Zone1 Does anyone think we need to keep the current military model of lowering physical performance standards for women?

[Winco]

Is this Your family.
If so, big Ups.


View attachment 1066514

So NO?Yes?

1). If Yes, I see the trucks on the interstate. I-5

2). So No.

 

[Winco]

Goes back even further - Middle Earth

No further response?

You have the floor.

 

[Hector12]

Women can fill support functions. I do not want them to be put in combat roles.

 

[Mr Natural]

Women can fill support functions. I do not want them to be put in combat roles.

No combat roles for women!

 

[Delldude]

The real factor to apply is that the Combat Arms: Infantry, Armor, Artillery should remain male only. Aside from the physical strength needs of those jobs there also is the morale factor where it's bad enough to see your fellow guys mangled by combat weaponry, but to see fellow females also in such condition could be very bad for morale.

Excellent point. Recently heard a psychologist talking about the male role in nature. Males protect, defend and distract predators against the female. In a combat unit, males responded to wounded females differently than wounded men. They claimed it has already been proven, and could compromise the mission. How would a group of operators respond if a female was captured vs the response with a male?

It was an interesting listen.

How do you make sup for the shortfall of recruits?

I think the woke BS isn't helping.....being forced to hear and deal with that crap most likely is a deterrent.

I thought we had established that women are not men.

Lol

He wants to kick out gay soldiers too.

Mentally compromised candidates. Look at the tooty frooty BS in the military now.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When my oldest son went in about 25 years ago, Chemical Weapons Branch, it being a Combat Support MOS meant women could join also. Even then the Army had separate physical standards for both sexes; different type and number of push-ups, chin-ups, weight lifting, etc.. Point being that most women don't have muscle and upper body strength like men, so realistic expectations applied.

The real factor to apply is that the Combat Arms: Infantry, Armor, Artillery should remain male only. Aside from the physical strength needs of those jobs there also is the morale factor where it's bad enough to see your fellow guys mangled by combat weaponry, but to see fellow females also in such condition could be very bad for morale.

Also, in modern mechanized warfare, battle lines often are fluid and a supposed "Rear Area" could suddenly be focus of close in combat. Means even cooks, supply clerks mechanics, and truck drivers, etc. might need to dig a foxhole and be able to shoot a rifle. For the most part, females should ideally be assigned tasks that would keep them 20, better yet 30 miles behind the line of battle/contact.

We're talking most Army and Marines here. There's room for a bit more flex in some Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard jobs/MOS.

Either way, physical, mental, psychological standards should not be reduced to try and get numbers recruited. If there aren't enough to meet quotas, will just have to adjust for the shortfall. Troops need to be able to huck their ruck, use their weapons efficiently, march 20-30 miles a day, move fairly quick through rough terrain, dig a quick foxhole, drag a buddy by his harness out of a fire zone, and a lot of other very physically demanding tasks.

Of course, if USA is invaded, we might have to make adjustments down a bit to fill urgent needs.

You do realize we have had females in combat for over 35 years. Gulf War ring a bell?

Sometimes you have no idea where that line is! You sound like someone with no combat experience pontificating about something you don't know.

This isn't WWII or Korea anymore. Not even Vietnam.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No combat roles for women!

Even if they are qualified and meet the same standards?

 

[Stryder50]

You do realize we have had females in combat for over 35 years. Gulf War ring a bell?

Sometimes you have no idea where that line is! You sound like someone with no combat experience pontificating about something you don't know.

This isn't WWII or Korea anymore. Not even Vietnam.

I'm saying it isn't a good idea.
Regardless if it's been done already. (BTW, last I knew, women are given MOS for Infantry, Armor, Artillery).

You often sound like someone who has severe reading comprehension disability.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm saying it isn't a good idea.
Regardless if it's been done already. (BTW, last I knew, women are given MOS for Infantry, Armor, Artillery).

You often sound like someone who has severe reading comprehension disability.

I'm saying it is based on reality and not your opinion. The current law says that women can be assigned to combat arms MOSs. If they are qualified to the same standards as males, why would you have a problem with them serving in those roles? That is the root of the true question, that everyone seems to be tiptoeing around and hiding behind their misogynistic beliefs. That is my problem with the discussion.

 

[Stryder50]

I'm saying it is based on reality and not your opinion. The current law says that women can be assigned to combat arms MOSs. If they are qualified to the same standards as males, why would you have a problem with them serving in those roles? That is the root of the true question, that everyone seems to be tiptoeing around and hiding behind their misogynistic beliefs. That is my problem with the discussion.

