Army’s plan for women in combat submitted
Jack sends us a link to Military.com about the Army’s plan to begin integrating women into combat-related jobs from which they were previously forbidden. The language isn’t very reassuring;
TRADOC has started a scientific review working with U.S. Army Medical Command, U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine and Army Research Institute to assist in the development of gender-neutral physical standards for all Areas of Concentration for commissioned officers and military occupational specialties for enlisted soldiers.
Yeah, well, see, they don’t need to develop “gender-neutral” standards – those standards already exist. That’s just a fancy way of saying that they’re lowering the standards so they can happily report to their political masters (who know nothing about combat) that, unsurprisingly, females are meeting the new standard for combat-related jobs.
Army officials will submit the service’s strategy for conducting these efforts to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday to satisfy the May 15 deadline for the services to present how they will fully integrate women into combat arms units by 2016, said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Stephen Platt.
So, with sex scandals popping everywhere in the force, they’re going full-steam ahead with integration of the sexes in every field despite growing evidence that it’s damaging to readiness, because the social experiment is much more important that combat readiness.
Some of the jobs being reviewed are infantryman, Special Forces officer, cavalry scout and armor senior sergeant.
But this does not mean the Army has decided to open these jobs to women yet.
“The Army will review these MOSs and make a recommendation to the secretary of Defense if they should remain closed,” Platt said. “If we find that the assignment of women to specific positions or occupational specialties is in conflict with the department’s guiding principles, exceptions to policy will be requested, which will prohibit their assignment to certain jobs.”
Do you seriously think that the social engineers will accept the Army’s decision to prevent women from serving in those career fields? Seriously? The hue and cry will break windows from the Pentagon to the Capitol. Don’t piss on my boots and tell me it’s raining.
Category: Big Army
Just how quickly will those who dissent with the PC agenda be forced out or disgraced?
Or audited annually by the IRS
Yeah, this plan will be just fucking dandy until Time magazine or the NYT splashes huge color photos of dead American women being dragged through the streets of some Third World shithole after the powers that be leave them hanging out to dry.
AGAIN.
I’m keeping a cargo pocket full of “I told you so’s” to dish out even when they lower the standards and women still fall out of infantry training.
Tankers? I’d love to see home many women can load an 80lb HEAT round in under 5 seconds…..Hell, I watched guys that couldn’t do it….
The male-as-protector role and image is the target. How much more evidence is required to conclude that social engineering demands that all (not some or most) of the traditionally male-only tasks be reworked? If one sets out to radically transform America, it is essential that institutions and traditions be altered in a way that makes the destruction not only tolerable but appealing. And what better way to sell something than to assure the sheep that the traqnsformational efforts are in furtherance of fairness and equality?
“Do you seriously think that the social engineers will accept the Army’s decision to prevent women from serving in those career fields?”
Not only that, but do you really think that any officer who wants to get promoted will ever make such a “sexist” recommendation?
@3 You are spot on. This is a bad idea from conception to execution. Standards for all will be lowered not raised or even held to current levels. There is too much going on in the military and on the battlefield to try these socially stylish, feel good experiments. But the left loves it. And they could care less about the image of a woman held captive, raped, killed and dragged naked through the streets of some shitistan hell hole. I hope and pray the services review these MOS’s hard and declare a decisive NO.
@6 Well said.
Ok 2006/2007 I was a PSG in an MP Unit in Mosul Iraq. I had several female soldiers who did an awesome job. We were out the wire everyday doing joint patrols with the Iraqi Police. We were in numerous engagements including complex ambush situations including IED’s. My Females were serving in almost every position in the Platoon, Gunners, Drivers, Team Leaders.
Do I think they should open the Combat Arms MOS’s.. HELL NO. Its a totally different dynamic. MP’s have had females since I initially joined in 1978, and as an MP we expect them to be there and they do the same job as their male counter parts. My entire Platoon earned their CAB’s in the 1st 30 days.
Lets face it our physical demands are no where near the Infantry where 10 miles with a 60lb ruck is the norm. Hell we helped some of the CAV unit with TTP’s on mounted Patrols in our AO.
