find ways AROUND their "womany" problems interfering with their mission.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing that an MP BN Commander was out on month long patrols. He may have left his main FOB, but I'd be willing to bet that he (and the accompanying patrol) were bouncing from FOB to FOB (or COP).

Now, if women can perform that "combat arms" role, why not leave it at that? On the flip side of this argument, what is it about the infantry that women think they are being deprived of? As far as I have heard, the only thing mentioned is career progression. Wanting to lead in combat just to get promoted is bs, regardless of gender.

USCGA13STN said:
It bothers me to see these posts because they all talk about the mission effectiveness being decreased because of certain problems that will be brought to the table. My question is, we talk about the negatives all the time... but have we ever thought about what we're missing by not even giving the females a chance to serve on the front lines? Some of the best soldiers in the military are females, and you are depriving them of a chance to lead in combat. Are the women at WP given a less rigorous training then the males? If not then they are just as likely to be good leaders, maybe even better than some of their male counterparts who branch into Combat units.
Click to expand...

Subjectively, yes. Physical standards are lower.
 
dunninla said:
It's been 30 years since I took statistics but doesn't the sample have to be random in order for the n=30 or greater heuristic to be valid? If the two women who failed weren't random female marines, but a subset of the larger cohort, then the sample size argument is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The sample size argument is still valid.
 
BigBear said:
Driving a ship is a little different than going out on a 72 hour combat patrol
Click to expand...

You're right.... driving a ship is longer than 72 hours. And unless the female is highly motivated, I don't think she'll be able to fit her 6,480 hours of pregnancy into a 72 hour combat patrol.

Also, as you illustrate, such a short, albeit grueling, 72 hour period, members of the patrol are likely interchangeable, something not as easly done for a CO of a ship.

So I'm not sure if "going out on a 72 hour combat patrol" is going to be the argument that women (and pregnancies) won't work in this capacity.

Many people will say "if women can do the same stuff... why not have them work?" The argument used to be "sexual tension," although, with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I'm not sure if that carries the same water these days. Another argument "they get pregnant." Yes, sometimes they do. And sometimes I break an arm. Or sometimes I need shoulder surgery. Or sometimes I have a tooth absess. So I don't know if "they get pregnant" work. The "they get periods" excuse doesn't work either. Somehow over the past centuries, women have figured out how to deal with that, without me knowing (and I thank you for not sharing).

"Guys are tougher than girls!" Maybe. I certainly can push the girls around in my men's hockey league. But I also know a number of females who bike faster, run farther and swim faster than me. Maybe that biking, running and swimming saves someone I couldn't. Do you want to be the guy who dies because LITS wasn't as fast as some "girl!"
 
Last edited:
BigBear said:
I have a hard time believing that an MP BN Commander was out on month long patrols. He may have left his main FOB, but I'd be willing to bet that he (and the accompanying patrol) were bouncing from FOB to FOB (or COP).
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have been more clear, as the BN CSM, he was in charge on the enlisted side. He left the main FOB and most of his smaller units were not at FOBs, but tiny little outposts (if that) and some were just in random staging units in the field. He felt it was his duty to check on them in person and make sure they're needs were being met and that the mission was being performed. He would make a circuit to each of his units in the field and then return to the main FOB for about a week and do the circuit again. I think at one point he said he put over 9,000 miles on "Lucy" his truck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top