Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Women Heading Into Combat!  
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5525 posts, RR: 8
Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2130 times:

Women are no longer being barred from combat positions in the USA military:

Quote:
The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, CNN has learned. Multiple officials confirm to CNN that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement tomorrow and notify Congress of the planned change in policy.

“We will eliminate the policy of ‘no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,’” a senior defense official says.

But the officials caution that “not every position will open all at once on Thursday.” Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an “assessment phase,” in which each branch of service will examine all of its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable in which it can integrate them.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...en-combat-jobs-to-women/?hpt=hp_c1

I personally am fine with it and though I know some are concerned but I think it will not impact the combat ability of the US military.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-01-23 13:26:26]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

I'm glad.

Disclaimer: I have not served in the military.

But, I have served with women in the fire service and worked side by side with female police officers while in the fire service. And, I have not found them wanting one bit in skill or ability. It's not military service in a combat zone, but there are many parallels.

It's about time.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6618 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2082 times:

What does that really mean ? When you're fighting against guerrillas any sortie, patrol, etc., is potential combat.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2041 times:

Was it the Marines a couple of months ago tried to run a women's infantry officers course and only had two volunteers both of whom failed out of the course?

I agree that the restriction has grown ever dumber the last twenty five years but they still need to be able to physically fo the same job. I knew of more than one female who couldn't lift a 155mm arty shell. And plenty who where working the system.

So.

Allow women on combat...OK but make them meet the same pt test standard as males (there are male and female standards now) and get rid of the female exemption to the draft and make them sign up for selective service while you are at it!



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19611 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

My concern is that we are generally not fighting civilized people, especially in the Mid-East. I am very concerned about the way that Taliban and friends would treat female captives as opposed to male ones.

User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2021 times:

Women are already in the army in places like Israel aren't they?
If women want to do this, then good for them. It's all about equality. They will know the risks of what they're doing when they sign up for this and if they don't want to do it, then they aren't being forced into it.



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2008 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):

My concern is that we are generally not fighting civilized people, especially in the Mid-East. I am very concerned about the way that Taliban and friends would treat female captives as opposed to male ones.

While you raise a legitimate fact about the people we're fighting, I'm not inclined to think that matters a whole lot. Given the asymmetrical nature of this war and the lack of front lines, women are going to get caught up in it anyhow; we might as well not pretend to have institutional misgivings about it. If it turns out that not many women actually end up becoming combat troops, well okay, but we shouldn't categorically deny them the chance.


User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6187 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Didn´t the Red Army had women in active combat during World War 2?


MGGS
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1989 times:

Used to be against it, but I am cautiously for it ONLY if they don't do some affirmative action bull**** and make at least X% of infantry officers female or something. No. They need to have a bar, if that bar is set so high that 0 females are qualified tough luck, it's combat, not a social movement


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinevenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1987 times:

As long as all the standards are the same and not watered down to reach quotas. While your at it have them sign up for selective service. Plus across the board in all the branches of the armed forces the same physical fitness standard and not gender specific. Equality baby!!!


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8490 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1968 times:

Quoting venus6971 (Reply 9):
As long as all the standards are the same and not watered down to reach quotas. While your at it have them sign up for selective service. Plus across the board in all the branches of the armed forces the same physical fitness standard and not gender specific. Equality baby!!!

Exactly what I had in mind.

I have supported the idea for a long time and also one standard for the battlefield.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 779 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1919 times:

I'm fine with it as long as they have to pass the same physical fitness tests and make all women have to register for the draft like men already have to. I imagine the country wouldn't put women into combat if suddenly fathers and mothers had to worry about their daughter being drafted into the infantry or cavalry.

I would also like to see the military keep records regarding women 'getting pregnant' on the eve of battle. I've heard that this is an issue, where the military sinks lots of money into training women for a particular discipline, then the call to war happens and the female soldier uses the 'pregnancy' card to stay home. We have limited resources and need to make sure our resources are properly spent.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1906 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
I personally am fine with it and though I know some are concerned but I think it will not impact the combat ability of the US military.

I agree.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
My concern is that we are generally not fighting civilized people, especially in the Mid-East. I am very concerned about the way that Taliban and friends would treat female captives as opposed to male ones.

That's my biggest worry. Of course any US soldier that falls into the hands of the Taliban is almost certainly a goner, but still. It's one thing if the enemy is a nation that more or less respects women, but not in the mid-east.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 3):
I agree that the restriction has grown ever dumber the last twenty five years but they still need to be able to physically fo the same job. I knew of more than one female who couldn't lift a 155mm arty shell. And plenty who where working the system.

Fair point. But just as you pick (or are chosen) for different duties based on your abilities, you won't choose a woman to be a loader.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2062 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Fair point. But just as you pick (or are chosen) for different duties based on your abilities, you won't choose a woman to be a loader.

