For example, to work in a tank, women will have to demonstrate the ability to repeatedly load 55-pound tank shells, just as men are required to do.No more double standards. I approve.
Infantry troops routinely carry backpacks with 60 or 70 pounds of gear, or even more. The most common injury in Afghanistan is caused by roadside bombs. This raises the question of whether a female combat soldier would be able to carry a 200-pound male colleague who has been wounded.
January 24, 2013
"Pentagon officials repeatedly stressed that there will be 'gender-neutral standards' for combat positions."
From NPR's "Women In Combat: 5 Key Questions."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
109 comments:
One idea would be to stop getting ourselves into wars all the time.
Dead on arrival if the standards that apply to males apply...but they won't.
Barry just re-armed AQ. War is coming.
Or just bend over and take it, harro.
Bullshit. Special standards will be demanded and adopted within one year of the new rule going into effect.
I would approve if is were true, but it isn't the full story. Consistent high standards is a policy they must maintain while visibility is high to minimize opposition. As soon as the changes are in place the PC enforcers will begin undermining the standards. Eventually they will reduce standards for everyone and informally maintain the male standards by picking the best performers. Then they'll have enough "qualified" women using the "same" standard, but the results will not be equally qualified groups.
This has already ocurred in college admissions so it's not like we don't know how it will work.
No more double standards. I approve.
That's what they said about basic training. How long did that last?
I'm willing to bet that $1000 that by the end of the second Obama administration there will either be two sets of standards, or the current standards will be changed to make it easier for women.
harrogate said...
One idea would be to stop getting ourselves into wars all the time.
Sorry, I didn't hear you speak up during the Libyan KMA. Or did you?
FMTB
This is what my daughter had to complete besides Corps School, after Boot Camp. Then when Corpsman are attached to the Marines they must complete the FMF warfare specialty. Women who complete FMTB have to prove they can complete the requirements of the course, same as the men. And this is not voluntary, women are "voluntold". Same with deployments with the Marines.
No more double standards. I approve.
Really? Yeah the Pentagon is just about as truthful and forthcoming as the State Department!
Inga, I'm confused. I thought the Navy provided the "corpseman" m(sic), not the Marines :)
as for the training, I see two potential huge holes.
1. Nobody is carrying loads and making 20 mile road marches.
2. I suspect that by "complete the requirements of the course, same as the men.", we're talking about, both Men and women have to pass the PT Test, but the scales for that test are gendered.
like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_Field_Medical_Badge#Current_Requirements_.282008_to_present.29
This needs to be done in collegiate athletics too.
No men's and women's, just one team or person representing the college.
It'll suck for a lot of women, but so what.
No more double standards. I approve.
That will last about as long as it takes to say "disparate impact."
Are you former Army Drill SGT? Yes the Navy does provide Corpsmen for the Marines, bu the Corpsmen they provide, must complete the Marine's requirements, FMTB and the FMF Specialty.
Did to check out the site? There may be the PT requirements there for men and women. I know my daughter had to, as part of her training carry a litter with a man on it with another trainee, through a creek full of mud.
I thought you knew better. Drill SGTs are Army
Drill Instructors are Marine.
yeah, I looked, I didnt see anybody with a 60 pound ruck on.
just PT gear and rifles..
chickelit,
Yeah, I did. I said it was stupid and a waste of American lives and money and finally, stupid.
"No more double standards. I approve."
Well, that depends.
Do they adhere to the standards combat soldiers have to meet?
If so, the number of women in combat roles will be vanishingly small, if not zero.
Or, do they degrade the standards to ensure women gain combat roles?
If so, the number of casualties in combat, and number of lost engagements with the enemy will go up.
Hooray, feminism.
Men or women in combat? What difference, at this point, does it make?
Same standards? In a pig's eye.
That means re-evaluation of standards until the people with the agenda get what they want.
I hope it's worth the lives it will cost, because it will definitely cost some. Will the men who will assuredly pay that price be celebrated as the civil rights heroes they will be?
The big problem is that standards will be lowered. Overall Military PT standards a different between men and women, sorry, if women are to serve in each and every role, they have to do all the same things, in all the same standards.
But it wont be that way. Under pressure to ensure more women graduate advanced schools (Ranger, etc) They will either have to have 2 "standards" or drop the men's standard so that it impacts combat effectiveness.
Think about how fire departments and police have 2 tests (one for men one for women). It will be the same here. And is F^%&ING sad.
At least Rosa Parks didn't shoot someone to get that bus seat?
