Defense Secretary to Open All Combat Jobs to Women

[BrokenSwitch]

Cuba, are you familiar with the Marine Corps' month-long experiment?

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...ment/71979146/

This article isn't very detailed, but Google can help you find more about not just the failure of this experiment, but also the political decision by the Secretary of the Navy to completely ignore the results.

[tonyz]

Cuba,

Links below took about 2 minutes to find - this should get you started - keep looking.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...e-officer?lite

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Militar...omen-in-combat

http://www.businessinsider.com/femal...etronio-2013-2

http://www.stripes.com/news/marines-...s-say-1.375210

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42075.pdf

http://www.cmrlink.org/content/women-in-combat

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-of/?page=all

ETA: took another minute and found another worth a look. Good luck.

http://journalistsresource.org/studi...search-roundup

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Pete

Why, if women were truly the equal of men when the going gets tough - how come women aren't integrated into the service academy's football squads?

Shouldn't integration and team building start there?

And make the female freshmen box both genders in their weight class. They could also integrate the men's and women's rugby/lax/boxing intercollegiate teams. Lots of opportunities to be a 'shining light on a hill' for gender integration in DOD, but it won't ever happen because reality is a harsh mistress that doesn't conform to the approved narrative.

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by Razor

And make the female freshmen box both genders in their weight class. They could also integrate the men's and women's rugby/lax/boxing intercollegiate teams. Lots of opportunities to be a 'shining light on a hill' for gender integration in DOD, but it won't ever happen because reality is a harsh mistress that doesn't conform to the approved narrative.

Especially when that reality is aired on national television.....

[ddoering]

Except that they will then get brow beat for hitting a girl.

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by ddoering

Except that they will then get brow beat for hitting a girl.

Not a girl - a soldier - isn't that the whole intention of this social experiment?

[bailaviborita]

Execute order just went out (approval of integration plans).

http://www.army.mil/standto/archive_...?s_cid=standto

The Army is implementing full integration through five lines of effort:
Updating physical and administrative screening standards
Managing talent to select, train, and promote the best qualified Soldiers
Building integrated units
Educating Soldiers and leaders and communicating on how gender integration increases the readiness of the Army
Continually assessing integration strategies to successfully posture the force

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-...ce=GovDelivery

[sinjefe]

Educating Soldiers and leaders and communicating on how gender integration increases the readiness of the Army

Indoctrination. What a bunch of nonsense.

[tonyz]

Slight thread drift from gender to race indoctrination that has moved from our schools to our military. The divisiveness and indoctrination appear to know no bounds with the current political "leadership."

The "isms" we're wrong then and they are wrong now.

Well, at least they admit to the unquestionable target of their bigotry for all to see.

Judicial Watch: Documents Reveal US Army Indoctrinated Soldiers on Dangers of ‘White Privilege’

MARCH 09, 2016
Judicial Watch

Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained documents from the United States Department of the Army revealing that in April 2015, 400 soldiers in the 67th Signal Battalion at Fort Gordon, Georgia, were subjected to a “white privilege” briefing, including a PowerPoint presentation instructing the attendees: “Our society attaches privilege to being white and male and heterosexual …”

“Outrageous – that is the only word to describe this type of raw racist indoctrination,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration undermines the morale of our military with morally repugnant ‘equal opportunity training’ that makes many soldiers feel unwelcome because they are the wrong sex, race, religion or aren’t part of a politically correct group.”

<snip>

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...ite-privilege/

[mark46th]

I really don't think that women will be a problem. One of the major Special Forces qualities/talents is the ability to improvise as the situation changes. Plan something for six months with your wife/girlfriend then, just as you are walking out the door , tell her plans have changed and you are going somewhere else. Tell me how that works out for you...

[DIYPatriot]

Originally Posted by mark46th

I really don't think that women will be a problem. One of the major Special Forces qualities/talents is the ability to improvise as the situation changes. Plan something for six months with your wife/girlfriend then, just as you are walking out the door , tell her plans have changed and you are going somewhere else. Tell me how that works out for you...

Ha! That was good and while it was funny there's a good bit of truth to that. I can't even change anything that's been planned for 30 min without my domestic overseer giving me the crazy eye.

[Cuba]

Originally Posted by BrokenSwitch

Cuba, are you familiar with the Marine Corps' month-long experiment?

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...ment/71979146/

This article isn't very detailed, but Google can help you find more about not just the failure of this experiment, but also the political decision by the Secretary of the Navy to completely ignore the results.

BrokenSwitch,

Thank you for the article. Most of my research actually came from that Marine Corps study and a study by the US ARMY Medical Research department study on a 12 month deployment on a Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

Here is a piece from my paper from this study which is pretty interesting and adds some information to this thread on women in combat.

"Nonetheless, recent research by the U.S. Army Medical Research department shows the evidence clearly points out that women get injured much more frequently than men when completing the exact same tasks. This certainly brings to light the differences in the physiology between a man and a woman. The purpose of the study was to describe physical demands and musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs) among male and female soldiers of the 4/23 Infantry Battalion and 402nd Brigade Support Battalion. in a Stryker Brigade Combat Team during a 12-month deployment to Afghanistan. (Military Medicine, Vol. 180, Pg. 127) Here is a direct quote from the Military Medicine report on the results from page 127 on this study “The primary duty women engaged in was office work (47%), and for men, it was dismounted patrols (29%) (Fig. 2). Out of 536 men, 120 had MSIs (22%) resulted in limited duty. Out of 57 women, 22 had MSIs (39%) resulting in limited duty days. The mean limited duty time for women was 7.45 days/injury and for men, it was 12.93 days/injury. For men, the most commonly injured body region was the low back (32%) and for the women, it was also the low back (22%) and foot and ankle (22%) (Fig. 3). The self-reported activity associated with MSI for women was physical training (PT) (25%) and for men, it was contact with the enemy (23%)”

Originally Posted by Pete

Why, if women were truly the equal of men when the going gets tough - how come women aren't integrated into the service academy's football squads?