Infantry, SF, Delta and the like need to stay just the way they are.. Ok Flame suit on hehehe
Do we know for certain that “gender neutral standards” means lowered standards?
@11 they could never come up with Gender Neutral Standards for the PT Test with out lowering the Male standards.
@5 Old Tanker – What about breaking a track to repair it?
@11 – What else do you propose it means?
Gender neutral means there are no separate standards for males and females. If the current standards, which are male based, assure that few women will meet them, then the standards must be changed. The necessary change will be lower current standards. They will be called gender neutral but will, in actuality, be female-based.
The Army PT Standards have remained relatively unchanged and gender specific forever now, and are only being discussed as being rndered “gender neutral” now because they have to get woman to be able to meet the same standard as males.
I for one find this to be utter bull shit. It is blatantly obvious why they are going to make changes, it is too allow the greatest number of woman to be able to make the cut. Which will also make it so lackluster males who could not make the cut before will also now be able to…. Good Call Army!
Social Engineering and civillian interference is what is wrong with our military today. They wonder why there are such discipline issues, and problems with criminal behavior…. because they lessened other standards along the way since the 80’s.
“WOMEN ARE EQUAL!….now let’s lower the standards so they can do it too….lol”
Seriously, this isn’t going to turn out well for a HUGE number of reasons, and not just combat effectiveness related ones.
TRADOC has started a scientific review working with U.S. Army Medical Command, U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine and Army Research Institute to assist in the development of gender-neutral physical standards for all Areas of Concentration for commissioned officers and military occupational specialties for enlisted soldiers.
Scientific? The science has been pretty f#cking clear since the dawn of man, I am 6’3″ 250 lbs and even at age 55 I still have not met a woman who can lift what I can and carry it for as long as I can….I am sorry ladies, but me carrying a load that’s only a third of my body weight is far different than you carrying one that is between 65-75% of your body weight…the math is simple and it’s unforgiving.
There can be no standard that is “gender” neutral that will work as desired. As rb325th points out, if you lessen the standard for women, more men who would have failed in the past will now also be able to pass effectively lowering the physical requirements and lessening the effectiveness of the force overall.
The naked dead male bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu will now be supplemented with naked dead female bodies….I am still unclear as to how the United States Military or the United States society benefits from such a program. I guess I should attend some sensitivity training to better understand such things that are beyond my neanderthal-like cognitive powers.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
If women can pass the Army’s Gender Neutral Standards then the standards are too low.
How many females make it on NFL teams or play in the NHL ? If there is no physical difference why aren’t they successful there? Now you want to implant them in one of the hardest physical tasks in the world?
I think some people have watched too many Rambo movies. When women are in the field will they mind taking a hurried piss in front of the guys? Or a dump? Do people understand how bad someone stinks after a month or so sweating and slogging through rice paddies or a sweltering desert? Some people are dreaming.
I can’t wait for the number of sexual assaults to rise, as well.
#5 OT they’ll bring out the Soviet use of autoloaders out on that one. I’m 6’2″ 260 lbs. and even I don’t want to break a track – seen it done and I don’t ever want to do it :).
@17. Your accent on the “scientific” label is not misplaced. The use of that term is effectively a bar to inquiry and challenge, something that the Left knows well and practices regularly. If it’s science, it is presumptively correct and, to many folks, inherently good. But the real purpose of the term’s use in this and other social experiments is to belittle non-scientists who dare to challenge and inhibit those who would.
Seems to me that “being right” is not helpful — that “right” is not the standard being used to make this decision. I submit that we must present a reason that is compelling to people who simply put do not care if more people die in combat or if bodies dragged through streets and hung on bridges are male or female. We are not convincing because they either do not believe us or they don’t have our values so the argument is not convincing. If we want to avoid this horror, we have to find an argument that works with people who think that the military is some kind of scout troop.
because the social experiment is much more important that combat readiness.
Elect lefties to high office and suffer the delusions of high ranking lefties. This will be a disaster in practice (of course) but it will be spun as a huge success with the first female graduate of the (new) Ranger school held up as a paragon and eventually promoted to at least Major General (after working almost entirely in staff positions throughout her “infantry” career).