There has to be a minimum standard of work that everyone can achieve. There's a difference between 'this guy can run the fastest so he can be scout, but everyone else can run nearly as fast if need be' to 'this guy can't run at all due to a dicky knee, make sure you don't put him as scout'. You make one exception then you need to make more exceptions, what if she falls over from the recoil of a certain gun, guess she can't use that gun; it goes on until you wind up with two distinct classes of soldier anyway.

I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that within a decade there will be female standards and male standards. They will open it up where the women need to achieve the same physical fitness, but not enough women will want/be able to meet that level. Then there will be cries of discrimination because there's only 0.5 women in each platoon and the military will be forced to make the concession because the whole reason they opened it up in the first place was to avoid being labelled discriminatory.

Doesn't bother me too much, I have no intention of joining the military; but I really feel for the friends of mine and others who will arrive home in a body bag because one of their team members couldn't load an artillery gun but was put there to placate feminists screeching from their ivory towers.


User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1854 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 14):
Doesn't bother me too much, I have no intention of joining the military; but I really feel for the friends of mine and others who will arrive home in a body bag because one of their team members couldn't load an artillery gun but was put there to placate feminists screeching from their ivory towers.

I'm fairly certain that this is not how the new policy was put in place.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5602 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 3):


Allow women on combat...OK but make them meet the same pt test standard as males

This.

It always bothered me a bit that women are held to a lower physical standard than their male counterparts, especially now that women are routinely placed in areas and situations where they could (and have) become the "front line".

And if you think DADT was a pain in the butt to get rid of, you ain't seen nuthin yet.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinekpitrrat From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 7):
Didn´t the Red Army had women in active combat during World War 2?

Yes, however they generally served in more specialized positions: Sniper, Machinegunner, Tank crew, etc.

Not many were really "frontline" infantry. Still, these were combat positions.


User currently offlinedc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

As long as the women can pass the same physical requirements as the men then I have no problem. If they can't pass muster then a female candidate shouldn't be allowed no matter what some PC higher up may wish.

User currently offlinegreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3079 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

We have women in combat and even fought in Afghanistan. One was even killed.

It is not like every women in the military will not want to take on a combat roll.

I think this is good.



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

I'm guessing that women will be required to register for the Selective Service now.

Another result from this is that women will now have additional paths for advancement in the combat arms.

Again, a long time coming.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 20):
I'm guessing that women will be required to register for the Selective Service now.

Not right away I don't think, but on another discussion forum someone said that it would be pretty easy to challenge current law on the matter in court once this policy went into effect.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7312 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1699 times:

If women are happy to get shot at just like the men then no worries let them, a female target is no better than a male target, just smaller.

User currently offlineHywel From Uganda, joined Apr 2008, 802 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

Feminists have wanted equality for decades, and yet they'll be angry over this decision  

User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1254 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
My concern is that we are generally not fighting civilized people, especially in the Mid-East. I am very concerned about the way that Taliban and friends would treat female captives as opposed to male ones.

Well any captive is likely going to get killed anyway, and after all that's war, anyone who willingly joins any military force on this planet should also accept possibility of death in combat or even worse than just simple death.

And honestly I'm pretty sure rapes would happen even in a war between two "civilized" western countries, just look at what happened between Germany and Russia during WW2, and that happened to civilian population. Enemy female soldier would be even more likely to get such treatment when caught alive.

But yeah I think this is a good thing, people who want to risk their lives for oil and politics should definitely be free to do so no matter what sex they are.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19611 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1645 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 23):
And honestly I'm pretty sure rapes would happen even in a war between two "civilized" western countries, just look at what happened between Germany and Russia during WW2, and that happened to civilian population. Enemy female soldier would be even more likely to get such treatment when caught alive.

I would argue that just because Japanese and German troops wore uniforms and marched under a flag, it did not make them "civilized." The Germans were busy gassing 12 million "undesirables" and the Japanese were instructing their young men to suicide into American ships. Those are signs of a breakdown in civilization.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6618 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1696 times:

Well aren't there thousands of rapes inside the US military right now ? I guess they're not civilized either.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12470 posts, RR: 25
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1679 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 23):
anyone who willingly joins any military force on this planet should also accept possibility of death in combat or even worse than just simple death

Yet around here kids are told it's a great way to save money for college (which it really isn't, because the cost of college goes up faster than your ability to save and the govt's contribution, but that's a different story)

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
Well aren't there thousands of rapes inside the US military right now ? I guess they're not civilized either.

Hard to argue that.

Armies aren't institutions of civility, IMHO.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Quoting Hywel (Reply 22):
Feminists have wanted equality for decades, and yet they'll be angry over this decision

Well if you're from Qatar like your flag says you'll maybe hear different, but so far at least I've only heard positive remarks about this from typical feminist allies (I don't know about actual feminists, and it's bound to create a No True Scotsman situation anyway.)


