HERE'S WHY WOMEN IN COMBAT UNITS IS A BAD IDEA

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by cbtengr

Thanks for that info, rubber weights?? In my day anything that size was 45# and we did PT in combat boots. I guess I have become a FOG not as old as some FOG's but a FOG none the less.

Yeah I think all this stuff is a carry over from the Olympic and Professional sports world as far as equipment and techniques......I don't think the assessment described was voted on or researched my suspicion it was a collaboration between an enterprising Officer with an eye towards promotion and the gender neutral(pro female) agenda...

I will say though that the newer fitness will more than likely produce more lifelong fitness types and reduce long term injuries........but joes are joes even with all the exercise ad rehab specialist joe finds a way to get on profile and avoid doing anything. and all the experts in the world cannot dispute claimed pain

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by cbtengr

I guess I have become a FOG not as old as some FOG's but a FOG none the less.

Apparently you have put away older things & moved toward great Brisket - embrace the evolution!

Not to derail the thread but (since this FOG can't recall), I'm curious what the WACs of my era were doing for PT at the time we had M-14's and the PCPT was 5 events/500 pts overall? (late 60's, weren't they all sexistly segregated down at Ft McClellan?)

160lbs? I never once encountered another guy (smelly, 1 each, w/o weapon but w/ALICE gear) that weighed less than that when it came time for the man-carry event. Sheesh, what luck. Excuse me, I have to go now & tell some kids to get off the lawn.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Badger52

160lbs? I never once encountered another guy (smelly, 1 each, w/o weapon but w/ALICE gear) that weighed less than that when it came time for the man-carry event. Sheesh, what luck.

I weighed 118 in basic. EVERYBODY carried me!. Then it was my turn.

Pat

[Pete]

- quits after a week

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ca...rticle/2631205

"...The unidentified female candidate dropped out in early August during a three-week course in San Diego that began July 24. It was the first assessment of potential SEAL officers before they can be sent on to more grueling courses, according to the website, which cited "multiple Naval Special Warfare Command sources."..."

[cbtengr]

barbie.jpg And so is becoming a Special Forces soldier or a SEAL.

[bailaviborita]

In the past, the strong exploited the weak. "Civilized" behavior was thought to be different- that the strong protected the weak. Chivalry meant men protected women, smart folks protected idiots, and the strongest and wittiest ruled- protecting all others. It made groups able to accomplish what everyone individually couldn't even dream of.

Today our technology has progressed to a state that the weak literally protect the strong (or in some cases, simply steal from them). Chivalry, of course, is no longer needed- in fact it is viewed as oppressive. Our myth in the past- of chivalry- has been replaced with the myth that everyone is equal- or, not really- but should be made that way- and, more importantly, that there is no responsibility to earn said equality of outcome.

This may be dangerous, as- really, who really cares if the weak are slaughtered? If we go to war and a lot of our weakest - and potentially most dim-witted- are killed? We in some areas may think everyone else is chivalrous- but look at the current pop culture and honestly tell me chivalry is still alive outside of a few pockets. Even though we think moms and dads won't like their daughters coming home in body bags- I think the reality is and will be that most won't really care.

What has this "progress" from technology given us? Women getting their faces pounded in by men in cage fights at Hood and other places. Women boxers and MMA fights (and, curiously, a war on American football). Women in combat arms and tremendous upheaval within SOF and combat arms attempting to incorporate them in in a way in which they will be as successful as possible. War medals for drone pilots. Talk of recruiting otherwise losers into Cyber Command to protect "the strong". SHARP, EO, diversity classes, women's month speeches in the military, LGBT celebrations and speeches in the military, and the idea of a "right" to serve in the military. A "rape crisis" on campuses and in the military.

Once the strong protected the weak. Now the weak will protect the strong. Men won't lift a finger to help a woman in distress (outside of a few areas), because "we're all equal" and they "cage fight anyway." Is this really progress? Is this why our grandfathers and great grandfathers fought in World War II and other wars?

I'd say the standards arguments- on both sides- are a waste of time. In time of war- whether low intensity or high- we will make the standards such that we get the amount we need or are authorized to have. We have always done so- as has every other group or nation. And for every person who says, "as long as they meet the standards..."--- who really says that about men? I"ve heard no-one ever say, "as long as that guy meets the physical standards, he should serve in x unit." Because we all know that's just the minimum. You also have to be able to function on a team. Handle stress on a team--- which is a social phenomenon. That's why we have Robin Sage and subjective instructor evaluations. If all we needed was a minimum physical standard- we could just do Selection and then send them to Group.

No- what counts is something that isn't objective and can't be measured. It is tacit- hard to describe, much less detect. It is largely social. And that is something that a woman, a homosexual, a transgender, or a terrible team player just can't overcome and thus would hurt a team. A team can't have a bunch of non-team players that simply meet physical standards. They have to have something innate that we all know when we see it, is different based on the personalities present and the situation, usually has something to do with the dominant culture of the team, and is ultimately beyond the data-nerds' crunching of "standards."

Our technological progress allows us to get away with this stupidity.... for now. But I fear for the future generations---

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by bailaviborita

Our technological progress allows us to get away with this stupidity.... for now. But I fear for the future generations---

+1 Those telling everyone who gets disappointed about anything in life that they have a right to a mantle of victimhood & redress will be eliminated, but only when the crumbling bricks of a culture have reached street-level. An appreciation of traditional nurturer/provider roles, that one is not less important than the other & that one is more suited to one role than the other, is likely to come too late. Many have never had the occasion to be part of something bigger than themselves when, perhaps, it is in front of them. They need only look at their children and reflect on whether they've managed to raise a good person. Some have been told that isn't "enough" - the people doing the telling of that need to be run out into the wilderness.

[Stobey]

Even though I've never been in the military, I understand that what every combat unit - particularly small unit[s] - values is "cohesion". Women in combat roles negatively affect this cohesion, as most of you QPs have pointed out.

This article appeared on Canada Free Press today. Just another article demonstrating [again] why you gentlemen are right; and the "social engineers" should keep the @#*& out of the military. I'll post the link:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/s...imits-to-women

[Pete]

And in the category of "we will not lower standards - we will just change them".

"Marine Corps Eases Requirement that Has Inhibited Female Infantry Officers"

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...ntry-officers/

"...Marine Training Command officials rejected the notion that the change slackens service standards and said it brings the exercise back to its original intent of assessing the "retention of knowledge, skills, and fitness achieved" at IOC, Military.com reported.

"Over the past 40 years, the Marine Corps has made multiple modifications to Infantry Officer Course (IOC) program of instruction (POI) to reflect the requirements of the operating environment," Training Command said in a statement. "The quality of the course remains the same."..."

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Pete

And in the category of "we will not lower standards - we will just change them".

"Marine Corps Eases Requirement that Has Inhibited Female Infantry Officers"

And a pig is still a pig.

Doesn't matter what you call it, lowering the standards is lowering the standards.

Army Infantry has done it as well as Army Special Operations, lowering the standards to accommodate the low physical strength female.

Next the army plans to lower the standards to the point 3rd world countries all have a chance to win battles against the United Diversity States.