Professional Soldiers ®

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Special Forces Questions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=95)
-   -   Women in Combat? (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40862)

Chairborne64 02-06-2013 19:12

I agree with The Reaper. The standards won't be lowered, until they see that the number of women who meet the current standards are incredibly few. Then of course they will be lowered, don't fool yourself. It will get a lot of good people killed. Take a look at the average size of a light infantryman today. 6 foot tall and 170lbs. That is a good sized linebacker on a HS football team. There is a reason for that. The combat load has steadily increased. It takes somebody that size to carry that for an extended duration and not break down.:mad:

Chairborne64 02-06-2013 19:13

BTW awesome cartoon!:p

Razor 02-06-2013 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbtengr (Post 488900)
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/0...trength-012413

"Panetta said women will be held to the same standard as men, and those standards will not be deliberately lowered to allow more women to serve in combat units or jobs. “Let me be clear, I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job,” Panetta said"

I thought he made it quite clear when he made his announcement on the 24th of Jan that the standards would not be lowered.

Panetta is the outgoing SECDEF that will not have to implement this decision. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who isn't going anywhere for another year or so, said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GEN Dempsey
“Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? (Emphasis mine)With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”


Chairborne64 02-07-2013 19:41

Just in case you had any doubt that the standards will soon be lowered. Here is a quote from todays Washington Times article:
At a news conference last month, Gen. Dempsey said: “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary: Why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”

He also said the goal is to have a significant number of women, not just a few, qualify as land combatants.

Gen. Dempsey said job performance for men and women will be assessed by the same standards. This means that, if a certain standard is to be lowered, it will be reduced for men and for women.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2KGeFUs00
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

So soon we will not only have a vast influx of women that could not meet the original standards but a bunch of men also. I truly feel sorry for the infantry squad leaders of today.:mad:

ACampCmdrLegacy 02-08-2013 15:33

This thread has absolutely zero to do with Special Forces.

It should be deleted Post Haste.

Pete 02-08-2013 15:49

Bold Talk
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ACampCmdrLegacy (Post 489511)
This thread has absolutely zero to do with Special Forces.

It should be deleted Post Haste.


Bold Talk for somebody not following the board rules.

I checked your join date and all three posts.

Square yourself away by the time I get back from supper - or else.

Pete

Old Dog New Trick 02-08-2013 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisoMed (Post 489620)
Darn it. Wrong quote. That's what I get posting from my phone in the middle of Charlie Mikes.

THIS Quote by Vernice Armour

Honestly, I am offended by how many times I hear "women in combat" and "lowering standards" used in the same sentence. True, the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. Standards should not be lowered and women don't want them to be. No one should be in a job where he or she doesn't meet the standards -- not every man, for example is fit to be a Navy SEAL.

Ya' so what's your opinion?

It's not just about physical strength and standards...it's about a whole lot more.

It's complicated!

Razor 02-08-2013 23:44

To which posts are you referring? I see two posts by you prior to Old Dog New Trick's post.

Oh, and lighten up, Francis...there are plenty of women here that post pretty frequently. Life wisdom says those that go out looking for a fight tend to find one.

Chairborne64 02-09-2013 08:48

MISO MED,

The fact that women are serving in combat roles is not the issue here. The issue is that the CJCS has already STATED that the standards will be lowered to allow women into roles that they would not qualify for (that quote was posted further up in the stream) That concerns us that have spent our entire careers in the combat arms because we KNOW without a shadow of a doubt the issues caused by men who cannot handle the physicality of the job. Now we are going to make the problem even worse by adding more men and women who cannot handle the job.

Thankfully at least the senior leadership at SOCOM has resisted the idea of lowering standards. It also looks like the Commadant of the USMC is doing the same thing.

tom kelly 02-09-2013 15:08

Standards:
 
In Combat, Who sets the Standards? Do they factor in Gender? TK

MR2 02-09-2013 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom kelly (Post 489733)
In Combat, Who sets the Standards? Do they factor in Gender? TK

The winners.

Joker 02-09-2013 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisoMed (Post 489764)
...Relaxing standards is simply NOT an option. There is NO place for Affirmative Action on the battlefield. (Forgive my lack of manners. I didn't give any info to whom was posting - CA soldier at Bragg.)

MM, Most of the PS's here do read the profiles (especially the non-PS members) and we do realize where you are coming from. First I really do appreciate your service to you nation and your team.

This is not an attack on you; it is an attack on those that are attempting to “change the military for the better.” BS! Have any of the female proponents or Generals in charge of the military today served in the Infantry or a true Combat Arms unit or even experienced anything remotely similar? GoRuck events do not count nor do hikes in the woods nor does “combat” paintballing. I mean true EXTENDED tactical overland foot-movements and living extremely tight with your team mates. If so, they are not acting like it. They are making decisions that are putting service members lives in peril, including women.

Do you know what a hide site is? It is a hole in the ground where you live until the mission is over. I was part of a 15-man team (5 USSF, 10 PN) where two of us (2 USSF) lived in that hide site for 21-days the others stayed in the MSS. That was after we infiled over-land using our feet through the jungle and swamps for more than 25 kilometers carrying more than 80 lbs. in two days. You don’t leave the hide site or the mission is compromised. We were in the field for more than 5-weeks including infil, site recon, site preparation, observing, site sterilization, regress, and exfil. Are you willing to live with a man not your husband in roughly a 5-foot-wide x 8-foot-long x 4-foot-high hole 24-hours a day for days on end? Are you willing to poop and piss in a baggy in front of your hide site buddy, NOT ONCE but EVERY TIME for as long as the mission takes? Are you going to control your menstrual cycle so as not to attract wildlife (we were in a Western Hemisphere jungle and there are animals there that will stalk you, kill you, and eat you)?

We need the rear element support and we cannot do our jobs without it. There is no shame of being a cook, mechanic, clerk, medic, or even a lawyer:p. I thank God for the medics that keep us alive and the doctors that put us back together after serious crap happens. MM, I thank you for that.:lifter

DOL

Chairborne64 02-09-2013 21:15

Joker,

Amen Brother! Very well said.:lifter

Old Dog New Trick 02-09-2013 23:17

Joker, well put. I too spent time on an SR team and I don't believe our civilian overlords can even comprehend what that means, what it takes to get to where it needs to be, and then what the cost of compromise means to the overall mission and the team.

Aside from that and for the discussion, I spent my first eight years in the Infantry. The task is hard enough with the men in the unit. I could not even imagine females fighting alongside those men, and when they are not fighting the enemy they are fighting amongst themselves to see who is the alpha male. Eventually the alpha male will decide to conquer all members of the platoon and if that is a female soldier she will be raped, not an if but how many times!

You can't regulate human behavior!

Joker 02-09-2013 23:51

According to the Army female height and weight standards a 5'4" woman 21-27 y.o. cannot weigh more than 147 lbs. How can a 147 lb. carry 85-125 lbs of equipment over rough terrain for several days? On top of that slide down a fastrope with that gear and have a CONTROLLED stop! Hell, I haven't seen a 147 lb SF troop in a long time.

DOL


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:41.


Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®