User currently offlineHywel From Uganda, joined Apr 2008, 802 posts, RR: 3
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 27):
Well if you're from Qatar like your flag says you'll maybe hear different, but so far at least I've only heard positive remarks about this from typical feminist allies (I don't know about actual feminists, and it's bound to create a No True Scotsman situation anyway.)

Not originally from Qatar, and my comment was sarcastic  


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19611 posts, RR: 58
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):

Well aren't there thousands of rapes inside the US military right now ? I guess they're not civilized either.

Good point.

And, on further reflection I have come to realize that women themselves should be the ones to decide whether they wish to face the risks of active combat, rather than men making paternalistic decisions of this sort for them. As long as they can meet the physical standards, then I say that they are grown women, so let them make that choice just as men do.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 30, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1594 times:

I'm not even sure why this is an argument anymore. Women are already in combat and dying in combat. This policy change just allows them to reap the "benefits" that have been enjoyed by men in the combat arms of the US military.

And, I'm not being sarcastic when I say "benefits". As I understand it, women have been restricted from promotion in the combat arms (infantry, artillary, armor, special forces) because they were not allowed to hold positions in those units. Now, there is additional promotion opportunity.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinefridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 31, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hmm, don't know about this one. Our Military should not be used for social experiments etc.

The few women who will apply to Infantry positions will most likely be some seriously athletic, Type "A" personalities.

I don't think they'll be the ones who will manage to get pregnant to avoid deployment, and there are a lot of them doing just that according to my friends still on active duty in the Army.

I read somewhere, sorry, I can't remember where, but the Israeli's tried it and it did not work. Males being protective of them took their concentration off the mission was a big thing. Maybe one of you with better research skills than I can find out more.

I spent 11 years in the Airborne Infantry and let me tell you, when it comes down to it, the Infantry has one job and one job only, and that is to kill.

You know the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for!"

I know some women will take offense at this post. Please don't, it was not meant to be.

Thanks,

F



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1651 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1585 times:

I don't have a problem with it..But in anything that tends to be PC there is bound to be somewhere down the line they will have different standards for men and women. This is the problem I have with the PC crowd..Fireman and police have dumbed down requirements not only for women but men too if they are minorities just to get to a certain percentage. Its one thing to do it in the civilian world or corporate world but military or even fire and police where physical and other requirements need to be met to do your job and lives could be in danger if they are not met? Sorry but I don't agree. You either meet the standard or you do not. Make it fair to everyone of every color but don't change standards ever to meet a quota.


NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6618 posts, RR: 9
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1570 times:

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 31):
I read somewhere, sorry, I can't remember where, but the Israeli's tried it and it did not work. Males being protective of them took their concentration off the mission was a big thing. Maybe one of you with better research skills than I can find out more.

Well Israel has a military service for men and women equally so I would think they could have segregated units that would solve that problem.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1553 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
My concern is that we are generally not fighting civilized people, especially in the Mid-East. I am very concerned about the way that Taliban and friends would treat female captives as opposed to male ones.

My my, wonders never cease ! Doc and I finally agreeing on something ! And make no mistake; the people Doc is alluding to are just licking their lips in eager anticipation ! I will predict here and now, we will be reading headlines sooner or later, detailing what happened to the first one captured. (which I sincerely pray never happens)


[quote=L-188,reply=3]Was it the Marines a couple of months ago tried to run a women's infantry officers course and only had two volunteers both of whom failed out of the course?

Wow........funny you should mention that just now; My best friend, Rob, has a son in the Marine Corps; until about 3 or 4 years ago, Jason was an E-5, had been all over Far East, Japan, one tour in Afghanistan; during his tour in Afghanistan, he worked directly as "muscle" for a General; the General saw Officer "potential" in Jason, had a long talk with him, and pointed out the "advantages" of being an officer; Jason is not only extremely "quick" with his hands, his brain is just as quick; Anyway, the General pulled the necessary "strings", and next thing we knew, Jason was in Jacksonville, Fla. for 2 years of extremely intense "college equivalency" study, passing with flying colors! As soon as he graduated from that (with the necessary diploma to become a Marine Officer, he was off to Quantico, to a one year, even MORE intensive officer training gig; about a month ago, he completed that course with flying colors; they were about to have the big graduation ceremony; Rob flew down to DC, rented a car, drove down to Quantico, got a motel, and attended the graduation ceremony;

Now; here's the good part; there were exactly 294 "students" in the course; of that number, 150 had graduated from two big Universities in the East; all of them had come through the ROTC program; about half had judicial training in college, and the other half had gone through some sort of aviation training; as soon as the graduation was over, the half with the aviation training were ordered directly to Pensacola for flight school; every one else except for ONE, was ordered to some place, (not sure where), but were to receive last minute further artillery training, prior to going to Afghanistan ! So Jason is telling Rob, well, been there before, guess I'll be going back; Now; there was a very low level meeting among the officers that had conducted the training, to "assign" that ONE last "slot"......which also was for attending flight training at Pensacola; someone named the oldest guy who had already been through the big college "up east"; Jason's company commander happened to be right there; he jumps up, says..."hey, wait a damn minute here; that guy is already "so old" by the time he gets out of Pensacola, he'll be TOO old; they look at each other; "what do you suggest ? HE; Send Jones ! He's two years younger, he's already BEEN a Marine for 10 years, he's as smart as anyone in the whole damned class, and if that isn't enough, he can EASILY KILL anyone in this room with his hands if the need should arise; the verdict was unanimous ! Jason is NOW as I type this, living with his wife and daughter in Pensacola, Fla, and just starting 24 months of flight training !