Hey, The Drill SGT,
If you are a drill SGT then you know what it means to open up to all combat roles. You think Ranger School or RASP or the Q course wont change with more women being required to graduate?
Maybe the death toll of young women will increase those poor New York women's chances of getting dates.
My son is a Sgt. in year seven with the USMC, and has done Afghanistan and Iraq. His bitch is that no matter HOW ferocious the women are, he will be making the rounds some night and some pair will be bunny humping instead of keeping post. A pretty substantial argument to my mind.
Oso,
Or they will be on patrol and the women wont be able to carry the base plate or extra rounds. Or wont hump that 20 lbs of crew served pig on top of their plate carrier, plates, and other kit.
My son is a Sgt. in year seven with the USMC, and has done Afghanistan and Iraq. His bitch is that no matter HOW ferocious the women are, he will be making the rounds some night and some pair will be bunny humping instead of keeping post. A pretty substantial argument to my mind.
A guy in Illinois
Haven't all the female Academy grads washed out, well they asked for permission to drop out? Seems most suffered from cracked pelvic and tibia bones.
If you want to know what to do with your military, just ask what would my enemy prefer, and then do the opposite. Our enemies love this idea. We will send enormously valuable tools of public opinion right out to them to use against us. Next we can send entire families, including cute puppies.
I had not gone here yet, but small unit leadership in combat is a bitch.
You need to make decisions in peacetime about who in the squad gets the shitty detail or the mid-gaurd shift. In combat, it's who walks point, or who pulls listening post duty (50 yards in front of your line). Life and death choices for somebody...
No matter how fair and equitable the junior leader's decisions are, some folks are going to complain and see bias. Women in the unit, only make that much work. Is he playing favorites? is she? There is only so much she to go around and everybody wants some she...
leadership is going to get harder.
"No more double standards, I approve."
Was that sarcasm, Ann ? Good golly, they don't have gender-neutral standards NOW.
See http://www.army-fitness.com/index.php and compare male and female running standards to MAX.
If you have to institute a double standard for the 2-mile run, what does that say already ? Think that the muscle groups used when humping a 100 lb approach load are in the ARMS ?
And while respectable, the PFT is nothing compared to some of the more, ahem, strenuous combat duties.
Suuuuuure they'll be gender neutral. I'd bet a week's pay than once enough women fail, they'll either be dumbed down or segregated.
If standards are for all, it will be the first time.
And that's from somebody who's heard from his brother-in-law, who's a ARNG chopper pilot.
The Regulars, in all services, seem to have much more to tell.
harrogate said...
One idea would be to stop getting ourselves into wars all the time.
Well, then, you and Barry, and Lurch and the Hildabeast will have to go on overseas and tell those nasty old Moslems not to attack us in our own country anymore.
Seems most suffered from cracked pelvic and tibia bones.
More evidence that women's bodies are more optimized for pregnancy and going barefoot?
What difference, at this point, does it make?
"Next we can send entire families, including cute puppies."
And babies. It's only a matter of time until a mother-to-be is killed or captured. Or maybe exposed to some hell's brew of chemical agents calculated for teratogenic effect. Just a bunch of former fetuses, though, so I guess no one will mind.
Women aren't suited for combat. Some individual women might be tough enough and strong enough and dedicated enough, but there are other considerations, such as unit cohesion, discipline, morale, respect for authority, etc. Men act funny around women.
And how confident are we that those women who "pass the test" (even assuming the test isn't watered down) won't revert to biological form and become obsessively self-protective rather than do as they're trained and ordered? I'm brushing in broad strokes here, but there are differences between the sexes.
"No more double standards. I approve"
That'll last as long as it did for police and firefighters - which is to say there will be easier tests for women before the first ever reaches her unit.
Wait 'till the people that fought for this realize they eliminated the only reason why women are excluded from the draft.
"No more double standards. I approve"
That'll last as long as it did for police and firefighters - which is to say there will be easier tests for women before the first ever reaches her unit.
Wait 'till the people that fought for this realize they eliminated the only reason why women are excluded from the draft.
It only takes two words to describe how this will play out: Major Hasan How in the name of a good military was this guy where he was?
No piece of ass is worth your life. Have 'em take point.
Oh please.
Women who attempt the same physical tasks as male combat troops will wash out of training at very high rates or get injured at very high rates. So the standards will be lowered.
I'm an Army Reserve officer with a couple of deployments, and a former ROTC instructor. I have nothing but tremendous admiration for women who want to try this -- my heart goes out to them. I think most Americans feel the same.
