Well, no one could have seen this one coming

[Balog]

Ok, to be fair a lot of folks did see this coming and warned about it, but as I've been told repeatedly on this very board that's a hate-fact and pointing it out means I'm misogynistic. And really, only dumb grunts will die because of this. Based on every war/police action we've fought since Korea I'd say dying for no reason is about all we're fit for in the eyes of the brass anyway.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/5/pentagon-hints-at-changes-to-allow-more-women-in-g/

[charby]

Other nations send women into combat, I fail to see your argument.

[Balog]

Other nations send women into combat, I fail to see your argument.

The physical standards for the combat arms are too high to allow any appreciable number of women. After opening the floodgates, the Pentagon has to ensure "enough" women are in combat units or they might look discriminatory (and God forbid that happens). So lowering physical standards for direct combat units was an inevitable result of allowing women in direct combat MOS's. And lowering standards will get people killed. But when that was pointed out during the debates over women in combat the point was derided as misogyny and "slippery slope" and etc.

[Perd Hapley]

Other nations send women into combat, I fail to see your argument.

Then try reading the article. "Other people do it" isn't much of an argument, either.

[charby]

Then try reading the article. "Other people do it" isn't much of an argument, either.

I did..

In other words, some physical standards would be lowered for men and women on the argument that certain tasks are outdated or irrelevant.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/5/pentagon-hints-at-changes-to-allow-more-women-in-g/#ixzz2bJ5DiHmB
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Balog]

Really, I can't imagine how letting fatter, slower, weaker people into war zones where they will be required to strap on 80-100 lbs of gear and perform a wide range of physically gruelling tasks could in any way be a bad thing. And you're sexist for pointing that out.

And it's funny how those tasks only became outdated when women who couldn't do them needed to be inducted into those units. What a coincidence.

[charby]

And it's funny how those tasks only became outdated when women who couldn't do them needed to be inducted into those units. What a coincidence.

I see no mention of what exact physical standards are going to be changed.

[tokugawa]

So some poor grunt is going to have to do -A-his job, and -B-someone elses job. Great.
 Yes, no doubt there are exceptions.

I don't know , off the top, of any nation that has, and continues to use  women in ground combat roles, that has not been compelled to do so by manpower shortages or other existential emergencies.
 
Hell, half of the guys I know and or read about who were grunts are partially disabled just from the stress of carrying 100 lb loads. Here , pack that baseplate and while you are at it, this ammo can. And jump out of that chopper.

[makattak]

I see no mention of what exact physical standards are going to be changed.

Well, I spent a bit of time looking for the last time that the army lowered standards.

It's funny, I can't find any mention of such a thing in the past 25 years. Guess this is just some WEIRD coincidence.

And, of course, I'm a misogynist for thinking it has any connection to the politically correct push to put women in combat.

[Balog]

I see no mention of what exact physical standards are going to be changed.

There aren't exactly that many of them. For Marines it was height/weight, run time, situps, and pullups. And of course the ability to complete whatever course of training was set.

Actually, I should say that was the standard for Marine men. If they held women to the same physical standards almost no women would qualify to be in the service (and the ones that did would never make a first class PFT and thus not get promoted and thus misogyny) so women don't do all the same things as men ("flex arm hangs" instead of pullups) and the 1st-2nd-3rd-fail points for the two shared exercises are much, much lower.

And then there are the physical demands of the training courses. Now that varies from training to training, but if you can tell me that reducing the standards will in some way be a good thing (and that it was motivated purely by "updating" the needs and not because women can't hack the same grunt work men can) then I have to wonder what planet you're living on.

A lot of things in the .mil that don't require very high levels of physical strength and endurance. Direct combat MOS's are not among them.

[Fitz]

I called it

[Scout26]

Charby,

The only times other countries have done it is when there were Nazi's or Arabs pouring over the borders and the very existence of the nation was at stake.

And the Army has never lowered its standards for women.  It never set them as high as men's to begin with.

Here's the passing repetitions/times for 17-21 year old Men and Women.
                   Men           Women 
Push-ups       42                 19
Sit-ups          53                 53
2 Run           15:54            18:54


It's one thing to drive a truck, turn a wrench, type on a computer or pass out supplies.  It's entirely another to hump a 100lbs of gear (to include your weapon and ammo) load a 103lb artillery projectile into the gun, bust track, haul tow cables, and/or ram home a Sabot round in an M1 Abrams.  Those tasks require raw, pure physical strength. 

Lowering the standards puts people lives at risk.
 

[charby]

Lowering the standards puts people lives at risk.
 

Let the news come out what is exactly going to be lowered before the teeth mashing begins.

I do a agree many people regardless of gender are not physically capable of what an American Soldier or Marine needs to do in combat.

[Fitz]

Let the news come out what is exactly going to be lowered before the teeth mashing begins.

I do a agree many people regardless of gender are not physically capable of what an American Soldier or Marine needs to do in combat.

Well, we've already had accounts of quotas being set at ranger school for their upcoming pilot program, and the establishment of a special Dept of the Army ombudsman for them.

The physical standards : only a matter of time.

[Hawkmoon]

And the Army has never lowered its standards for women.  It never set them as high as men's to begin with.

Here's the passing repetitions/times for 17-21 year old Men and Women.
                   Men           Women 
Push-ups       42                 19
Sit-ups          53                 53
2 Run           15:54            18:54

Also, aren't push-ups for women done differently than for men? It was my understanding that women do push-ups with their knees on the ground, thereby reducing the proportion of total body mass the push-up has to push up.