This is even more telling; while Rob was there, all of the guys whose parents were there got to take their dads out to the artillery range; all of the dads were allowed to fire 4 or 5 different types of automatic weapons; Rob did even better than a few of the instructors ! (which didn't surprise me, but it did surprise them) here's what DID surprise me; during the early months of this course Jason took, they had to "hike" every day, full combat load, something like 10 miles; in the beginning, there were about half a dozen women; it became apparent early on, that the women didn't have the combination of physical strength, plus endurance, to go more the 3 or4 miles; so they brought a truck along; any time a woman had to drop out, she had to ride in the truck; way before the end of the course, all the women had washed out.
That is not saying that women are anything;

I'm NOT telling this because I don't think women can do this or that; I have seen women who were triathletes that were tough as nails; I have seen women in martial arts that can kick just about ANY man's ass. There are women cops that are very effective police officers; but those are the exceptions; for every "exceptional" woman, there are always going vtombe MANY woman who are "average women"; I've personally met two female airline Captains; ( of all non-traditional female jobs, becoming a pilot is perhaps the least one to be concerned about. Women can and Captain airliners.
But infantry combat......that's a whole different story. I'll put it this way; I highly doubt that anyone on this forum is sufficiently qualified to pass judgement on this question; and Leon Panetta is definitely not qualified to either; (he couldn'tt walk 10 miles in his underwear, and I don't have anything against leon Panetta. Those Marine training officers at Quantico ARE qualified. But we ALL know who Leon Panetta takes HIS orders from.

That's the whole problem here; everyone either knows, or has seen, a few of the "exceptional" women; of course there ARE a few women that can train to do anything; but that isn't going to help the 95% that can't. That's the ones I'm concerned about. What we're looking at here is NOT a "military" decision; it's a "political" decision; and it's 99.9% likely to come right back, and bite the ass of the one ordering it!

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1254 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1519 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
I would argue that just because Japanese and German troops wore uniforms and marched under a flag, it did not make them "civilized." The Germans were busy gassing 12 million "undesirables" and the Japanese were instructing their young men to suicide into American ships. Those are signs of a breakdown in civilization.

Well then later when Soviets started their march towards Berlin they did just the same as Germans had done, raped and pillaged. War is pure murder and savagery, it can never be civilized. Amount of savagery just varies, any group of people can be turned in to bunch of savages with a good amount of propaganda.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 26):
Yet around here kids are told it's a great way to save money for college (which it really isn't, because the cost of college goes up faster than your ability to save and the govt's contribution, but that's a different story)

Yeah I bet without some pro army propaganda there wouldn't be as many people willing to risk their lives for relatively small amount of money that they get for that.

But I think in the end that's still better than the system we have around here. forcing every young man to choose between 6 months in army, 11 months of civil service or around 6 months in jail. Kind of pointless especially when the fact is that only even slightly potential enemy in the future is Russia and if they attacked this country would be taken over in matter of weeks or months no matter if we try to defend it or not.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1356 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1507 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 35):
War is pure murder and savagery, it can never be civilized. Amount of savagery just varies, any group of people can be turned in to bunch of savages with a good amount of propaganda.

Absolutely. Part of our problem in the US is that we really don't listen to folks who've been there and done that when making these decisions (though we're certainly not the only place to have ever had that problem).

All I would add, for this subject, is that if women really want in that badly for combat, well, fine, they can have it. But it's really not that great a prize. As well, we need to either A. adjust the draft to forceably include them, or B. abolish the draft altogether, given our enormous military size.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 35):
Kind of pointless especially when the fact is that only even slightly potential enemy in the future is Russia and if they attacked this country would be taken over in matter of weeks or months no matter if we try to defend it or not.

Maybe. But I'm not so sure about that one. I think they'd get within ten miles of your border, and the whole thing would stall when their tanks run out of gas because they have no cash to fund their military with in the first place. And then, when they went to load said tank's guns, they'd find a note in the ammo box that says "I owe you one load of sabots", written from the guy who sold them on the black market last month, lol!



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12470 posts, RR: 25
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 31):
The few women who will apply to Infantry positions will most likely be some seriously athletic, Type "A" personalities.

Or just ditzy teenagers who can't find any other source of income and buy the recruitment pitch.

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 31):

I don't think they'll be the ones who will manage to get pregnant to avoid deployment, and there are a lot of them doing just that according to my friends still on active duty in the Army.

