Women in combat (but not really) Vol. III

That was not my question. Do women meet the MINIMUM requirements? Yes or no?

 

Checkm8r can you answer my question on page 17?

 

So? She quit didnt she? Well, there you go. If the requirements are too high for women, they wouldnt accept them. If women cant hack it, they will leave - either by realizing they cant hack it or by failing to keep up. Simple.

Why integrate them anymore than they already are if they are already falling out? You seem to think its a be all and end all. If women cant hack it, they will leave. No 'integration' is required. If women ca get in, then they get in. If there comes a time they are too wrecked to continue being employed in that capacity then they will be fired or leave. All the army need do is provide them with the information of the risks.

Not well, but then they would be fired for under performance. If you cant do a job, you lose it. That applies in and outside the army.

 

I have no idea how the Navy airedales run their show.
In the Air Force, female maintainers were few and far between...less than 10%...I'd say around 6% you hear things that they have issues with the physical labor part of it...but not all maintenance involves heavy lifting...it's crawling around tight spaces and doing inspections with a flashlight.

I have never heard of a DoD policy that a certain percentage of maintenance jobs must be filled by females.

 

No women do not meet the minimum requirements for combat positions.

 

Minimum "requirements" according to who?

 

We can reduce the conversation to a simple concept.
Women should have an equal opportunity to serve where their skills allow them to serve.

To broadbrush a particular skill set as "only a man can do that job"...

With this argument, it's difficult to separate those who are threatened by women and don't want to work with them, to legitimate arguments a woman is ill suited to do the job efficiently and effectively.

Women are often placed in male dominated work enviornments facing hostility from the get go...regardless of their ability to actually do the job. A coping mechanism for them is to brush off the comments and act more male. Just be "one of the guys."

My only contention, is to allow women the opportunity to serve where their skills allow them to serve and avoid broadbrushing using the argument...
"it's a man's job."

An all-volunteer military should strive for the best person for the job of the available candidates for the job.

Stressing available candidates...in other words at times you can't be as selective as the ideal would ask for.

A female looking to serve her country, of good moral character, able bodied and skilled, should not have to endure a hostile work environment, should not be told you can't do the job...without first given the opportunity to do the job.

Yes, everyone is replete with "war stories" about females coming in last place in training runs, slacking on the job, asking for help...crying at a whim...essentially giving men's failure a free pass.

It's only the females that (*)(*)(*)(*) up apparently....the mere possession of female genitalia makes them incompetent....apparently.

 

And if this "realization" comes at the expense of their long-term health and well-being?

The infantry is not designed to test hypotheses about the efficacy of women in combat. The infantry cannot afford to accommodate these radical changes in their composition without a comprehensive and in depth review of the EVIDENCE. Simply opening up the infantry to women and letting the chips fall where they may is a flippant way to address an important problem.

Great, we can just "fire" them in the middle of a combat deployment and then pay for their medical problems in perpetuity. Sounds awesome.

 

What if one of the "skills" needed to be an infantryman is not to suffer an inordinate amount of injuries during a combat deployment?

 

Its not just civics, its also fiscal.

The woman who can actually fill some MOS are very few but to find those few will take an inordinate amount of resources. Better to spend those limited resources on recruiting and training men where the success rate is far higher. The military doesn't have the resources to waste on political correctness.

Also, with respect to some MOS men improve faster and farther than women. There is more bang for the buck with men than women.

The requirements for entry should reflect the requirements of the job, not the gender of the applicant. Its a waste of resources to put people through the pipeline just to find out they can't do the actual job.

 

Many schools have high wash-out rates...some of the special operations schools advance about 50% of the candidates.

A female candidate finds out she can't do the job up to standards...wash her out and find a job more suitable...

Males wash out of advanced infantry training all the time...just to be an 11 Bravo.

You're saying adding separate quarters is going to cost Billions of dollars?

Women are told, before setting foot in a school...sorry you can't do the job, it costs too much to add tampon machines in the latrines.

It's quite possible that not a single female candidate would advance in say, a tank driver school...fine wash them out...don't lower the standards...but give them a chance.

Your argument, it costs too much money to set up separate living quarters for so few female candidates that would even try?

Most combat schools are based CONUS, on military bases already set up for females' living quarters.

I don't buy your argument.

 

This is what scares the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of me. The pro-women in combat crowd will ensure that women pass the minimum requirements because they'll just lower them until they do. The U.S. government hasn't shown itself anywhere close to being mature enough to enforce real standards without PC bull(*)(*)(*)(*) coming into play. As it is the minimum standards of Infantry are much lower than what's actually expected in combat arms units. If you show up to a Marine victor unit doing 3 pull ups you'll get destroyed. This has led to unofficial standards in units; if you don't meet those standards your considered a (*)(*)(*)(*) bag and sent to an office job or some other terrible duty. This is what will happen to women when they show up having just squeaked by the minimums. Then Congress will get involved and it will become a huge mess which in the end will degrade the quality of our ground combat forces.