Shouldn't integration and team building start there?

Pete,

Thank you for this quote. This is exactly what I am looking for to add into the paper. Common sense and right to the point.

Originally Posted by tonyz

Cuba,

Links below took about 2 minutes to find - this should get you started - keep looking.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...e-officer?lite

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Militar...omen-in-combat

http://www.businessinsider.com/femal...etronio-2013-2

http://www.stripes.com/news/marines-...s-say-1.375210

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42075.pdf

http://www.cmrlink.org/content/women-in-combat

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-of/?page=all

ETA: took another minute and found another worth a look. Good luck.

http://journalistsresource.org/studi...search-roundup

tonyz,

Thank you for the articles, I have used Katie Petronio in my paper and most of the articles are repeat information of articles and periodicals I have used for this paper. I really want to thank you for this one right here, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42075.pdf. This is a treasure that I will implement into the paper. Thanks again.

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Cuba

I am actually writing a research paper on this exact same topic. The professor has allowed for expert opinions to be used as citations in the research paper. If any of the QPs would like to give an expert opinion on why allowing women in combat jobs would be detrimental to small-unit cohesion, physiological differences between men and women, the actual standards for a woman trying out for a SF job, getting through SFAS, SFQC, etc. (Real names will not be used in the paper, I will just use rank, unit and occupation. I explained to the professor that SF soldiers are still out in the field in danger and conducting secretive missions for the U.S.)

I would love some help if anyone is interested because it has been hard to cite sources for this paper due to the fact 95% of the articles I find are pro-women in combat jobs (liberal media ) I would really appreciate the help.

P.S. Great chance to really piss off all the liberal pro-Bernie Sanders kids in the class.

Look at the field of construction and sports when it comes to profitability....

The military does NOT generate a profit unless you're a private defense contractor.

[bailaviborita]

Originally Posted by Cuba

I am actually writing a research paper on this exact same topic.

- SF teams are largely autonomous. The politics of the sexual harassment industry (SHARP) will potentially kill any team that has a woman on it for many reasons as noted by Anna Simons http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/her...is-a-bad-idea/ - anthropologist and wife of an SF soldier. There is no trust between men and women in the Army right now because of the lynch mob mentality out to get any man who utters something that someone might find offensive. No man that I know ever counsels a woman alone- or does anything alone with one. Oh- and let's not forget the issues with deployment hook-ups (remember Petraeus?). If you've ever served in a NATO HQs deployed and watched the insanity as everyone hooks up like it was Spring Break...

- Most countries we deploy SF to can't handle women instructing men or hanging out with them in the bush. This could affect our foreign policy --- what do we do in the event of an international incident? http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S...ce-2882935.php

- The US Army is really all about being politically correct. They are about outcomes- not opportunity. If they were about opportunity then Airborne School would still be hard like it was prior to women going there and we wouldn't have separate PT standards. And separation boards wouldn't be kicking out good male soldiers and keeping terrible females to meet quotas. And Ranger School wouldn't have had so much attention... So- no-one has ANY trust that the leaders will just allow women to try out--- no- everyone is pretty sure that no-one will rest until there are a certain number/percentage in.

- The real motivation behind all of this is social change. http://smallwarsjournal.com/print/32801 This is very different than what our allies have done. Instead of just opening jobs to women- American interest groups are trying to drive out the traditional heterosexual male culture in this country- starting with the military...

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by bailaviborita

- SF teams are largely autonomous. The politics of the sexual harassment industry (SHARP) will potentially kill any team that has a woman on it for many reasons as noted by Anna Simons http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/her...is-a-bad-idea/ - anthropologist and wife of an SF soldier. There is no trust between men and women in the Army right now because of the lynch mob mentality out to get any man who utters something that someone might find offensive. No man that I know ever counsels a woman alone- or does anything alone with one. Oh- and let's not forget the issues with deployment hook-ups (remember Petraeus?). If you've ever served in a NATO HQs deployed and watched the insanity as everyone hooks up like it was Spring Break...

- Most countries we deploy SF to can't handle women instructing men or hanging out with them in the bush. This could affect our foreign policy --- what do we do in the event of an international incident? http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S...ce-2882935.php

- The US Army is really all about being politically correct. They are about outcomes- not opportunity. If they were about opportunity then Airborne School would still be hard like it was prior to women going there and we wouldn't have separate PT standards. And separation boards wouldn't be kicking out good male soldiers and keeping terrible females to meet quotas. And Ranger School wouldn't have had so much attention... So- no-one has ANY trust that the leaders will just allow women to try out--- no- everyone is pretty sure that no-one will rest until there are a certain number/percentage in.

- The real motivation behind all of this is social change. http://smallwarsjournal.com/print/32801 This is very different than what our allies have done. Instead of just opening jobs to women- American interest groups are trying to drive out the traditional heterosexual male culture in this country- starting with the military...

I guess you don't mean "hook-up" as in "Stand Up, Check Equipment, Hook Up, Check Static Lines,..."