But the results, in the end, are going to harmful to military readiness.
Men and women have different physical capabilities. I'm sorry -- but it's true.
If more Americans had military experience, I think the attitude of the public would be different on this matter.
I predict a decrease in female volunteers.
Basic Training Requirements for the Army including Advanced Infantry. Men must do over twice as many push-ups as women and finish the 2 mile run 3 minutes faster. The same number of sit-ups.
Either the requirements change or still no women in combat. My sister was a Div. 1 basketball player, strongest on her team and never could do 30 push-ups. There's a very few women who could 1-2% maybe.
It's so nice that NPR finally found some assault rifles that they actually like; the ones that the Army must hand out to women, minorities and the LGBTQ community.
upto I saw the draft 4 $6766, I did not believe ...that...my brother woz actualie erning money part time on their computer.. there mums best friend has done this 4 only 6 months and as of now repaid the morgage on there house and got a top of the range Land Rover Defender. go to.... http://BIT40.com
Well, Chuck, I'll see your "LGBTQ community" and raise you a LGBQTHSRP community.
I don't even know what that means, but like modern liberalism, I let it wash over me, and become transfixed at myself floating along the stream of public sentiment and emotion. Slowly I see it all jam up ahead, a huge mess of confusion, partisanship and bad and intrusive laws.
Then I just blame it on someone else and read more talking points and active my organ, and organize my action.
Obama 2016!
You guys need to read Ryan Smith's piece in WSJ about living conditions in the back of a troop transport on urgent move.
Can't top that, but remember sailing to Germany on a Liberty ship with 30 inches between the bunks H&V, and then we hit bad weather. Life would have become very intrsting with a bunch of women interspersed with the guys. I am still trying to get my mind around the images coming up in my mind.
I have an idea. How about the gays and the women get together and put on shows. In the boonies every unit would have their own in-house traveling USO tour, show tunes strip tease and piccolo players.
harrogate said...
One idea would be to stop getting ourselves into wars all the time.
Under what pretense? If we actually fought wars like we are supposed to and completely eradicate our enemy, then we wouldn't be engaging in constant retaliatory strikes that go on forever.
Inga said...
FMTB
This is what my daughter had to complete besides Corps School, after Boot Camp. Then when Corpsman are attached to the Marines they must complete the FMF warfare specialty. Women who complete FMTB have to prove they can complete the requirements of the course, same as the men. And this is not voluntary, women are "voluntold". Same with deployments with the Marines.
Sigh, you again.
Don't like it, then go away Meth. Again it's a WOMEN in the military thread.
If one approves a lie then that person does that. Many more questions are needed to determine what is a lie and whatnot here.
My understanding is that when the Marine Corps opened up its infantry officer training in 2012 to females, two applied, one dropped out the first day, the other later. The second time it was offered, no females applied.
Did anyone in the DOD read the notes on
this experiment?
I think the best analogy might be Russia in WWII.
Women were everywhere. Snipers, pilots, and anything close to the front lines. But never really in the front lines. What were the murderous bastard Stalin's reasons for this, as he obviously didn't give a shit about human life. Was he just being a practical and realistic thinker.
You know we keep fighting third rate Arabs and after a while we tend to think were are real cool and can whip anyone.
But one day we will fight a REAL enemy that can shoot and what a price we will pay.
And why do they carry heavy loads? March incredible distances? Push themselves to fight night and day?
BECAUSE IT'S WAR.
As Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest said, you "git thar fustest with the mostest.".
And those heavy loads, long distnaces, pushing the fight 7/24, is to do just that.
And like I said, one day we will fight an enemy who can shoot to. Shoot and fight hard.
Let's do this scientifically.
Make an all female battalion, female officers, female enlisted. Don't deny them anything, but don't give them anything special, either.
Send them out to the next hot spot with no men to help, and find out how well they do.
Excuse me, but my ass.
This was a political move, not a rational one.
There WILL BE political pressure to get women to the front line. Period.
Deal breaker!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html?mod=wsj_valettop_email
Annie Oakley was a good shot. It wouldn't surprise me if women turned out to better than men on sniper duty.
But this is stupid. The comfy notion that all will face the same tests without regard to race, gender, or hairdo is stupid. Gender selection is an excellent proxy for good-soldier selection.