The left cannot abide that there are natural differences between people, all aspects of human behavior must be perfectly malleable or their great vision will be revealed as a sham. That they cannot actually achieve their goals is irrelevant, they can pretend that they have and use the power of propaganda to make it seem as though it were so. Advancing their grand vision is all that matters, reality be damned.
I like how the only SF job for women they are looking at is “SF Officer”. I had a Sgt in one of my units that had washed out of the SF Weapons Sgt course. He laughed about it and told me he would have just been the pack mule for everyone else on the team and all the extra gear.
If a female is able to hump a ruck with full gear, pass the training, and do the job, then they should be given that opportunity. However, if they can’t, then they can’t. I know the U.S. is being pussified with everyone being told they are special little snowflakes that can’t lose, but sometimes you need to be told no.
Case in point, after the Corps opened infantry to women, how many female infantry are there? How many actually signed up and how many passed?
@11–certainly in the physical standards there will be a lowering. We’re already seeing in the Marine Corps where the (very) few women who have tried the Infantry Officer’s Course have dropped out soon after starting (the longest one went two weeks, IIRC.)
Academically, it’s a tougher call. But when you have a case where TPTB say, “We need women in submarines,” to cite a recent example, it’s not difficult to imagine that there is incredible pressure on the immediate supervisors/commands to which these women are attached actually pass, even if by the thinnest of margins which would probably have sent most men packing.
If you don’t believe me, Google “Kara Hultgreen.” IMHO, she was pushed through the F-14 pipeline too quickly (she failed her first carrier qual attempts) and ensured she’d pass where men would have failed, and that ended up costing her her life.
The standards should stay the same. If a woman can meet the standards, let her try. I’ll say that I don’t believe that any female who could meet those standards is much of a woman. But I could be wrong. I do agree that the traditional male role is under attack, and I find that to be troubling. I am ok with challenging the status quo, that’s the only way we grow, maybe we will learn some lessons from this.
@22 that’s why liberals p1ss me off so much, they find a scientist who’s work mirrors their ideology and regardless of how good the science is those b4stards run with it…
Take the statistic about marriage for instance, where half end in divorce…liberals hate marriage (except for gays) so they like the idea that it’s a coin flip for success or failure…however that statistic comes from a study in a single year that noted there were 2 million marriages and 1 million divorces, the study did not take into account the already existing 38 million married couples…meaning that the actual chance of divorce is only 2.6% not 50%….but hey that fact didn’t suit their politics so they ran with the weak sauce and got a majority of Americans to believe their bullsh1t….liberal science is forever suspect in my mind because it’s hardly science at all.
The number of people that will get killed by this is unimportant. We shall have equality at all costs!
Idjits. I want these alleged scientists to go through MCT at Pendleton first before they get to voice an opinion.
@23 Richard, being right hardly matters at all in this discussion. Because the military now represents less than 1% of the population the other 99.2% don’t really give a sh1t how the military is managed….nor will they until they come face to face with some level of discomfort. As long as the discomfort is born by that 0.8% there’s not much incentive for the masses to bring any real concern to bear, just a little hand wringing and some carefully chosen words and then forget the military….
Lip service, not actual service is what you get from the masses regarding military management.
Some of the jobs being reviewed are infantryman, Special Forces officer, cavalry scout and armor senior sergeant.
Ohh good, so we’re going to take a female E-7, and throw her in charge of a fucking tank platoon with no experience at all? Is that how I’m reading this? If I get passed up for E-7 because a female with absolutely no tank experience at all ever takes my slot, I will promise you two things. A) You’ll hear about it on the news, and B) I will get a dishonorable discharge.
I’m guard and I’m pissed as all hell about this. I can’t imagine trying to deal with giant clusterfuck on active duty.
You guys aren’t getting any argument from me about this. Men and women are not physically equal, even if they are the same height, weight, and fitness level.
I know this, you know it, but it does not matter to those who have an agenda. Even the largest female bodybuilder does not have the same muscle mass and size as the largest male bodybuilder.