It's my understanding that combat for grunts is little changed from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.
I'm going off my son's experiences and he did recent combat in Iraq, 2004-2005, 1st Cav, Sadr City. When going through Basic the first time 2000, in Chemical Weapons, his training platoon was a mix of male and female.

Guys had a tendency to get too sloppy and be a hazard to others when women are there in the field, in the line with them. Also most women couldn't dig their foxhole, had to cajole a guy to finish it for them. In the squad drill where a trooper is down and wounded in the middle of the road, the drill was for the rest of the squad to provide cover fire while ONE GUY dashes out, grabs the "WIA" by his harness and drags him off the road and into cover. When it was time for the gyrls to do this, it almost always took two of them to struggle dragging the one wounded off the road out of the fire zone. The females also couldn't match the guys in physical strength and tasks, and the females also were allowed to perform their PT tests to lower "female" standards and performance.

Bottom-line is that in these circumstances and other examples there is the suggestion that with women in a front line unit like this, there's an increased probability of more casualties, less efficiency in doing the mission. This aside from the fraternization challenges, the field latrine and sanitation challenges, and the just can't carry their weight challenges.

Why do you want to put women into more danger and potential for wounding or death than is necessary ???
Sounds to me like you are the misogynist who hates women and wants to see them hurt.

Check your signature line. You want to add scared women into the mix when it isn't necessary, and could do more harm to the unit and mission than needs to be there.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's my understanding that combat for grunts is little changed from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.
I'm going off my son's experiences and he did recent combat in Iraq, 2004-2005, 1st Cav, Sadr City. When going through Basic the first time 2000, in Chemical Weapons, his training platoon was a mix of male and female.

Guys had a tendency to get too sloppy and be a hazard to others when women are there in the field, in the line with them. Also most women couldn't dig their foxhole, had to cajole a guy to finish it for them. In the squad drill where a trooper is down and wounded in the middle of the road, the drill was for the rest of the squad to provide cover fire while ONE GUY dashes out, grabs the "WIA" by his harness and drags him off the road and into cover. When it was time for the gyrls to do this, it almost always took two of them to struggle dragging the one wounded off the road out of the fire zone. The females also couldn't match the guys in physical strength and tasks, and the females also were allowed to perform their PT tests to lower "female" standards and performance.

Bottom-line is that in these circumstances and other examples there is the suggestion that with women in a front line unit like this, there's an increased probability of more casualties, less efficiency in doing the mission. This aside from the fraternization challenges, the field latrine and sanitation challenges, and the just can't carry their weight challenges.

Why do you want to put women into more danger and potential for wounding or death than is necessary ???
Sounds to me like you are the misogynist who hates women and wants to see them hurt.

Check your signature line. You want to add scared women into the mix when it isn't necessary, and could do more harm to the unit and mission than needs to be there.

Did I mention that my youngest daughter was a quartermaster and logistics officer who served against ISIS in Iraq and later the 101st Airborne? Did I mention that my son was an 11B infantry sergeant in Afghanistan? My daughter earned her spurs with 3rd Cavalry and my son was Airborne qualified. Did I mention that both of them, their sister, and I volunteered as OP4 fighters for special operations teams training in military operations on urban terrain? I have 11 years doing that. I trained with every SEAL team, every Spec Warfare group, Rangers, Deltas, and other conventional units over that period.

From their discussions and my own experiences, I can tell you some of the toughest volunteers we had were the women. There were no "girls" on our OP4 teams. My girls were often dressed as men and armed just as we were to supplement the number of insurgents. You should have seen their scars, cuts, and broken bones they suffered "playing" war games. I know women can fight. You don't want them to because they are girls. That says a lot more about your misogyny than that which I do not have. Perhaps you should assess your beliefs.

 

[Hector12]

You do realize we have had females in combat for over 35 years. Gulf War ring a bell?

Sometimes you have no idea where that line is! You sound like someone with no combat experience pontificating about something you don't know.

This isn't WWII or Korea anymore. Not even Vietnam.

Most women can't fight. If they are captured by the enemy most get raped.

 

[Delldude]

Why is it that female cops need back up more often than not?

 

[22lcidw]

When my oldest son went in about 25 years ago, Chemical Weapons Branch, it being a Combat Support MOS meant women could join also. Even then the Army had separate physical standards for both sexes; different type and number of push-ups, chin-ups, weight lifting, etc.. Point being that most women don't have muscle and upper body strength like men, so realistic expectations applied.