If combat is a perquisite to advance in the military, gender neutral physical tests will never survive the courts. They will order the military to achieve equality of outcome, whereupon the military will either lower the standards for women or lower them for everyone and then choose candidates by lottery, as is done in many fire departments where minorities have scored poorly on promotion exams.
The Defense Department can promise anything it wants. The federal courts will over-rule them.
If the real gripe about women in combat arms rolls is one of not being able to be promoted to the highest echelons of military rank, which is what I've seen over and over both in my time in the service AND just in the last couple days, how in the world does Panetta's policy change anything?
There's still going to be that perception of "real soldiers", not to mention a hail of lawsuits (you just know they are frakin' coming) when women aren't physically able to hack something, allegations of sexual misconduct will follow.
So...if those jobs that require physical strength are made off limits to most women through no fault of their own, how does this change the main gripe?
We're not allowed to make any decisions visa vi our seed when a woman wants to abort or saddle us with decades of financial burden and biology is always the fallback position of those that tell us, "tough shit".
Tough shit, ladies.
The Defense Department can promise anything it wants. The federal courts will over-rule them.
Exactly. I'm sure everyone will sleep better at night knowing that the lowest-common denominators are out there on the walls for us.
I was in the army in the late 80's early 90's. I remember pulling guard duty, two hours on, two off. All of us, male and female, slept in the same room in bunks. There was nothing like having two people who had just met making out a foot from you. Guard duty is so romantic, almost like a night club really.
I was a heck of a good typist, I could file with the best of them. Like most of the woman around me, I had little upper body strength despite lifting weights. I always struggled with the mandatory push-ups, 13 if I recall right. Roughly half of what my husband had to do. However, I could road march like no ones business. Load me up and I could go for hours, I never had a stress fracture or so much as a pulled muscle.
There was absolutely no good reason to make this change now. Where was the outcry for it? It makes no sense.
Where was the outcry for it? It makes no sense.
Maybe the outcry was loud and proud and coded in whistle?
Men or women in combat? What difference, at this point, does it make?
Emphasis on "at this point".
We are made for Obama moments.
Have you ever seen a woman on an asbestos clean-up crew? Have you ever seen a feminist bitching about there being no women on the asbestos clean-up crews?.....I can't imagine there will be a great many women clamoring for front line grunt positions. This is all about nothing.....Any woman who can carry a sixty pound load for twenty miles has my respect. Not my affection, necessarily, but my respect.
Paul said...
You know we keep fighting third rate Arabs and after a while we tend to think were are real cool and can whip anyone.
But one day we will fight a REAL enemy that can shoot and what a price we will pay.
=======================
Those 3rd rate Arabs and stoneage Pashtuns have inflicted a pretty impressive casualty toll using just fertilizer, small arms, and good guerilla tactics.
The "Heroes Who Serve" not only had that casualty toll, they pissed away 2 trillion on Neocon fantasies of civilizing the "Noble Freedom Lovers.." And left two countries where we are hated, will leave to see enemy in control. Any American venturing in without adequate seurity will die a slow and painful death after the Noble Freedom Lovers grab them ...And no statues of Bush or Obama are going up except to spit and throw shoes at.
Basically, the shit will continue until the stinking Elites in America have to send their own sons and daughters into some 3rd World craphole to "save the natives from themselves".
Then the overwhelming concern for "precious innocent enemy civilian's rights" will wane very fast....and interrogations to save American lives will be endorsed by even the richest and most powerful liberals and progressive jews.
95% of the casualties we took in the Neocon Wars of Adventure in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been avoided if we behaved like Japanese in WWII after a unit got bushwacked by a roadside bomb. Areas they occupied tried it a few times, then the Japanese .....did things.
And all the guerilla shit ceased.
What would a Cedarford comment be like without the word "jew" in it?
@Scott M: I once tried to parody C-4's "Progressive Jews" with "progresso stews;" link, but, like so many things I do around here, it fell on deaf ears, was unfunny, or was ignored. We all try and so does Cedarford. And you must grant him this: his villains are mostly abstract (unless they're filmmakers).
"I'm a better first sergeant than my first sergeants!" --jug-eared Jesus.
This is going to kill people. Know who it's going to kill first? Women with heat stroke.
It's also going to be prohibitively expensive thanks to injuries. Women getting recycled or reclassified to different jobs because of injuries or inability to meet course standards. If it doesn't happen, it means they lied about the standards.
Women's higher vulnerability to tibial and pelvic stress fractures alone make this a dumb idea.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6295&page=1
I hope every woman who is injured in a hooah course or training exercise in combat because of heat stroke or stress fracture because of this stupidity has a cause of action to sue every shitbird who thinks this is a good idea.