[Fitz]

Also, aren't push-ups for women done differently than for men? It was my understanding that women do push-ups with their knees on the ground, thereby reducing the proportion of total body mass the push-up has to push up.

Negative



Additionally, the 11b OSUT has some pretty hefty ruckmarches that I can't forsee almost any woman making it through.

"Since we don't march across long varied terrain anymore, those standards are outdated."

Just you watch

[Fitz]

From my post in the other thread:

This is what irritates me about the argument. People say "well, SOME small percentage of women would be fine, so we should let them all try!"

And you know what, i'm on board with that, as long as the standards don't drop. I also have been a part of the US military for some time now, and I know, based on past experience, that this sort of social-engineering motivated stuff NEVER results in the same or higher standards, but lower ones.

When Fort sill's REGULAR basic training went gender integrated, standards went down. Drill sergeants were neutered, and we started getting UCMJ action for saying CUSS words. Drill sergeants were severely limited in the physical corrective training we could do. We were limited in how long we'd keep the privates out in the field. BCT went to *expletive deleted* there.

So, when people tell me in a condescending fashion that "other militaries have done this, and they're successful," I don't much give a *expletive deleted*. Because I know that those militaries are probably not led by social engineers with ulterior motives, and those countries aren't nearly as packed with self entitled blissninnies with no concept of what war requires. The percentage of females in the military who expect special accommodation and demand favorable treatment is sky high.

For every one SFC Camille Adams, a soldier I'd go into a firefight with any day of the goddamn week, there are 100 blithering little hooahchicks who think it's cool to wear camoflage, but start bitching and whining the moment things get tough. I've been out in the field with women who whine about the cold, about the heat, about the dirt... but they'll take all the puffing up they can get when they go overseas and spend 12 months on a FOB. Ask them to leave the wire, and a lot of em start singing a different tune. Some do OK. Some drop down from the gun turret and start crying in the back of the truck. Female fighter pilots, i think, are a different story, because the QUALITY of female officers is orders of magnitude higher than the quality of female enlisted troops.

[Boomhauer]

Dont forget the women who get pregnant to avoid a deployment and leave their unit in a lurch...

[Balog]

Dont forget the women who get pregnant to avoid a deployment and leave their unit in a lurch...

That would never happen, why do you hate women?!?!?!

I mean, it would never happen again...

[Gowen]

The way I see it is that this government goes full tilt at everything.  We will see units with large groups of women.  The next time we are in a conflict and see something along the lines of a Tet offensive and Heaven forbid we loose because they can't pull a man's weight. All this will change.

[Scout26]

Let the news come out what is exactly going to be lowered before the teeth mashing begins.

I do a agree many people regardless of gender are not physically capable of what an American Soldier or Marine needs to do in combat.

The standards will be what the standards are for women.  They already did it when they opened up Airborne and Air Assault schools for women back in the 70's.  Most women couldn't meet the male standards then so they simply said they had to meet the female standards.  Now falling out of an airplane or sliding down a rope doesn't require that much that much physical strength, and most of the physical part is simply to weed out the sick, lame and lazy (and give the cadre something to screw the troops with).  Again, if your job is to pass out supplies or pound keys on a computer, being able to fall out of an airplane ain't that hard.

Actual combat is much more physically demanding, changing track and recovering a stuck vehicle while under fire is not for the weak or someone that can't carry the tow cables.  Constantly loading 45lb shells into the main gun of a Abrams requires both strength and stamina.   Humping 155 rounds and the cheese charges requires strength and stamina.

Now, you've had several people who have all served and have extensive experience telling you that this is a "Bad Thing^tm", yet you say we don't know what we're talking about.   

[erictank]

Dont forget the women who get pregnant to avoid a deployment and leave their unit in a lurch...

Oh don't EVEN get me started on that!!!

The TR got female aircrew in '95 (leading to Captain's Masts EVERY WEEK for fraternization, and yes I agree that it takes two to tango; it was also widely known that there were a few of the more attractive female aircrew who... ended the Med cruise that summer with substantially more money than they came on board with, but I have no way to verify that personally). Ship's company female crew started showing up in a big block in early fall '96, with a Med deployment scheduled starting in November of that year. My division, Reactor Controls, had 4 women assigned pre-deployment. One decided she was claustrophobic upon setting foot on the ship - I never even laid eyes on her, she was off the ship after 3 days of medical watch. The last of our female RC-Divvers declared her pregnancy the weekend before we deployed. Naturally, we did not receive any extra manning to compensate for being down 4 people. 

I forget how many women were assigned to the 5 divisions in Reactor Department, but IIRC only 4 made the Med deployment - 3 M-Divvers and 1 RM-Div (Mechanics and Reactor Mechanics), I think it was. Those who deployed had a no-nonsense attitude and a good work ethic, from my fairly-limited interactions with them and from talking with my friends who DID work with them. They were also a small percentage of the females assigned to the department prior to the deployment, under 10%, I believe.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

have 2 grand daughters who are extremely fit. amazon class    both marines and it was their opinion that even they would be a liability in combat. this was perhaps colored by the fact their brother was also a marine and to quote one of the girls." i don't want him dead cause someone can't carry the load".

[Boomhauer]

Virtually every infantryman, Special Operations, etc guy I have ever met, especially the ones who have seen combat, are steadfastly against women in combat arms.

Given their background, I think they know what they are talking about and have real reasoning as to why they are of auch opinion, and its not a dislike of women...

[Perd Hapley]

The way I see it is that this government goes full tilt at everything.  We will see units with large groups of women.

Rush Limbaugh predicted that about 20 years ago. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahPwlOOKedg