Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms Units

[Pete]

Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms Units

http://www.military.com/news/article...rms-units.html

".........Women are currently barred from infantry, armor and Special Forces branches, Casey said. He did not say whether the Army is considering opening up all three areas to women, but he did say the study looked at the possibility of women in infantry.............."

That short end of the log is going to get mighty heavy for some individuals.

But maybe we could drop the log since it wouldn't be fair to short people.

Or maybe we could give short people smaller logs - but we're not going to lower the standards.

[uplink5]

Originally Posted by Pete

Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms Units

http://www.military.com/news/article...rms-units.html

".........Women are currently barred from infantry, armor and Special Forces branches, Casey said. He did not say whether the Army is considering opening up all three areas to women, but he did say the study looked at the possibility of women in infantry.............."

That short end of the log is going to get mighty heavy for some individuals.

But maybe we could drop the log since it wouldn't be fair to short people.

Or maybe we could give short people smaller logs - but we're not going to lower the standards.

Hopefully, they'll fight this effort with a bit more success than the last social experiment. After DADT was repealed though, it was inevitable that the next round of correctness would be forthcoming. Sky's the limit for these folks and their on a roll. .....jd

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by Pete

Or maybe we could give short people smaller logs - but we're not going to lower the standards.

I spent a little time at Sand Hill. I can think of 1 female of around 200 of them in my battalion that could make it through the Infantry Training Brigade. Why change the standards when they aren't lining up to try out in the first place? Do they honestly think the "glass ceiling" would be any better for the .001% of women that end up in the infantry?

Let's not even get into the pregnancy vs deployment rates. My platoon had 10 women in Jan of 08 when we got orders for a year long Korean field trip. By our November ship date, 6 were pregnant and ineligible to deploy. Months of training down the tubes. Infantry platoon deploying to a combat zone minus 15% strength due to pregnancy? Sounds like a great idea.

[Dusty]

Open homos. Broads in combat.

Next headline: "Army begins drive to recruit both Grey and Reptillian ET's."

There are already women in Special Forces, they're called "wife".

[Surgicalcric]

...RICHMOND —
A new study says female military members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq are more likely to suffer from mental health conditions than their male counterparts...

http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-report...tory?track=rss

One would think that since Sen Mark Warner is party to this study this would be taken into account when deciding whether the ban on women in direct combat units should be lifted.

[Buffalobob]

Infantry platoon deploying to a combat zone minus 15% strength

You have my sympathy to have to go to Korea for a year minus 15 %. What a hardship.

I went mission after mission minus 55% and the max strength I ever had was still down 35% and you don't see me whining and complaining now or even back then.

[TrueBeliever]

BAD, bad idea. Though I truly believe that we women should be given equal opportunity in some areas of the military and civilian life, combat is NOT one of them. We don't belong on the front lines.

But what really makes me angry is that the women who bitch and moan the most about inequality are generally those that go out and get themselves pregnant so that they will not have to deploy or they deploy, then get themselves pregnant while in theater so that they re-deploy early. Gives a bad name to those of us who know when to fight for equality and when to let the men do those jobs best suited to them alone.

My .02

[cmts58]

My only concern is a different standard for females. The APFT standard is different for females. Is it lower? I have no authority to say. Females in combat arms will only work if the weak are culled from the herd.

[TrueBeliever]

Originally Posted by cmts58

My only concern is a different standard for females. The APFT standard is different for females. Is it lower? I have no authority to say. Females in combat arms will only work if the weak are culled from the herd.

Respectfully, I think it has much to do with more than the APFT standards. Not having been in combat myself, and not trying to present myself as knowing what that is like, I do not think that the average woman has 'what it takes' to perform to standard, whatever that is, in combat. Unless the enemy has done physical harm to one of her family members - in that instance, I believe that we could do more harm if we have the physical capability.

I think that we are not capable of the mental strength required to do combat and that we are not wired to be that way (generally, there is always an exception to every rule).

With respect to those of you who have served in combat, this is my opinion.

[bubba]

The real issue that will stop this from moving forward is the draft. America will not allow it's mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives to be drafted. If they are "allowed" into combat arms, then they should be required to register for the draft. What is good for the goose.............

[cmts58]

Originally Posted by TrueBeliever

Respectfully, I think it has much to do with more than the APFT standards. Not having been in combat myself, and not trying to present myself as knowing what that is like, I do not think that the average woman has 'what it takes' to perform to standard, whatever that is, in combat. Unless the enemy has done physical harm to one of her family members - in that instance, I believe that we could do more harm if we have the physical capability.

I think that we are not capable of the mental strength required to do combat and that we are not wired to be that way (generally, there is always an exception to every rule).

With respect to those of you who have served in combat, this is my opinion.

No offense taken. I just used the APFT as an example that the Army has no problem with setting a different standard for women. As for combat, I have no experience in that area. Can a woman carry a heavy load when the mission dictates, both mental and physical? Sure some can. And some men can not. But is what might be gained by women in combat arms offset by the problems it might cause?

[TrueBeliever]

Originally Posted by bubba

The real issue that will stop this from moving forward is the draft. America will not allow it's mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives to be drafted. If they are "allowed" into combat arms, then they should be required to register for the draft. What is good for the goose.............

I agree; let's hope that the powers that be consider that as well.

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

You have my sympathy to have to go to Korea for a year minus 15 %. What a hardship.

I went mission after mission minus 55% and the max strength I ever had was still down 35% and you don't see me whining and complaining now or even back then.

Buffalobob, I'm not an infantryman. Korea is not a combat zone. What I was saying is imagine losing the same numbers due to pregnancy before a real deployment i.e. OEF.

I called it a field trip because that's exactly what it was

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-report...tory?track=rss

One would think that since Sen Mark Warner is party to this study this would be taken into account when deciding whether the ban on women in direct combat units should be lifted.

They (politicians) can't, won't, will not, etc. see the correlation between the two....

Stay safe.