It's epidemic, regardless of the reason.

There's not much "management" involved. There are plenty of willing sperm donors, regardless of the consequences.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1871 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Women find themselves in combat today. So the thread title of women heading into combat is misleading. This only changes the verbiage of their roles there. Every human has physical limitations that differ from person to person. Some men are stronger than women and others are not. This fallacy that women are not able to do infantry jobs because it is tough is nonsense to me. Will every woman qualify. NO. Will most qualify maybe not, but to say that none can is foolish and chauvinistic of any one to think so.

Quoting greasespot (Reply 18):
We have women in combat and even fought in Afghanistan. One was even killed.

54 US women soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan as of October. In addition to 124 Women killed in Iraq.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 34):
Those Marine training officers at Quantico ARE qualified. But we ALL know who Leon Panetta takes HIS orders from.

General Dempsey seems to be the man that championed this with Panetta.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 39, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1467 times:

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 31):
Males being protective of them took their concentration off the mission was a big thing. Maybe one of you with better research skills than I can find out more.

While I am all in favor of women doing everything they are physically capable of doing. This editorial does cause me to think a little bit.

For some reason it won't let me post the link, but here it is "http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html"


Quote:
I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.

Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?

Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.

Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 40, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

Not having ever met General Dempsey, I'm not able to say anything about him, one way or another; but regardless of what he OR Leon Panetta think, they both get their orders from the same place.

One other thing that a few have touched on, and no one can refute this, because it has already happened, has BEEN happening since the beginning of time, and WILL continue to happen, regardless of who thinks what. We already have at least one female commanding a ship; I don't recall the type; I can see that working, and as far as I know, it already IS "working"; however, that's getting awfully close to the one place in the whole Navy I DON'T see a female crew member EVER "working out"; aboard submarines.

I wasn't a "sub sailor" when I was in the Navy, but I did spend 4 years working on them, to the extent that I had the rare opportunity to "go out" on a brief "shake down" after making a repair on a couple of old, WW 2 Fleet Type subs; you can read every submarine book out there, but until you have served as crew aboard a submarine, you have NO IDEA just how "different" life aboard a submarine really is. There is a very old joke among sub sailors that alludes to life aboard a submarine; it goes like this; "80 a**holes and no portholes"; (if that tells you anything)

My own opinion is.......you may possibly see women in Seal teams before you see women in submarines; but I also think that's highly unlikely, and probably for about the same reasons.

The whole notion of women in all different areas of our armed forces was a "social experiment" from the get-go; it has ALREADY proven what the people who were against it were trying to point out.

Military commanders have a HUGE problem on their hands already, even before the first woman "added to" the "problem". I'll try to explain what I'm talking about; (this isn't an opinion, just a reflection on an "experience";

The first ship I was on was the U.S.S. Fulton, AS-11; (A is for "auxiliary", S is for "submarine") The Fulton was a 629 ft long, 19,000 ton floating submarine base; in Navy-speak, a "sub-tender"; all auxiliary ships spend the bulk of their time either tied to a pier, "tending" what ever type of vessels they're designed for, or else "anchored out" someplace near some island, but doing the same thing. Anyway, the Navy was having this HUGE "joint" operation in the Carribean, and the Fulton was deployed to Puerto Rico to serve as an "over night" base for the old type subs of those bye-gone days;

The trip from New London, Ct. to Puerto Rico took "5 or 6 days", give or take; ( sub tenders DON'T "go fast" ); anyway, on the trip down to PR, it was one LONG "cautionary, explanatory" "training session"; (all about the very real "dangers" of "men" (meaning "us"), "catching" all manner of venereal diseases. I don't know how many have ever BEEN to PR, but there were a LOT of "women" there; and 98% of them were "real babes"; the problem is though, (or at least "was") (I'm talking 1952 or 3 here) there was not much for all of these gorgeous young girls to "do", so they were ALL "doing" the same thing; "entertaining" men, (for a "price") All the way to PR we were shown film after film after film; all of the same things; extreme close-ups of male genitalia suffering the effects of all manner of VD (as it was referred to back then) (today they've changed that to "STD") (same thing, different name)

When the films stopped, the lectures began; "Don't do this", Don't do that", (or "your's will look like "this"!) All the way to PR, we are being "indoctrinated"; I'm thinking...."Boy, this is gonna be ONE well trained bunch of guys when we get there!" Oh....I almost forgot.....just after the don't do this and that lecture, came the "but if you do" lecture, which consisted of intensive indoctrination of a bunch of young 19yr olds on "what to do", immediately after "doing" what you have just received a week of "training" about "what NOT to do"; as I'm sure Captain J.S. Coye, Jr. (our CO) fully expected everyone WOULD do, the minute we arrived in PR, 1st section and 2nd section went on liberty, (while 3rd section (the "duty" section) stayed "aboard", and by midnight (when liberty was "up"), everyone came back to the ship, and the "head" (that's the "room" on a ship where sailors pee) looked like a HUGE VD clinic; everyone was attempting to use the provided "pro kits", (which, as I remember, consisted of a small tube (with convenient "spout") to get the contents "up in it", plus all of the little oily papers intended to "wrap it up in"; And the next day, guess what ? Exactly as was predicted.........2/3 of the crew of the U.S.S. Fulton are lined up at sick bay, being treated for "infected genitalia".