The real factor to apply is that the Combat Arms: Infantry, Armor, Artillery should remain male only. Aside from the physical strength needs of those jobs there also is the morale factor where it's bad enough to see your fellow guys mangled by combat weaponry, but to see fellow females also in such condition could be very bad for morale.

Also, in modern mechanized warfare, battle lines often are fluid and a supposed "Rear Area" could suddenly be focus of close in combat. Means even cooks, supply clerks mechanics, and truck drivers, etc. might need to dig a foxhole and be able to shoot a rifle. For the most part, females should ideally be assigned tasks that would keep them 20, better yet 30 miles behind the line of battle/contact.

We're talking most Army and Marines here. There's room for a bit more flex in some Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard jobs/MOS.

Either way, physical, mental, psychological standards should not be reduced to try and get numbers recruited. If there aren't enough to meet quotas, will just have to adjust for the shortfall. Troops need to be able to huck their ruck, use their weapons efficiently, march 20-30 miles a day, move fairly quick through rough terrain, dig a quick foxhole, drag a buddy by his harness out of a fire zone, and a lot of other very physically demanding tasks.

Of course, if USA is invaded, we might have to make adjustments down a bit to fill urgent needs.

The point is a lot of this should not be questioned. We have thousands of years in experience with it. The technology aspect has muddied things up.

 

[elektra]

How do you make sup for the shortfall of recruits?

Get rid of democrat leadership and influence

 

[Zincwarrior]

Get rid of democrat leadership and influence

Truly brilliant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have no answer. If you eliminate 10% - 20% of the eligible pool how are you making that up?

The same way we adjusted the recruit pool during the cold war, when we drew 4x-5x more people from a 30% smaller population
(1988: 2.24 million, 244.5 million population)

• Incentives
• Broader standards

When you're drawing 500,000 people from a population of 340,000,000 you can be picky.
You can be slightly less picky and draw more.

Without women, the military would not be able to function.

Quantify this. All of it.

So how are you going to replace them?

You don't need to replace all of them - just the ones who cannot meet the relevant standards.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You do realize we have had females in combat for over 35 years. Gulf War ring a bell?

"In combat" and "in combat billets" are different things.
"Women in combat" refers to the latter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If they are qualified to the same standards as males, why would you have a problem with them serving in those roles?...

If this standard is applied to combat billets, then it will weed out a huge % of women in those billets.
Is it misogynistic to wonder if my female TC can pull me out of my burning tank?

 

[2aguy]

Not totally accurate. Ranger school, for example: same standards.

Should.probably just depend on specialization.

I hate to break it to you....but the women did not pass Ranger School with the same standards...

When the first integrated class started on April 19, none of the nineteen female candidates made it through the Darby phase of the course.

Eight were “recycled” back to the beginning of the phase to take a second crack at the course with the next class to show up, which is an entirely normal procedure. None of the eight passed on the second try. Of those eight, three candidates were given a third try but were required to start back at the very beginning and re-do RAP week, in what is known as a “Day One” recycled (as opposed to joining the next class after it completed RAP week, which is how the average recycle usually works).
Getting a third attempt at the course is certainly unusual, but it’s not unheard of. The opportunity is offered on relatively rare occasions to candidates who have performed well in most aspects of the course but struggled with a single test or task. In this particular class, three of the eight female candidates remaining were given a third try, as were two male candidates who had passed RAP week but failed Darby twice. (At this point, it’s worth mentioning two things.

First, the two male candidates did not take the offer for a third chance as Day One recycles; all three female candidates did. Second, RAP week consists largely of pass fail physical tests that have objective and essentially unfudgeable metrics of success—you either run five miles within the time limit, for example, or you don’t; you either complete the twelve-mile weighted ruck march on time, or you don’t. Many people don’t pass all those tests even when entering the course for the first time in peak physical condition. The female candidates did, and they did it despite having already been subjected to the exhaustion and malnutrition of Darby Phase twice. Day One recycles are viewed by a lot of candidates as something close to a death sentence for your chances of passing the course for exactly that reason. That the female candidates passed RAP week events under those conditions speaks to their level of physical stamina and conditioning.)

The Inside Story Of How The Army Reduced Standards To Get Women Through Ranger Training

The story of how the first female rangers graduated from U.S. Army Ranger School.

dailycaller.com