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)

KRG1987 02-04-2013 11:32

Women in Combat?
 
With our President and Mr. Panetta's decision to allow women to hold a Combat MOS. Do you believe we will be seeing women in SFAS in the near future? I am curious as to your opinions on the matter.

Team Sergeant 02-04-2013 11:41

Good question.

There's a reason we don't have professional woman's football, basketball, hockey teams and why women don't compete against men in the Olympics. It has nothing to do with intellect but everything to do with strength.

But to answer your question, yes, I'm sure the US military will lower the standards to accommodate women in all combat roles.
TS

KRG1987 02-04-2013 11:57

Now with SFAS that is a selection process by current SF members if im not mistaken? I can forsee these women making a big stink about not getting selected and blame it on being a woman not because they just cant do the job required. I would not want to be in the shit and the woman have the realization this is not for her. I understand the need for political correctness and equality but maybe instead of a complete change of rules a test group or 2 in a limited role?? It just seems rushed.

KRG1987 02-04-2013 12:37

Well thats good to hear. Thanks for the info

MR2 02-04-2013 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRG1987 (Post 488181)
I understand the need for political correctness...

I don't. Please explain. :munchin

1stindoor 02-04-2013 12:52

Here's a question from me...just out of curiousity...are you now or have you been in the military?

KRG1987 02-04-2013 13:02

Feb 11 I sign 11x opt 4 contract. I do not have any previous service and I look forward to serving my country Sir

1stindoor 02-04-2013 13:10

Not trying to be a dick...well not a total one anyhows...but I wouldn't want to be "in the shit," when you come to that same realization. I'll give you the same advice I gave my son when he enlisted...take it one day at a time and see if you even have the capacity to serve in the military.

KRG1987 02-04-2013 13:28

I thank you very much for your advice Sir. It was very similar advice given to me by my father. Focus on the 25m target get your bearings and make sure it is what you want to do. In re reading my comment I did not have the intention to come across that I know anything of "being in the shit" just a bad use of wordage it was just an opinion on my behalf.

1stindoor 02-05-2013 07:20

No harm no foul...good luck to you next week.

Dusty 02-05-2013 08:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by afchic (Post 488432)
none of them would even begin to even ponder entering an MOS where they can't meet the current standard.

Do you think the standards will be changed in order to facilitate entry for those women (and there must be some) who would ponder entering an MOS whose standards they can't meet, as they stand, at present?

koz 02-05-2013 08:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by afchic (Post 488432)
No woman I know in the military would be making that stink. Just how many military women do you know? All the ones I know concentrate on being the best they can be at their given profession, and none of them would even begin to even ponder entering an MOS where they can't meet the current standard. I am tired of men like you, lumping all women into the same category. A vast majority of us know our limitations, and accept them.

Now politicians, that is a different story, but they are the reason for all this crap in the first place, so it will be no surprise when any of them begin to open their mouths on the subject.

Kate Wilder..... No stink at all.....

Dusty 02-05-2013 08:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by afchic (Post 488441)
But there are going to be those that can meet the standard for infantry/mech/artillery units. So instead of bitching, moaning, whining and complaining about it, it is high time we all start to figure out a plan to best integrate those women into those MOS's , because gentlemen, the time is here, and nothing you say about it, is going to change it. As leaders, the best thing we can do for our troops is not complain behind the brass' back, but move out, and effect the change in the best way possible.



Concur. As I've stated before, Ma'am, as long as the current standards aren't modified, there should be no reason to exclude a female from entering a combat MOS.

I don't agree with the chauvinistic misogynists who compare it to a man trying out for the Bearded Lady gig at Barnum and Bailey. :D

sinjefe 02-05-2013 08:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by afchic (Post 488441)
. As leaders, the best thing we can do for our troops is not complain behind the brass' back, but move out, and effect the change in the best way possible.

Or get out/retire. but, I agree, staying in and bitching about isn't the right course of action.

sinjefe 02-05-2013 08:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by afchic (Post 488450)
Are you really willing to get out/retire over this? Don't you think that in order for this change to be made, there needs to be men like yourself that are willing to stay in and make the change happen in the best manner possible? Instead of leaving it to some FNG who doesn't know his/her ass from a hole in the ground.

Combat veterans are the best mentors for any new person into a unit. Women are going to need those mentors just as much as the men. If everyone leaves in mass protest, how is that good for the DoD? A decision has been made, it is up to us to make it happen.

Actaullay, I retired 5 years ago.;) I used to tell myself the kind of stuff you just said. But, I have become cynical and I don't think "change from within" ever happens. The forces of evil are too strong. You have to live by your principals.

sinjefe 02-05-2013 08:43

I now subscribe to the "Dusty effect'. Hunkering down in my bunker and waiting for the apocolypse.:D

Richard 02-05-2013 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinjefe (Post 488451)
You have to live by your principals.

Not me - I was wild as a dry August wind and always wanted to live as far away from my 'principals' as possible. :D :D

Richard
:munchin

Dusty 02-05-2013 08:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinjefe (Post 488453)
I now subscribe to the "Dusty effect'. Hunkering down in my bunker and waiting for the apocolypse.:D

"Imitation is the sincerest forum of flattery." :D

Old Dog New Trick 02-05-2013 09:05

There will not be equality and a sexless military until everyone is treated the same and comfortable with co-Ed everything.

