Women in combat (but not really) Vol. III

Women are already competent combat pilots...

 

pre-flight check?

i give the truck a good going over...like my life depends on it-'cause it does...but i don't get on top of it.

i hope she used a ladder.

 

Groundhog Day: The Thread

 

Few more days of winter...

 

Released on Friday 2/03/2012
“USAF Force Structure Changes: Sustaining Readiness and Modernizing the Total Force.”

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120203-027.pdf

 

That's an airticle for a whole other thread.

Safe to say, though, it's just one part of the puzzle.

 

Anyone remember Topps Desert Storm trading cards circa 1991?
Saw this and immediately thought of this thead.
Unrelated, I'm curious why there is no trading cards for OIF and OEF?

I remember when Topps issued these back in the day...some folks thought they trivialized war.
Never collected them, but I had no problem with them. Still I seriously doubt in today's politically correct era that the the Far Left would ever tolerate trading cards that aggrandize the military or more broadly... glamourize war. They would view it as a propaganda tool to influence children who collect them. Wow, times change indeed. Just another relic from the past I suppose.

 

Yeah? Some of that news is like 2 years old.

 

Bump.

Marine Corps to open officer infantry school to women

Read more:
http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-...pen-officer-infantry-school-to-women-1.174879

 

This will be interesting to see. They're not opening Infantry to women, but training them to operate better in the front lines. I also believe they just opened up a few select Staff positions to females (E-6 and above) in combat arms units minus Infantry/Recon. They are apparently trying to revamp the physical testing standards for combat, which will be interesting to see. I don't doubt that some politicians will try and exert pressure to make sure these "standards" are passable by women though. Apparently when they opened up regular TBS (The Basic School) training for officers they had to drop a few of the timed events (a timed double run through the O-course for example) because too many women couldn't pass it. Infantry Officer's Course is supposed to be quite brutal, much worse than TBS, so I don't see how they're going to integrate this without lowering the standards.

 

I heard about this, and was actually applauding in my car.

There are 2 things that strike me about this decision. First of all, it was the Marines that did it, not one of the other services. And secondly and most importantly, they did it on their own. No Executive Decision, no lawsuit from feminists, nothing of the sort happend though. They made this decision on their own, without any outside influence.

Guess we are not quite the neanderthols some make us out to be.

 

Actually a smart maneuver.

A few women can and will pass it.

 

This was posted over at a Paratrooper Forum I'm a member of, on this very subject. Women want equality, well lets look at the stats.

 

The scary thing about the Marine Corps is that physical fitness score factor heavily into promotion. A female scoring a 300 on her PFT is MUCH less physically fit than a male scoring a 275; yet the Marine Corps gives the female 25 extra points towards a cutting score that typically comes down to margins of 1 or 2 points. I'm kind of amazed no ones brought on a law suit. That's blatant discrimination if I've ever seen it.

 

An assumption is being made that physical fitness test scores correlate to the ability to do one's job. Obviously in certain specialties a higher level of physical fitness is required...but not in all. A basic level of physical fitness should be maintained by all who serve, but if a woman who might not be as physically fit as her male cohort, can still do her job...I don't see that it really matters that women are given an edge in terms of lower standards.

Obviously in occupations wherein a higher level of physical fitness directly correlates to the ability to do the job...the fact women's physical fitness standards are lower does become a factor.

It's an all-volunteer military and even with current reductions in force, women play an important role in filling the ranks. It's not like males haven't been give their fair share of moral waivers or other types of waivers...essentially a lowering of military standards to allow them to serve.

 

The problem is, at least in the Marine Corps case, it has been declared that physical fitness DOES correlate with the ability to do one's job; this is manifested in the PFT's significant importance in promotion to E-4 and E-5, and limited importance in higher ranks.

 

That may be true, but as women are barred from serving in direct ground combat units...this limits their promotion opportunities in the Army officer corps at least. Essentially they hit a glass ceiling because typically the general ranks require a background in a combat unit at some point in an officer's career.

I'm not arguing that males are not discriminated against in PFT scores, but women are discriminated against as well...in terms of the DoD's policy to bar them from direct ground combat units...regardless of their physical fitness level. This effects a female officer's consideration for promotion.