But they won't.
And to hell with you, Inga, and you, leslyn, for cheering this on in your ignorance and providing these clowns with political cover.
Fuck all those libtard ignoramuses.
There will be some women who can meet the standards, and will want to serve in combat. These are the ones who will get medals for bravery, and promotions. There will be 3 classes of soldiers:
1)men
2)women who can meet the same standard as men
3)last and least, the weak women.
It'll work wonders for morale.
I'm also a little uncomfortable about the "choices" aspect.
During the 6 years I served in the Navy on board the USS Waddell, guided missile destroyer, I can't remember being asked to do stuff, I do remember a whole lot of orders....
@leslyn
You make light of the issue of evacuating a wounded comrade under fire. Obviously, you've never been in that situation, and have no personal knowledge whatsoever of what it requires.
I retired from the Army in 2007, having spent 25 years in the combat arms, leading both men and women. Firstly, the average weight of a combat soldier is probably well north of around 250-300 lbs, on a good day. You fail to factor in the weight of equipment, which is generally going to add anywhere between 60-80 lbs to the weight of the soldier. Thus, even someone who weighs 160 lbs is automatically going to weigh closer to 300 lbs than not. You cannot strip someone out of their body armor and basic equipment in order to move them, in many cases, so you have to figure in the weight of body armor and other equipment.
Additionally, you completely misjudge the weight carrying capacity of the average male. We often did combat casualty evacuation drills as a part of physical training. While doing that kind of training, I very rarely found any of my men, even the ones of smaller stature, who were unable to do the job required. I have personally witnessed men of average size and fitness pick up other men who were the size of a football team linebacker, and successfully complete a 100 meter carry.
Not one of the women I had working for me, including ones who we'd been assigned as combat medics, were ever able to accomplish this task. Picking up someone simulating an unconscious casualty and putting them into a standard fireman's carry, and then running with them 100 meters was something I never saw a woman accomplish. Ever. I also conducted drills for doing basic things like dragging a wounded man out of the line of fire. The average male never had difficulty with this task, whatsoever. Women? Even with two or three working at it, they had extreme difficulty even dragging average-size males with any real speed.
Leslyn,
You haven't a clue what you're yapping about. Really.
Inga said...
Don't like it, then go away Meth. Again it's a WOMEN in the military thread.
I don't care about the thread topic, just that your fuck face infects any thread at all.
leslyn said...
[Joan of Arc] kind of puts the lie to most of what's being said here.
The existence of one person means women generally can perform physically as well as men? Amazing the quality of reasoning from the WS 101 crowd has actually decreased. I didn't think it was possible.
Meth=Whores, what is the difference?
The anti women sentiment gets stronger with every new stride a woman makes, every glass ceiling we break through.
All this sturm und drang, for nothing, women have been doing it for the last 12 years and are first now getting recognition.
Amazing the quality of reasoning from the WS 101 crowd has actually decreased. I didn't think it was possible.
It took a lot of hard work by dedicated educators.
Here's what I think will happen.
The 'Standard' will be gender neutral.
Commanders will have the authority to issue waivers.
Commanders will be expected to meet some kind of quota.
The standard will become notional.
"All this sturm und drang, for nothing, women have been doing it for the last 12 years and are first now getting recognition."
Actually, no, women have not been loading tank shells in combat for 12 years, nor have they been loading artillery shells, nor have they been forward observers, etc etc.
If you were not giving female soldiers recognition for fighting in combat all this time, that's your problem. The rest of us have been honoring non combat MOS female soldiers for their courage under fire the whole time.
If it's about 'recognition', then you have missed that the military is about life and death urgency.
Dustin, I don't think you really want to accuse me of not recognizing females roles in war zones. I'm well aware that the military is about life and death and urgency, and it's not all about loading shells and carrying 200 pound men.
"But why foreclose even the opportunity?"
Because the cost of accommodating this relatively tiny number of women is disproportionate to the advantages to the organization as a whole. This is the only way for a military organization to make useful decisions. It's good enough to determine who lives and who dies, and it's good enough to decide who gets the "opportunity" of being placed in front of the bullet.
Israel no longer places women on front line infantry or armor positions. There are several reasons. Here are two:
Men are reluctant to leave wounded female comrades to the medics. The urge to rescue them is overwhelming even when the need is to get on with the mission.
Female prisoners are certain to be raped. Probably raped repeatedly. Probably raped to death. We're not likely to be at war with the Belgians you know.