As long as we have "Men" and "Women" seperate latrines and shower facilities and a different physical fitness standard to define "qualified" there will be issues with men and women serving in specific roles together.

There is no reason not to expect that many will suffer and some will die, so that a few can achieve some fantasy about what equality is and is not.

There may be roles for women in combat units and those should be defined with tests and qualifications that differ from their male counterparts but do not disrupt the natural order of things.

JMO

ETA: We have and have had women in SF (support roles) for years, they perform their duties with great enthusiasm and professionalism. Some would even be an asset in the field but those roles are limited and very specific.

mark46th 02-05-2013 09:32

My sister in law was the Athletic Director at a school here in California when Title IX passed, dictating that both men's and women's athletic teams had to have equal facilities, funding, etc.

I asked her if this meant women could try out for men's teams, she said yes.

I asked her if I could try out for her women's softball team, she said no and couldn't tell me (or admit) why...

There are no women playing in the NFL, the NBA, MLB or NHL for a reason...

1stindoor 02-05-2013 12:05

Which also begs the question...why do our fearless leaders need all female FETs and CSTs? Why can't a male join those two units? Is my testosterone level too high? I think men should be allowed the option of going out for the CSTs and FETs.

mark46th 02-05-2013 13:06

Since when did equality, cultural sensitivity and gender have anything to do with logic?

Razor 02-05-2013 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by afchic (Post 488533)
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but weren't those teams put together because of cultural sensitivity in the AOR?

That's correct. Now, if we flip the circumstances, how effective will a female infantry company commander be at conducting a shura with a local Afghani tribal elder? Nowadays, SF aren't the only ones out in the wild building rapport and partnerships, and there are a heck of a lot of cultures around the world where women are treated far less than equal.

The Reaper 02-05-2013 18:45

I hear women complaining, with some regularity, that all of the real men are gone, and men don't act like men anymore.

Then I hear my Chief of Staff saying that in order to get women into units where they do not meet the standards, the units will have to reevaluate and justify those standards.

What do you think has happened to the boys who wanted to be men?

Eventually, this is going to get a lot of people hurt.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, there was a combat load study of a "light infantry" unit in the box, and their measured loads ranged between 125 and 145 pounds per man, at significant altitude, for days on end. Any women I know who could physically lift that load (less strength, especially upper body), could not sustain it for as long as the men (lower aerobic capacity), and would suffer permanent damage to their bodies (lower bone density).

TR

scooter 02-05-2013 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor (Post 488595)
That's correct. Now, if we flip the circumstances, how effective will a female infantry company commander be at conducting a shura with a local Afghani tribal elder? Nowadays, SF aren't the only ones out in the wild building rapport and partnerships, and there are a heck of a lot of cultures around the world where women are treated far less than equal.

I can imagine VERY few places in the 5th Group AOR that would react well to a female Detachment Commander showing up to meet with a counterpart military commander.

BKKMAN 02-05-2013 19:04

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper (Post 488651)
I hear women complaining, with some regularity, that all of the real men are gone, and men don't act like men anymore.

Then I hear my Chief of Staff saying that in order to get women into units where they do not meet the standards, the units will have to reevaluate and justify those standards.

What do you think has happened to the boys who wanted to be men?

Eventually, this is going to get a lot of people hurt.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, there was a combat load study of a "light infantry" unit in the box, and their measured loads ranged between 125 and 145 pounds per man, at significant altitude, for days on end. Any women I know who could physically lift that load (less strength, especially upper body), could not sustain it for as long as the men (lower aerobic capacity), and would suffer permanent damage to their bodies (lower bone density).

TR

These?

MtnGoat 02-06-2013 05:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper (Post 488651)
I hear women complaining, with some regularity, that all of the real men are gone, and men don't act like men anymore.

Then I hear my Chief of Staff saying that in order to get women into units where they do not meet the standards, the units will have to reevaluate and justify those standards.

What do you think has happened to the boys who wanted to be men?

Eventually, this is going to get a lot of people hurt.TR

Well I'll say, even if USASFC brings back the SF yearly certification, this wouldn't help Groups or the Regiment in a cause. The standards will be changed and arms/hands tied.

1stindoor 02-06-2013 08:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor (Post 488595)
That's correct. Now, if we flip the circumstances, how effective will a female infantry company commander be at conducting a shura with a local Afghani tribal elder? Nowadays, SF aren't the only ones out in the wild building rapport and partnerships, and there are a heck of a lot of cultures around the world where women are treated far less than equal.

Thanks for the assist...and it was my point exactly. Growing up in 7th SFG was another prime example of why women on teams wouldn't being accepted.

Snaquebite 02-06-2013 15:45

1 Attachment(s)
Couldn't resist

Attachment 24222

Dusty 02-06-2013 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaquebite (Post 488877)
Couldn't resist

Attachment 24222

lol Made my day. :D:D

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:59.


Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®