See, the people who run the Armed Forces have "been there, done that"; they already KNOW what guys are gonna "do" when females are "available"; Hey......it's ALWAYS been "against the law" to rob banks; have you ever noticed how many don't pay any attention to THAT law ?

And that concludes MY reasoning relative to "why" women won't work on submarines. Thank you.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 41, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1382 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 15):
This.

It always bothered me a bit that women are held to a lower physical standard than their male counterparts, especially now that women are routinely placed in areas and situations where they could (and have) become the "front line".
Quoting dc863 (Reply 17):
As long as the women can pass the same physical requirements as the men then I have no problem. If they can't pass muster then a female candidate shouldn't be allowed no matter what some PC higher up may wish.

I agree but add one caveat.

Most military fitness tests measure RELATIVE fitness. In other words, something like a two mile run (wearing sneakers and gym gear) is graded on a different scale for men and women because the 'average' male completes that distance in a shorter time than the 'average' female. So to insist on the 'same standard' for men and women on this particular - artificial - event is actually requiring women to be MORE FIT than a man. More relatively fit. This is the same rationale by which the standards are usually relaxed with increasing age.

If the Army or any other organization wants to apply a "one standard" approach to fitness, the key is to identify physical skills that apply directly to the job. So if the PT test is that you need to lift "x" number of artillery shells, or drag a 200lb dummy x distance, or swim x number of yards, or march x distance with full pack etc then it is perfectly fair and reasonable to apply the same standard to men and women. But then EVERYONE needs to be able to pass it, and you can't adjust the standard based on AGE (as most relative fitness tests do) either because the skills are directly related to performance on the job.

Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand the difference between a relative fitness test and a job performance test and get all pissed off that women don't have to 'run as fast as a man'...but have no problem with the older guys getting a break. Makes no sense.


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1356 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1384 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 41):
Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand the difference between a relative fitness test and a job performance test and get all pissed off that women don't have to 'run as fast as a man'...but have no problem with the older guys getting a break. Makes no sense.

I didn't even think about that one before, but it does make complete sense. The only "justification" I can see to age is that past a given point, someone really would be less likely to be in direct combat past a certain age (especially where a draft would be concerned).

But then again, that can be very easily negated by someone enlisting at a much greater age than 18...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 43, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1323 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 42):
didn't even think about that one before, but it does make complete sense. The only "justification" I can see to age is that past a given point, someone really would be less likely to be in direct combat past a certain age (especially where a draft would be concerned).


Absolutely...that's why if you want to make sure that all your soldiers have a certain "level of fitness" regardless of what their primary duties would be, you do a general fitness type test (running, pushups etc.) and it's perfectly reasonable to have different standards for men and women, young and old.

But if you want to make sure that a given set of people who might reasonably be expected to do artillery work can lug shells, you make them all lug shells and the standard is the same for all. If they need to rescue people, then you make them all drag a dummy to the same standard. So your older crowd of senior personnel might not need to pass those tests (though they probably would in order to 'set the example' for the troops LOL).

The problem with the way that the services have implemented mixed gender fitness is that by and large they haven't operationalized what it means to be "fit" for various combat tasks, so you have the situation where women - who generally have less inherent physical capability than men - get slammed for "doing less than a man" on the relative fitness tests when they might meet (or could be trained to meet) the actual requirements of the job. But first somebody has to sit down and define what those are.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 44, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1301 times:

A few facts (and I am certain we can all find exceptions to the following)::

-women are generally shorter than men (by a head, usually), therefore have a more restricted view of the battlefield;
-women are generally not as strong as men, and would therefore be of limited value evacuating wounded or for doing physical hauling, still required in the infantry;
-women (in the US military) are injured three times as frequently as men (not counting pregnancy evacuations), therefore their availability for combat is impaired;
-Canada opened combat arms to women in I believe 1991. Since then the percentage of women in uniform has dropped from around 8% to just above 4%. An inference may be that women are not signing up because the majority do not want to be assigned to combat units. Women also now serve in submarines.
.
At least in Canadian terms, women have fought and died in Afghanistan in front line units. They bunk with the lads both at the main base and also the FOBs (in tents). No one doubts their honour and/or commitment. Several have been decorated.

All that said, the real reason for women in the combat arms portion of the military is economic and career path. Having served front-line affords an individual more possibility of rapid promotion and visibility in the force. As long as standards are not relaxed, I see no over-arching reason to deny women this 'opportunity' -- but it has to be recognized that it comes with a cost.

