SecDef allows women in combat jobs

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Because it isn't rank normed.

A 45 y/o Bn CO or CSM isn't going to be doing the same job as a 25 y/o team guy.

Supervisory positions require more experience and less brute strength, if done properly.

Lots of wear and tear comes with those years and experience, and hopefully, some understanding.

TR

True that. But, aren't there some "40-something" team guys? Don't "we" set ourselves up for a male-female debate with a young-old debate - if the standard is being able to do the job or not?

[MR2]

For awhile there, I found the PT standards getting tougher faster than I could get older...

[Sigaba]

KTLA, L.A.'s Tribune affiliate, ran an interesting story on the SecDef's announcement yesterday evening. After the reporter framed the debate, the story aired three sound bites from interviews.

The first was a man who had served with the 82nd who said he think women could do the job. Next was a retired Marine--who, from her comments, was an aviator. She thought women would find it much tougher than they thought.

Finally a young-ish very, ahem, athletic civilian got the last word. She said that as long as the standards are the same and women are allowed to try, then they could succeed or fail and the outcome would be fair.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

standards are the same... allowed to try... succeed or fail... outcome would be fair.

HERESY!

[Streck-Fu]

LINK


Two Cheers for Lifting the Ban on Women in Combat

Ronald Bailey|Jan. 24, 2013 5:02 pm

Real gun controlWomen and men are entitled to the same rights, period. Discriminating against an individual solely based on his or her sex is wrong and if you do that you are not my friend. So my initial reaction yesterday to reports that the Pentagon was lifting restrictions on women in combat was: It's about time. I was confident that I could find data that would show that women and men would perform equally well in combat, so I went looking for it. To my surprise, I could uncover very little data comparing the physical capacities of female and male recruits.

The most comprehensive analysis of the issue that I could find is a 2011 paper by social scientist William Gregor in the School of Advanced Military Studies at the US Army Command and General Staff College located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Gregor's study, "Why Can’t Anything Be Done? Measuring Physical Readiness of Women for Military Occupations," [PDF] looks at what data is available and finds significant differences in ability of female and male recruits to meet the military's physical performance standards.

Take, for example, Gregor's analysis of how well ROTC cadets have done on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) that looks at about 75,000 recruits who were commissioned by the U.S. Army through ROTC between 1992 and 2009. The performance of all cadets is evaluated based on how fast they can run two miles and how many push ups they can do. Gregor shows ...

.. the distribution of cadet scores on the 2-Mile Run in 2000, the Push-Up, and the distribution of cadets by weight. The difference in performance is clear. Only 2.9 per cent of the women, 23, were able to attain the male mean score. The strength comparison is somewhat worse, 1.5 per cent of the women achieved the male mean. Given the difference in stature between the cadet men and women, the difference in absolute strength is very large. [The relevant charts are on pages 20 and 21 of the study.]

Gregor then looks at a comparison of the aerobic capacity of the ROTC cadets and reports...

...the aerobic capacity achieved by women regardless of their body composition is less than the capacity of men. ...there are a few, exceptional women who best the bottom 16% of men, but these rare women are four standard deviations above the female mean, fewer than 1 in a 1000. In this exceptionally fit ROTC Cadet population, considering 74,838 records, not one women achieved the male mean.

According to NPR, qualifying for combat positions will be based on gender-neutral criteria:

Will the standards be different for men and women?

At a briefing Thursday morning, Pentagon officials repeatedly stressed that there will be "gender-neutral standards" for combat positions. This could make it difficult for women to qualify in roles that specifically require upper-body strength.

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.

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.

NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman recently reported on the first two women allowed into the Marines' grueling 12-week Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, Va. Both women were in outstanding physical condition, yet both dropped out early in the training.

If both male and female soldiers are expected to meet the same criteria, then this change will be good for our military. In any case, it's high time that the Pentagon become more transparent with its training data.

[69harley]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Because it isn't rank normed.

A 45 y/o Bn CO or CSM isn't going to be doing the same job as a 25 y/o team guy.

Didn't stop the Ranger Reg from self imposing the 17 y/o standard on everyone regardless of age or position. I think we had the most in shape pac clerks and cooks in the Army. Admittedly, the 75th is not typical.

Is going to be exciting to watch how this shakes out. All the chest pounding, sabre rattling, political jockeying, some senior leaders are going to fall on their sword, etc.

Anyone remember the shooting at Louiges restaurant in the mid 90s? The shooter claimed it was over Clinton's new don't ask don't tell policy

I feel bad for the current crop of 11B skill level ones. The guys from this group that reenlist are going to be the team and squad leaders when all this happens.

[Streck-Fu]

We had a discussion in my office regarding issues outside of maintaining the standards. What about the administrative and command requirements that are currently regarded as necessary?

When women when first assigned to Navy combat ships, the first assigned were officers then senior enlisted before the junior enlisted. With the Marine Infantry Officer School they tried to send female officers first and they failed.

What will happen if or when an enlisted female qualifies. Will they insist on assigning unqualified females as part of the command structure or will be able to scrap the requirement to have women represented in the command structure?

IMO, the correct answer would have to be that if they are to be completely equal, they take the command as it exists. But will the administrators and generals actually let this fly? Will they be allowed to be truly equal?

[Mack27]

Here's a good article that seems to put some rational thought into the discussion of should women be allowed in combat roles, and if so, what are the broad implications. Gen. Boykin explains why this was done for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...oykin/1863049/

[bailaviborita]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

...We the first assigned were officers then senior enlisted before the junior enlisted. Both with the Ranger school and Marine Infantry Officer Schools they tried to send female officers first and they failed.

Have females gone to Ranger School and failed?

[MR2]

5-Year Army Pilot Alice On Women In Combat

5-Year Army Vet and Blackhawk Pilot Alice called in today to weigh in on the Pentagon announcing women can now serve in combat roles. She is against it and laid out this argument:

7 min. audio interview/opinion.

[joesnuffy]

Written from a woman's POV on women in combat roles.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/the...le-combat-vet/

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by joesnuffy

Written from a woman's POV on women in combat roles.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/the...le-combat-vet/

Excellent article!

TR

[afchic]

Good article, but I have one issue with it; when she talks about moms deploying. I didn't deploy for career advancement, I deployed because it was my J-O-B. When my husband and I were both deployed at the same time and had to leave our daughter with my parents. It wasn't for career advancement, it was because it was our J-O-B. We had a plan in place should something happen to both of us while we were gone. That is part of being a responsible parent in the military.

I get sick and tired of people saying how awful it is if a mom dies while deployed, leaving behind her child. I am sorry, but if my kids lost their father instead of me, they have still lost a parent, and regardless of which one, it would be a huge loss in their life.

[joesnuffy]

Good article, but I have one issue with it; when she talks about moms deploying. I didn't deploy for career advancement, I deployed because it was my J-O-B. When my husband and I were both deployed at the same time and had to leave our daughter with my parents. It wasn't for career advancement, it was because it was our J-O-B. We had a plan in place should something happen to both of us while we were gone. That is part of being a responsible parent in the military.

I get sick and tired of people saying how awful it is if a mom dies while deployed, leaving behind her child. I am sorry, but if my kids lost their father instead of me, they have still lost a parent, and regardless of which one, it would be a huge loss in their life.

I agree completely with you on this. It's the one part of the article I felt didn't make a valid argument.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

According to NPR, qualifying for combat positions will be based on gender-neutral criteria:

It wasn't "according to NPR" - it was according to "Pentagon officials."

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

At a briefing Thursday morning, Pentagon officials repeatedly stressed that there will be "gender-neutral standards" for combat positions.

Richard