" Inga said...
Dustin, I don't think you really want to accuse me of not recognizing females roles in war zones. I'm well aware that the military is about life and death and urgency, and it's not all about loading shells and carrying 200 pound men."
Exactly, Inga. Men AND women who cannot carry the heaviest member of their squad out of harms way or handle the ammunition for their weapons systems are not qualified for the role, and the military should govern itself based on practicality rather than symbolism.
I am very confused that you are saying that women are just now getting recognition. Why deny them recognition? All deployed soldiers are warfighters; combat arms specializations require different proficiencies, but all soldiers can and often are called to fight, regardless of age or gender or other aspects.
Your tone suggests you are more interested in being righteous than having an interesting discussion, so I may not respond to you any further.
Kelly said:
I was in the army in the late 80's early 90's. I remember pulling guard duty, two hours on, two off. All of us, male and female, slept in the same room in bunks. There was nothing like having two people who had just met making out a foot from you. Guard duty is so romantic, almost like a night club really.
Exactly.
We are all too concerned with who gets recognition and not concerned enough with getting the job done at the least cost in terms of casualties.
I don't want my grandchild's life to depend on a military that values recognition over competence.
A woman is never going to be "just one of the guys." Gender neutral standards (whatever those are) will not prevent damage to morale and unit cohesion, but we're told we just need to grow up.
Y'all know that this is pretty much after the fact, right? The military already opened 14,500 previously-designated "combat" positions a year ago.
Nobody I know (and my entire family is either serving or a veteran, including myself) cares about anything other than the combat arms billets (artillery, infantry, armor, air cavalry). This is what we're talking about here...not medical billets near combat arms units or tech jobs that serve at FOB's. We are talking about the jobs who's entire focus is closing with the enemy and engaging them in combat. Everything else is support.
Some women will make it into more rigorous positions, and many won't. But why foreclose even the opportunity?
Because it's a political decision and will be governed by politicians and interest groups with those politicians revenue streams under their thumbs. This isn't about some altruistic equality-of-opportunity, regardless of how much you want it to be. It is about equality-of-outcomes, as it always has been in these situations.
The 'Standard' will be gender neutral.
Commanders will have the authority to issue waivers.
Commanders will be expected to meet some kind of quota.
The standard will become notional.
This, or something very much like this, is the reality of what the military is forced to deal with when clueless politicians play with something they don't understand (or if they do, which I think is Panetta's case, they don't care).
and it's not all about loading shells and carrying 200 pound men.
Combat is. And a whole lot more individual activities that are just as strenuous and demanding.
The basic fact about women is that regardless of how ferocious of mind or physically strong they may be, they are still women with ladyparts.
Dustin nails it: Your tone suggests you are more interested in being righteous than having an interesting discussion, so I may not respond to you any further.
Not one of you shits throwing other women under the bus has responded to the stress fracture issue. I brought it up twice and even linked to a study specifically looking at the issue among women in the military.
It's not uncommon for me as it stands now to receive a brand new female pfc out of AIT who can't run and can't haul her own ruck or duffle bag because she got a pelvic stress fracture in training, or a hip problem.
The last one was just from NBC school.
You cannot easily and cheaply identify those women in advance. You cannot train for it, and it doesn't matter how physically fit or how brave or how tough she is, you cannot train through that and it's stupid to try.
But these girls will try anyway, and make it worse.
Holy crap, dumbasses, the UCMJ tried to put two women through infantry school already. One couldnt hack it (it wasn't even close) and the other wound up in the hospital. You gonna spring for the costs of her treatment? Or the cost to the government every time a woman has to be recycled or reclassified to a different MOS because she's Been injured?
Stress fractures develop in basic, which is 8 to 12 weeks depending on service. They are enough of a problem there.
An enlistment is eight years (6+2). A career is 20.
It's a marathon, not a sprint.
Leslyn, my point about Hasan is not that there aren't and won't be fully capable females in combat roles but that the Army (which I am very familiar with) has a culture where overlooking "problems" is too often the best path vs going against the civilian bureaucrats and REMFs. Happens enough as it is and this will only add to it, perhaps substantially. I do get the feeling it won't be as big a problem in the Marines.
"But why foreclose even the opportunity?"
Because the military exists to provide military capabilities for the nation- not to provide opportunities for women (or for men)?
Of course, one could generalize from that to all of government: government does not exist to provide jobs for government employees.