My two cents...



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 45, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1297 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 41):
So to insist on the 'same standard' for men and women on this particular - artificial - event is actually requiring women to be MORE FIT than a man.

I realize this, and as unfair as biology is, I don't care when lives are in stake. There should be a basic human standard for infantry, if that means Sally who always wanted to be in the infantry her whole life and is more physically fit than most women but can't pass the test to be in the infantry, tough luck, that's life (and the lives of others that could be in danger if you have a weak link.)

This isn't diversity day... this is combat where people die. If this means 98% of women are disqualified, oh well



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1269 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 45):
I realize this, and as unfair as biology is, I don't care when lives are in stake. There should be a basic human standard for infantry, if that means Sally who always wanted to be in the infantry her whole life and is more physically fit than most women but can't pass the test to be in the infantry, tough luck, that's life (and the lives of others that could be in danger if you have a weak link.)

This isn't diversity day... this is combat where people die. If this means 98% of women are disqualified, oh well

I agree 100%...but tell me what time on the 2-mile run equates to survival on the battlefield? How many pushups?

My ONLY point here is that if you want to apply a standard to everyone regardless of gender or age (to make sure that everyone can do his/her duty) it should be specific to the performance you are expecting, whether that is a firefighter, rescue swimmer, infantryman etc. Some military communities have done a good job of defining this and some have not.

Otherwise, if all you are measuring is the nebulous concept of 'fitness' (or more accurately 'health') it is perfectly valid to have different standards. But in absence of valid performance-based fitness measurements people will continue to rightly question whether women can perform combat roles because of their biological differences, which is unfortunate. Would be much better to actually know, one way or the other.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1243 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 46):
I agree 100%...but tell me what time on the 2-mile run equates to survival on the battlefield? How many pushups?

How does physical strength equate to survival on the battlefield?

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 46):
it should be specific to the performance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Fitness_Test
http://www.army.mil/article/52548/


I'll add (being prior infantry enlisted myself) we did a lot more than the APFT every few months. I can't say if females would have made it since none were there but I'd estimate that the great majority of them wouldn't make it. If they were cut right then and there when they couldn't hack it it would be one thing but I have a feeling it'll go: "oh, we need to keep her, we don't want to get sued for kicking our only females out and looking sexist." I have a good feeling that crap will happen, and that needs to be addressed while this policy comes into effect...

[Edited 2013-01-28 07:39:47]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1199 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
How does physical strength equate to survival on the battlefield?

I have no idea. I used the word "survival" but that was a poor choice. Read it again as "what minimum time on the 2-mile run (or number of pushups/situps etc.) equates to the ability to be a satisfactory infantryman." Or fire fighter, police officer, or Indian Chief. Who the hell knows? Good question to have the answer to BEFORE implementing a fitness test.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Fitness_Test
http://www.army.mil/article/52548/

I really like some of the exercises that the Marines have chosen...but it looks like they are still grading it on an age/gender-normed scale, leaving open the question of whether or not the lower inherent physical capability of women or older men translates to inability to do the job.

They ought to say every person doing job A has to be able to do some minimum x, y, and z no matter who they are. I'm talking about a single GO / NO GO standard for each activity based on what the job actually requires. If it makes sense to have different activities/standards for different specialties, ranks, or billets etc. so be it.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
I'll add (being prior infantry enlisted myself) we did a lot more than the APFT every few months. I can't say if females would have made it since none were there but I'd estimate that the great majority of them wouldn't make it. If they were cut right then and there when they couldn't hack it it would be one thing but I have a feeling it'll go: "oh, we need to keep her, we don't want to get sued for kicking our only females out and looking sexist." I have a good feeling that crap will happen, and that needs to be addressed while this policy comes into effect...

Under the current paradigm this is exactly what is going to happen, unfortunately, because we're using a testing methodology that measures whether somebody is 'relatively fit or not' to determine whether or not they can perform a specific job...apples and oranges. What I am advocating is a solution to that problem.

edit: also, protip for the Junior Officer..."female" is good as an adjective, but better when possible to refer to female humans as 'women'!  Smile

[Edited 2013-01-28 14:06:56]

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8231 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1168 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):

My concern is that we are generally not fighting civilized people, especially in the Mid-East.

Reality is that war is not civilized at any level.

But if we are going to put women in combat then let's set up a PMS Brigade and send them after the terrorist.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
Well aren't there thousands of rapes inside the US military right now ? I guess they're not civilized either.

The military has had some problems and I have been surprised at the number of Naval Commanding Officers who have been relieved because of failures in the area of harassment.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 50, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1144 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 48):
I really like some of the exercises that the Marines have chosen...but it looks like they are still grading it on an age/gender-normed scale, leaving open the question of whether or not the lower inherent physical capability of women or older men translates to inability to do the job.