Women have already died in combat. Two nurses died in World War I when a shell exploded on their hospital ship.
The people who are pushing this don’t care about that. They only see this as ‘career path’ and ‘promotional opportunity’ and nothing else. The consequences to others will have nothing to do with them.
Yes sir,no sir,…three bags full sir!
As long as we allow idiots to make policy who have no idea what it takes to survive in combat the result will be ridiculous.
Am getting so sick of the theoretical becoming policy without regard to actual outcomes. Or common sense.
I guess it is now up to the weapons of our enemies to impress the truth of the situation on us. That’s going to be a harsh way to learn it.
Who cares if they can’t fight and are overweight, it “looks like America”!! (Thank you, liberals.)
The quickest way to destroy any institution be it Military, sports teams, or corporations is to lower the standards or to have standards that don’t apply equally to all members. It has been proven throughout history that Warriors want high standards. It is why we sign up. Proponents of women in the infantry keep throwing around stats about the “average man” and how females stack up. The “average man” has no place in combat. There is a reason why the military represents .08% of the population, because we are not f’n average. There is a term in the infantry for someone who just meets the standard…sh&t bird. Even a low first class PFT is still considered sub standard in most units. The social experimenters can develop all the “gender neutral” standards they want, but at the end of the day we don’t set standards… the enemy does. Bullets won’t move slower, packs won’t get lighter, and movements won’t get shorter. Besides the multitude of other valid reasons why women have no place in the combat arms that have already been well documented, the decline of standards, and the culture they uphold, cannot be ignored. As a young officer I never trained my units to an arbitrary PFT standard. I trained them to thrive and come home alive in the worst conditions possible. I along with most (but not all) of my peers never cared about making General. We just wanted the opportunity to lead Marines. But the minute I was counseled by a senior Officer that my training was too intense and that I had to sacrifice combat readiness and tone it down to placate those barely making the standard would be the day I decided to get out at the first opportunity. I know many young Officers, SNCOs, and NCO’s would think the same. Of course, there are always those in the ranks who will be all too willing to lower the standard in order to please their masters and move up the ladder while most of the young motivators get out in disgust. If that happens it’s only… Read more »
Simo, you hit the nail on the head. Great post.
At the job I am in now (GS involved in training) we are just now beginning to see females integrated into what was an all male environment. Results are still sketchy due to a small number of females attempting to complete the training (this is an all volunteer force). We did have a female student recently quit one of our courses because she could not stand for prolonged periods of time on a flat range in full body armor, ammo and weapon in 50 degree temps. I have been involved in military training for all of my adult life and I have NEVER seen that happen to even the weakest male.
So in closing, let me state, good luck to those of you who will have to put up with this bullshit social experiment when the shit hits the fan. And I hope that the douchebag social engineers who have pushed so hard for “equality” will have the fucking intestinal fortitude to take responsibility for their misguided actions when those first females are dragged dead, mutilated and naked through the streets of whatever 3rd world shithole we find ourselves in.
I am happier every day that I retired when I did before the infantry that I loved became a distant memory.
I saw this begin in the early 70’s when I went from Army to Air Force. AF woman entered technical fields as I did. Then when I was assigned to my squadron of duty the women in the same AFSC as me, as well as other technical AFSCs in my comm squadron, were working in supply and job control and other administrative positions. Why? They could not lift the equipment and get it in and out of the trucks, the racks and storage. (I served in a SAC Strategic Missile Wing) The equipment was heavy and had to go from silo to shop to storage and then around we go again. The women could pass the technical training but not the physical part that went with the job. So…I had to do the job PLUS compete in the WAPS testing with someone who didn’t do the job but spent graveyard shift in job control studying at their leisure. But they told us we were held to “equal standards” then. Bullshit. It was unequal then, in an in country, non combat environment. How “equal or unequal” will it become when the AF horseshit happens in the ARMY with women and unqualified men in a combat MOS. This just pisses me off to no end.
@24.
Right on.
I think they should take a poll of Enlisted women and female officers about what THEY think.
I already know the results.
Is the good of a few better than the will and good of the many?
Guess so.