To demand otherwise is to insist that government be little more than a giant patronage machine.
The case for opening these positions to women would be, because doing so would improve the capabilities or efficiency of the military. Does anyone think this is being done to improve military readiness and not for political reasons?
"FMTB
This is what my daughter had to complete besides Corps School, after Boot Camp. Then when Corpsman are attached to the Marines they must complete the FMF warfare specialty. Women who complete FMTB have to prove they can complete the requirements of the course, same as the men. And this is not voluntary, women are "voluntold". Same with deployments with the Marines."
That is a TRAINEE course designed to whip as many folks through as fast as they can without them getting hurt. Those kind of courses are more adventure park than combat training. I know you are proud of your daughter, but you need to quit pretending she is something that she is not.
"Much has been made of strength and load carries by men v women, and it's a valid point. I don't imagine that the infantry will be overrun by women nor, I think, does anyone who considers this seriously.
But the excerpt quoted by Althouse refers to being able to carry a 200-pound wounded male counterpart. That's not serious. Have you seen the size of young men in the military lately? Most of them couldn't do it single-handedly. Fortunately, most military men (and women) don't weigh nearly 200 pounds. Unless someone let them get fat.
But carry loads is an issue that is already serious for the military. The Army Times reported (Feb 14, 2011):"
You do know that the Army Times is a Gannett paper and not a military publication don't you?
Soldiers will carry what they need. They don't load up unnecessarily. Do you want 300 rounds of ammo or the 210 that is a basic combat load? Do you want an extra radio battery? I don't need my night vision, it's day time....missions get extended. I suppose I should carry two gallons of water instead of the two quarts I am supposed to carry -- because it's a 130 degrees outside!
Civil Rights versus Force Effectiveness
The Leftists made the call
Elections matter
National Defense doesn't vote.
Jason said...
Holy crap, dumbasses, the UCMJ tried to put two women through infantry school already. One couldnt hack it (it wasn't even close) and the other wound up in the hospital
If you're referring to the same event I read about ~25% of the men dropped out the first day also. Statistiacally two of two dropping out doesn't mean much, especially when it's generally understood that the population from which they're drawn is on average lower performing. When you overstate your evidence it appears to others you're pushing an agenda rather than following the facts to the best solution.
Tosa Guy, do you know what a FMF Corpsman does? That "adventure park training" as you call it culminates in a war zone with even more hands on real life and death scenarios.
Do you know a thing about Marines?
Gordon Brown claimed to have eliminated the business cycle from the British economy.
He was a piker.
This administration aims higher, when it claims to have eliminated the sex drive from human nature.
Marshal,
I've been in uniform since 1988, most of it in combat arms, though with enough CS/CSS/TRADOC time to have observed both men and women in the field, under stress and in combat.
I assure you, my N > 2.
And I also linked to an academic/medical journal review specifically looking at the much higher incidence of stress fractures among women in the military. The difference is significant.
My agenda is simple... to win our nation's wars and bring as many of our sons and daughters home in one piece as possible. Period.
So you're damned right I have an agenda. And a hearty fuck you to any agenda that is different than that.
Jason said...
I assure you, my N > 2.
And I also linked to an academic/medical journal review specifically looking at the much higher incidence of stress fractures among women in the military. The difference is significant.
It's worse when you have other evidence. All your strong evidence will be ignored to focus on the overreach.
Personally I think we should find the fittest thousand women in America and send them through a simulation approaching a deployment tour (luckily in my hyopthetical they all volunteer). I'm interested to see how they do.
especially when it's generally understood that the population from which they're drawn is on average lower performing.
IIRC these two female Marine officers were very very fit -- the cream of the crop, so to speak.
(Female Marines of all rank can probably outperform the average recruit.)
SIL is in PJ training (Air Force special forces). Males only. More than 80% drop out less than halfway through. While requiring different skills than combat training, (the physical and psychological requirements exceed on the ground combat training) without testosterone and androgen in sufficient quantities, these jobs cannot be done by females.
For one thing, research has been done on female athletes and the knees are a problem simply due to the gender specific center of gravity difference.
Women, on the other hand, might do well -- better than many men -- as snipers as the coordination and skills needed for precision shooting (even with our computerized stuff these days) seem to be found in females.
The government's job is to defend our citizens. If doing that the best way possible means women can't make the cut? Tough.
And since Obama is hell bent on cutting defense money why on earth would we be wasting what little is left to put in a quota system so liberals can feel good.