 

No....because women have an entirely different set of LOWER standards. Either way, meeting the minimum requirements won't get you anywhere. I know in order to pass Marine officer training the MINIMUM physical fitness score is a 225/300. Most incoming classes have average PFT scores of 290+. Can a tiny handful of women run 225 male PFTs? Probably, but the real question is can they run the "unofficial" 290? Males running 225s would never have even been selected to attend officer training, but politics will ensure a woman running a male 225 would make it. See the issue?

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. So if you maintain billets for women that stick to jobs that they can actually perform..this wouldn't happen. The guys don't get pissed until they have to do her job for her.

 

What about the huge waste of money and broken bodies that would result from an extremely high attrition rate? Harvard might have a minimum SAT score of 1800, but they won't look at you if your not 2200+. What your suggesting is akin to Harvard accepting everyone who meets the minimum and hoping that a tiny handful can cut it and maintain the regular Harvard standards, while the rest wash out. This is VERY expensive.

 

I did...post 172.

 

SF schools often have pass rate of 20% in some cases.

The difference is that across all the services there are no more than a few thousand Special Forces "operators." In contrast, there are probably at least 100,000 regular combat arms soldiers/Marines. When you consider that most SF guys stay in for 10+ years or retire, these numbers become even higher. Another difference is that most SF screening involves experienced Infantrymen going to the screening for a few months. If they fail, they head back to their Infantry units where everything they learned in SF training is an asset. If women spent months failing out of Infantry school, they'd end up in a non-combat arms job with little carry over. Also, by integrating women, you'd have to create new housing arrangements, change medical care, design to policies, research etc. etc. This would all be expensive.

 

The United States has spent $546,000,000.00
Nearly 1/2 of 1 Trillioin in Afghanistan...pretty much with nothing to show for it but a dead Osama Bin Laden, who was killed in Pakistan by the way.

and people are worried about the added expense and "hassle" of letting women candidates into combat arms' schools.

Y'alls priorities are really messed up.

An average of $850,000 and $1.4 million a year to keep one soldier in Iraq or Afganistan.

One soldier.

For what?

Nothing...a complete waste of taxpayer's dollars.

 

Silly argument. If we allowed women to try for Infantry than that number would be even higher. You can't say the inordinate amount of money we've spent on wars means we can afford to be fiscially irresponsible. The complete opposite is true.

 

Silly argument. If we allowed women to try for Infantry than that number would be even higher. You can't say the inordinate amount of money we've spent on wars means we can afford to be fiscially irresponsible. The complete opposite is true.

 

My point was, if an argument was being made to avoid entering pointless...unending money pits of wars...with the same fervor argued to keep women out of the combat arms,
perhaps we would have saved 4,000 lives, thousands of injured...and billions of dollars.

Had we been more selective not only in the personnel, but how they are utilized... perhaps we'd have the funds available for social experiments in a peace time situation like integrating females into the combat arms.

As it is military readiness is inadequate...it is no time to start these social experiments...

I'm just pointing out the frivolity of using fiscal reasons to keep women out of combat...Since when have politicians or the DoD used taxpayer's dollars wisely?

I'm not blaming the military for that, but a complacent uninvolved citizenry which allows it to happen.

 

Well, I apologize then.

 

One waste does not justify another.

 

You miss the arguement. Its not about living quarters at all.

Examine your SOF example. Certainly between 25-50% of candidates make it through the various SOF schools. But slots in those schools are limited and it takes money (to the school and the command the candidate is currently in) just to put a candidate into the school. All the services spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to increase the success rate of these schools, not through lowering standards but in identifying and admitting those most likely to succeed. In Navy BUD/S about 70-80% of the candidates drop in weeks 1-4 because they are either physically or mentally not suited to the job (weeks 1-4 are basically just mental and physical hazing). The Navy would love to identify those drops before admitting them into the school, but its almost impossible.

But if you know only 15-50% of males are going to make it through, the success rate with females is going to be close to zero. You are going to waste slots in schools just to "give them a chance". If I had an unlimited budget and unlimited instructors and unlimited training facilities, then we can run that experiment and give everyone a chance and let the chips fall. But we don't have unlimited anything, and the resources have to be spent wisely on what gets the best return.

 

If you were intelligent enough to have a discussion with, I wouldn't have to tell you.

I don't accede to demands that I substantiate claims I haven't made.

I only engage in discussions with people who aren't retarded.