 

Physical fitness is a HUGE factor in Infantry roles, and does directly relate to the ability to do one's job. Sure, you can know how to shoot, set up field antennas, dig hide sites, conduct battle drills, and know the Ranger Handbook inside and out. Problem is, it's all moot if you are physically unfit. In the Infantry, you are only as fast as your slowest man.

I'm sorry, but I believe that if the only reason you want to be in a combat role is to gain rank, that's wrong.

 

Audie Murphy was the most decorated infantry soldier in WWII
He was 5' 3" 120 lbs.

An M1 Garand weighed 10 lbs. with a full 8 rd. magazine.
An M4 Carbine weighs 7.5 lbs. with a full 30 rd. magazine

Audie Murphy seemed to do alright not being the fastest or strongest soldier on the battlefield.

 

Infantry today carry significantly more weight in their combat loads than WWII soldiers did.

A 120lb man is still much stronger and fitter than a 120lb woman, on average.

 

Exactly, plus hormones in males and females differ...testosterone and estrogen...

I'll post these pics for comparison. First if of a WWII soldier fighting.


Next, here is a picture taken of my unit in Afghanistan after being dropped off by a Polish Bird. That part is relevant because, Polish birds cannot carry the weight of a Chinook, which I'm sure Herk knows. So we had to weigh ourselves with gear. Myself, I weighed 145 dry, and 280 with gear. I was the SAW gunner and had spare batteries and antennas ect. ect. for the RTO. Add in Ammo, food, water, IOTV, and all kinds of misc crap, it adds up. I actually had to drop weight (we all did).

 

I'll say again that depending upon the specialty, the level of physical fitness required varies...over and above the basic level which everyone in the service should maintain.
Obviously the infantry requires heavy lifting and running with combat load outs. Females may not be able to do that job, however Wezol was using PFT scores as a whole. Giving females lower standards probably won't effect their ability to do a specialty other than infantry, artillery or armor. Flying a helicopter for example...I see no reason to bar women
from that occupation and they aren't...even though they may be given an advantage in passing physical fitness tests.

An argument was made that it's discriminatory against males to have a higher standard of physical fitness which effects promotion in the enlisted ranks. My counter is that it's discriminatory against females to bar them from serving in direct ground combat units which also effects promotion in the officer ranks.

Both could sue on those grounds...discrimination solely on the basis of gender.

I mentioned Audie Murphy to counter Wezol's argument that an infantry unit is only as good as it's weakest link...well it's not always the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size
of the fight in the dog. Audie Murphy probably couldn't carry a 220 lb. soldier out of harm's way, but he did manage to perform well in a combat environment...an asset to his unit;
counter to his physical size and strength.

If physicality is the only basis of determining good soldiering we might as well inject all of our ground combat troops with steroids and field an army of WWE wrestler types...

 

That quote I used was in response to this article.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/05/24/female-soldiers-sue-to-lift-combat-ban.html

We all know good soldiering doesn't solely rely on PT, good soldiering is a combination of MANY things. The Military is NOT a place for social experiments. Yes, I know there are SOME women who can perform to task, but they are very few and far between. Physical fitness is a huge deal. In my old unit, no matter how old you were, you were scored on the 17-21 age scale.

It's a different war we fight today.

On another note, I'd put money on Audie Murphy being able to move a 220lb man out of harm's way. I bet he'd even take on Chuck Norris, hell, if Norris were here right now I'd tellavinarsmv sdrgsrg

 

I suppose males in the service could form a class-action suit for discriminatory policies based on tougher PFT standards as compared to females...standards which effect promotion
eligibility apparently. Of course there's the Feres doctrine which limits the merits of a lawsuit against the military/goverment. Anyone can sue, getting a favorable verdict and over turning policy is another matter. I'm betting the court's throw out the females lawsuit over being barred from ground combat units...maybe not invoking the Feres doctrine but some other loophole that prevents active duty military from suing the government.

 

I hope, and you probably are, correct about the Feres doctrine. Even if it gets thrown out, this will not be the last of women fighting to get into combat roles, and I'm not just whining about it, I'm talking about actually going up the chain, making news, type trying.

A good guy once said,

In order to give everyone equal opportunity, you must have unequal standards. You have to give the weak a head start and hobble the achievers, otherwise opportunity is based on ability which is not equal.