Im going infantry and as much as i would respect a womans infantry, heres the simple facts.
Women got the Brains
Men got the Muscles.
There is no shame in admitting in this and its not sexist too say so. Equality in the infantry is impossible because of male physical capability.
Your job sounds crazy AWESOME, and i agree with you entirely! Wish you luck!, Good hunting!
Its not that women want to be equal to men, its that men and women ARE equal. Frankly, if the army apft were changed to equal standards and a women could pass the same test a man could then I do not see why a women should not have to opportunity to be treated and viewed as an equal. Its not just about the opportunity to shoot people, its the ability to fight for my country with respect and dignity, knowing I gave the same effort as any other male soldier, but as a female. Sure, men and women are different, and thats why I believe that before a law to allow women to fight in combat is in place, some form of tests should be administered to ensure that a female soldier would be able to save a male soldier of average weight im such a way as the firemans carry. I'm sure some women would be incapable of passing such a test, but I'm also sure that some male soldiers would not be able to accomplish this feat either. Men and women can have both brains and muscles. It is absolutely ignorant to disassociate both characteristics. P.S. Excuse my rant but I work too hard to be given less MOS opportunities than male soldiers. I want to expand my career in the army and have a limitless future, it honestly bothers me when I hear male soldiers excited for rangers, special forces, and delta force. I would love to be tested at that level and prove myself to others.
Because many tests have been done with women and in fact they can do the many of the same combat jobs men can. Statistics show that actually combat units that are co-ed not just single sex-ed units actually perform better then single sex-ed units. The Govt. actually gave over 4 million dollars to study this and they are capable of being in the same condititions if not they have an advantage due to estrogen. They may not pack on bulk of muscle or pack on a lot of muscle but they can get the job done regardless. If only people would actually do research women want to fight and well they've been fighting in combat for thousands of years so I don't see a problem with allowing them into direct combat situations as long as tests are equal. The US is so far behind the rest of the world it's a miracle we've survived this far. Oh yes and it wouldn't be so bad if women were not being blamed for the divorce rate or that they are incompetent and that we are a sexual distraction that women running are a distraction that is one of the many reasons why they don't want women in combat their are so many ridiculous reasons like a womens period or her going to the bathroom. Or how bout these statistics of media 64 countries have had female presidents but were not one of them this issue goes more then just women in combat roles. If we didn't have so old stupid conservatives in office this country would be doing a lot better instead of their stupid religious views.
Ok Damagr...show me some legitimate stats on these claims your making to official sites(universities, government think tanks, etc) where:
-It shows a $4 million dollar grant to study this(that would be a very low grant for such a study).
-Show where coed units perform better
-Where women are being blamed for the divorce rate and are a sexual distraction
BTW...isn't the current administration liberal. What about when the House, Senate and Presidency were all democratically controlled? Why not changed then if Conservatives are the problem?
I normally do not chime in on this subject, because I support openning more positions up to females. However Damagr, you are making claims without support...and that can be much more damaging than anything else. I do not support women in Infantry units. I know many females that I have no problem serving with. Most can out perform many males on many aspects. However, out of the best females I know....only two could potentially keep up on the ruck marches under a seriously heavy weight. That is vital. I know many females who are great Soldiers and would be great in most units, but most females I have known in the military would have serious issues with the rucking aspect involved in the Infantry.
I would comment more but I got to much work to do. I always find conervatives a problem their the majority in Congress and they reject plans that would help Americans and instead debate on the national motto "In God we trust" seriously. People reply quickly on this thing, but more so if people read the comments people say bout this issue they should get mad it rather ****** me off everytime I read them. I had one say "We might as well let retards in to." Or "Women are only made for sex, cleaning and making babies." but end of class...
I'm not conservative or liberal, One is overbearing the other a hippie cry babies..... What I am is experienced. Infantryman can go as much as 120 days without seeing a shower. Can women do the same without getting infections and such on their hoohahs? Most women in the army couldn't make the male PT standards, and I personally am disgusted with how easy the APFT is to pass for both genders. A 290 should be passing.... Barely IMO! Women in the infantry will be sparse, and despite what arguements are made, it will affect the males negatively. The way we talk, act, and bond in the infantry will have to change. Political correctness will be more important than unit cohesion. It will be an end to the hardened combat units we have traditionally had, to be replaced by something much less effective, and far less deadly. I'm glad I retired, no offense, but I don't want some wanna be tough girls poisoning my unit in the interest of "equality".
I 100 percent agree with you. And the majority of those supporting this agenda do not have a clue about the combat arms. Even those male proponents in the military who witnessed a female do something extraordinary compared to a man to validate their opinions.
When I played HS baseball, I hit some good home runs but I was not major league caliber.
What you will see come about based on hit and run engagements in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts; is a military moving towards a para-military like culture.
When I served in the combat arms; we were tough on the weak links and they were ostracized to man-up/shape up or ship out. Expecting to train and fight in austere environments regardless of the weathered conditions. Back in the 80s, I was in the field in a tropical storm in Okinawa and slept in a sleeping bag in six-inch high water. Now and days, command will fired for even keeping the troops beyond what is expected over concerned risk assessments. Do not let me tell you about the tea bag initiations and the blanket parties I was in; all for the betterment of the unit. That was the culture I experienced in all-male units. It turned boys into men.
I have seen the 180 change in the past decade and with the new troops being put out into the force. When this experience will cause a major disaster, we will seen the reins being pulled from change.
Just a number of things that will vanish...
Tea Bag initiation, inpossible situps, qualifying with a e-tool, qualifying on a tree, hand to hand choke outs, testing your vest, platoon pink bellies, the water bomb, etc.... Some may think it's stupid, but as you stated Chief, it's initiation and right of passage. Some are a test of manhood and build comradery. All of it will vanish once female's are introduced. Acceptance of a cultural change and loss of tradition will not be accepted by grunts as well as the rest of the army. Combat arms, rangers, and sf are not just about base standards. You have to exceed them, in a non stop king of the mountain competition! I think a lot of female's don't understand, if you're not at the top, you're chastised daily. As Chief stated, ostracized and shipped out.... If that culture is lost, so is the next war...
SMA Dailey recently gave a PC response on the matter.
Combat roles for women
Dailey also addressed the recent policy change from the Department of Defense to allow women into combat roles. Women graduated from the Army's Ranger School last year. They were the first to do so.
After their completion of the course, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced combat roles would be open to women as well. After the announcement, many believed it will change the standards for combat roles.
Dailey said Wednesday he's seen some of these women perform and doesn't think it will.
"I would tell any of those naysayers to come with me," he said. "When I did the Army 10-mile run, there was a phenomenal young woman who started the same run as me. I consider myself a pretty phenomenal runner for being my age. ... Not only did she beat me on the run, I never could run that fast. She ran a 59 minute 10-mile.
"Is every woman out there able to do this? No. Is every man out there able to do this? Absolutely not. ... There are women out there that are capable of doing this, and we've got to give them the right to demonstrate their ability if they want to do it."
This is what will happen. There will be like 4 females that can pass at the male standards and 100 that can't. Then the army will do one of two things. 1) They drop standards for females (likely) or 2) They close combat arms to women again (a lot less likely) They could allow a bunch of women to fail cycle after cycle, but that's not cost effective....