One of my friends is a female retired LTC (lieutenant colonel for those from Rio Linda). The other problem is there simply are not many high ranking officer slots available for ANYONE, male or female. The promotion rate from LTC to full bird drops, as it does each step along the way.
Putting women on patrol in the boonies isn't going to fix that.
Women soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen -- all have my highest respect. And I am sure some adjustments can be made. But when and if (as it will inevitably happen) the requirements are modified down that will kill more men and women than can be justified.
As for the IDF (which I respect highly also) -- they do not fight the kind of wars we end up fighting. So no real life comparison possible.
Bottom line: Why do lefties always want to feel good about themselves when it flies in the face of reality? Who are the reality based people again? Remind me.
JAL said...
IIRC these two female Marine officers were very very fit -- the cream of the crop, so to speak.
One was. The other couldn't do a single pullup. Since they had to know that was a requirement you have to suspect she was the control group.
leslyn said...
Sounds like Tuskeegee, only it's already happening. And it's not simulated.
I presume you misinterpreted my comment to mean a computer simulation. Otherwise you're saying there's a live war in Tuskeegee our female recruits are using as a training ground.
I highly doubt any widespread female success in any realistic simulation or training is driving this decision. If it were those announcing the policy would be showing us those results.
leslyn said...
"...seriously, no one thinks the infantry will be overrun by women, most of the combat-designated jobs that women can more easily enter were opened a year ago, and you're all still pissing into the wind."
I don't know why no one reads this. Maybe because the whole thing is going to be a non-issue, and then what would you have to Chicken Little about?
Funny, leslyn and her ilk first pretend we're saying something we aren't to justify their own overreaction, then they claim we're chicken littles.
If they could understand reality they wouldn't be leftists, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
Another elephant in the room here has only been alluded to, and that's the long-term effect on the health and fitness of the women involved in these "little" social experiments.
The elephant I'm talking about? The damage done when young women try to keep up with things when assigned to these units. I watched several of my female subordinates do to their bodies in four or five years what it took 25 to do to mine.
I had the first three enlisted women assigned to my branch under me. Out of those three, all of whom were exemplary at their duties, we completely broke two of them while they tried to keep up with the men in our headquarters company. One was medically retired, and the the other one got screwed because she wasn't allowed to re-enlist due to the physical issues she'd accumulated, and her leadership at the time just let her get out without doing the right paperwork. I ran into her years later when she was working at a car rental agency as a clerk, and she was on crutches, having destroyed both her knees and one hip while in the Army. She was also pretty much on her own as far as medical issues went, since she was having problems getting the VA to accept her conditions as "service-related".
Giving these young women "enhanced opportunities" seems like a wonderful idea, until you look at the long-term effects on their health and fitness. I completely disagree with this idea just based on this factor alone. The military has carefully avoided doing the longitudinal studies it should be doing on these women, in the interests of not upsetting the activists, but the anecdotal evidence was always there in front of me as a leader. Whenever I had females under me, I could always count on having a higher percentage of them broken and on profile (meaning reduced duty due to injury or illness) at any one time. And, that's limiting myself to the good ones who actually tried to keep up. I also had a significant fraction who took advantage of every opportunity to avoid picking up their fair share of the load, and who would do things like "accidentally" become pregnant to avoid a deployment.
The idiots advocating for this have no earthly idea what they're talking about, or what effect this will have down where the rubber meets the road. You want to open up combat arms and direct combat assignments to women? Well, you'd better be prepared to about double or triple the budget at the VA, in service of that tiny percentage of women you're going to get placed into these units and jobs.
Cost-effective? Women in the combat arms? Those two words do not go together, in any way, shape, or form. Civilians yapping about "opportunity" have not one clue what it's actually going to cost those young women to take advantage of these "opportunities", or what it's going to cost the treasury in terms of taking care of them after they break. And, of course, there's the opportunity cost for the military--How many training slots are going to be filled up by women who try, and don't make the initial cut? How many more training slots will we need to make up for that attrition?
What really angers me is that none of the advocates themselves are ever going to experience the pain this crap causes. You have no idea what it feels like to see a formerly healthy and happy young woman who you pressed to keep up on multiple road marches and unit runs on crutches, barely able to walk, and know that you helped put her there. The system really did it, but when you're the personification of it, and the one who had to do it as a leader, it doesn't feel at all good.
No more double standards. I approve.
Um, are our daughters registering for the draft now?
I know someone else above said it, but with out reading them...if you think there won't be double standards, madam...you are naive.
Post a Comment