They ought to say every person doing job A has to be able to do some minimum x, y, and z no matter who they are. I'm talking about a single GO / NO GO standard for each activity based on what the job actually requires. If it makes sense to have different activities/standards for different specialties, ranks, or billets etc. so be it.

Don't forget that with age comes a lot more experience... I don't expect the old crusty SGM to be as in shape as a PFC (although that is often the case because SGMs are BAMFs) but I'd see a SGM as a lot more combat effective than a stronger PFC. There needs to be a combination, IMO... an absolute minimum to be whatever job, and an aged base standard to keep the people in the best shapes of their lives from becoming lazy and shooting for the same standards as the SGMs.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 48):
Under the current paradigm this is exactly what is going to happen, unfortunately, because we're using a testing methodology that measures whether somebody is 'relatively fit or not' to determine whether or not they can perform a specific job...apples and oranges. What I am advocating is a solution to that problem.

But it's more complex than that. The Army may come out with an infantryman/woman minimum that everyone must meet, but that's not going to stop units from training above standards. Plus, tests only weed out so much. I've seen people in flight school that passed all the tests but can't hack it in the pilot world. Same here, you may have some women pass the combat test but consistently drag *** in the unit itself.

And let me get something straight, I am also including the many males that can't hack it either! There are plenty of fat bodies (male type) in the military that need to go or at least get out of combat arms. And I've also seen a woman that is extremely strong, competent, and capable and didn't look like an ogre. I could see her in the infantry, she'd pass any standard test set up. Maybe not be Special Forces, but she could pull her weight in an infantry unit.

On the flip side, she'd give the unit blue balls, and part of us say to suck it up to the males, but if it really is a problem that affects the mission, you need to deal with the problem... I guess that argument is for another day. Honestly Smitty, I think we agree on 90% of this lol



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
Honestly Smitty, I think we agree on 90% of this lol

I think so too!

Keep in mind that all I'm talking about here is how to implement a useful fitness assessment...there is a hell of a lot more to the issue of women in combat than that.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
But it's more complex than that. The Army may come out with an infantryman/woman minimum that everyone must meet, but that's not going to stop units from training above standards. Plus, tests only weed out so much. I've seen people in flight school that passed all the tests but can't hack it in the pilot world. Same here, you may have some women pass the combat test but consistently drag *** in the unit itself.

Again, I think the only answer to this is to ruthlessly define what the standards are both on formal tests and in the field. That way you can get rid of non-hackers (men or women) without worrying about sexism etc.

[Edited 2013-01-29 04:09:30]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1079 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 51):
Again, I think the only answer to this is to ruthlessly define what the standards are both on formal tests and in the field. That way you can get rid of non-hackers (men or women) without worrying about sexism etc.

Yes but what happens when a CO wants his (or her I guess now lol) unit to be above standards? Not all combat units are created equal. There are better units out there that train better and harder, and PT that goes above and beyond the normal PT test is often included. Are we going to drag the unit down and force the unit to accept just anyone that can pass the minimums? Are they going to be scared to shed the weaker links because most of them would be women? How long would it take before a woman who can pass the PT test but isn't keeping up with the higher pace and standards set sues the military or the commander for "being sexist and trying to get rid of the women?"

If we're gonna do this, fine by me! But this is life and death, literally, and the military should not be accommodating to the women, they need to be accommodating to the military. If they can't figure out how to pee somewhere without stopping an entire convoy (which is why the guys pee in gatorade bottles) then they don't belong on the convoy. If they can't change and take care of themselves without having special treatment (in combat, not garrison) then they don't belong in that unit. If they pass the minimum standards for infantry but are sucking in a unit because the unit trains harder, they don't belong in that unit.

I keep saying women, but it applies to men too, they don't belong if they can't get their act together. I don't want standards to fall and people die just so we can "celebrate diversity"



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bill Aims To Bar Women From Direct Ground Combat posted Thu May 19 2005 19:38:38 by Flyingbronco05
Gay Men/women Doing Non-stereotypical Jobs. posted Tue Dec 25 2012 01:46:34 by Ps762
Getting A Fids Feed Into Your Home? posted Sun Dec 2 2012 14:31:36 by ordjoe
Azerbaijan Moving Into Central Europe posted Thu Nov 22 2012 15:08:22 by ME AVN FAN
What Major/minor Should I Choose If Into Airlines posted Thu Nov 15 2012 23:51:55 by crazyguineapig
"Binders Full Of Women" Memes posted Wed Oct 17 2012 14:33:51 by Revelation
Man Jumps Into Tiger Exhibit At Zoo posted Fri Sep 21 2012 14:48:50 by dragon-wings
Anyone Into Car Audio? posted Sun Aug 26 2012 11:27:56 by mmedford
Women-Only City To Be Built In Saudi Arabia posted Fri Aug 10 2012 09:56:33 by MadameConcorde
New Hawaii Gov. To Combat "Birthers" posted Tue Dec 28 2010 15:48:46 by Aaron747