Army to commission first 22 female officers into ground combat units

Henrin · Apr 17, 2016

KevinKohler said:
First, the concept of electing, respecting, and ultimately following a leader based on their physical prowess is cro magnon.

Really? Ok, so who else is supposed to be respected and be seen as the leader? Oh right, the one that has the least likely chance of being equal to the most worthless solider on the field. Don't you think it would make more sense to be lead by the guy that gets the job done?

Henrin · Apr 17, 2016

KevinKohler said:
Petty? Women have convinced a nation run primarily by men that they are as strong and tough as men. That's an accomplishment, no matter how dumb you think men can be. Fact : Women are not as strong as men. They are also not as physically tough. They simply lack the density we have. Yet, somehow, they have managed to convince a great deal of people that they in fact are.

What exactly are you looking at? You do realize this was the result of an executive order, right? You do realize that studies pretty much defy the logic of that order, right? I have also not seen these polls you apparently are referencing.

legalimmigrant · Apr 17, 2016

Women in combat is just another PC insanity. What's next? 70-year-old seniors?

It's actually criminal because women dilute, and, therefore, subtract from the strength of the unit, thus exposing men to additional burdens and dangers. A statistical woman is too weak to carry her ammo and a fallen soldier to safety with the same ease as a statistical man.

Women also get pregnant. On the Navy love boats, 10% of them are.

Still in doubt about this idiocy? Who would you send to fight 1000 screaming ISIS? A unit of all men or all women, if, as the feminazis would have us believe, men and women are equally capable?

Henrin · Apr 17, 2016

legalimmigrant said:
Women in combat is just PC insanity. It's actually criminal because women dilute, and, therefore, subtract from the strength of the unit, thus exposing men to additional burdens and dangers. A statistical woman is too weak to carry her ammo and a fallen soldier to safety with the same ease as a statistical man.

Women also get pregnant. On the Navy love boats, 10% of them are.

Still in doubt about this idiocy? Who would you send to fight 1000 screaming ISIS? A unit of all men or all women, if, as the feminazis would have us believe, men and women are equally capable?

I wonder how many people would pick women as the best choice. I wonder what they would decide upon to support their case considering no study anywhere supports such an argument.

Skeptic Bob · Apr 17, 2016

It should be an interesting experiment. I met a couple women in my 20 year military career who could have cut it in the infantry. A couple. The bell curve is real. There ARE women who can do the job. The question is are there enough of them to make it worth it, manpower and money-wise. I am doubtful. I am sure there are men out there taller than 6'2 who would perform well as tank crewman, but are there enough of them to make it worthwhile to make our tanks bigger?

I'll let the data guide me.

Henrin · Apr 17, 2016

BrewerBob said:
It should be an interesting experiment. I met a couple women in my 20 year military career who could have cut it in the infantry. A couple. The bell curve is real. There ARE women who can do the job. The question is are there enough of them to make it worth it, manpower and money-wise. I am doubtful. I am sure there are men out there taller than 6'2 who would perform well as tank crewman, but are there enough of them to make it worthwhile to make our tanks bigger?

I'll let the data guide me.

Isn't "cutting it" kind of a low bar to have to get over? That only means they can get in and sit at the bottom.

Henrin · Apr 17, 2016

KevinKohler said:
As for infantry officers needing to be as strong, as tough...perhaps even a little MORE so than those they lead...If there are women in that infantry, why can't that still be true? Furthermore, a GOOD leader is not so because they are better at their tasks than those they lead...they are a GOOD leader for an entirely DIFFERENT set of reasons. I have worked with many GREAT female leaders. A leader's primary job is to inspire. All that other ****...is just ****. Bottom line. If the soldiers under you don't respect you because you can't run a mile as fast as they can, or lift as much, then the problem isn't you, it's them. Because that's not a leader's job. If those soldiers have a problem with that simple understanding...remove them. It's what I would do.

If I can do the job better than the leader then exactly why would I respect them? It's pretty obvious they don't deserve the spot if most of everyone under them outperforms their sorry ass.

Mithrae · Apr 17, 2016

Gathomas88 said:
For that matter, how many "affirmative action" cases, who were never actually qualified, but were pushed through the system anyway for political reasons, are we willing to tolerate in the meantime? How much of the damage they'll inevitably cause?

It could only ever be a political issue to ensure that there's some women doing a job if other people have first been saying that they can't do it.

Having a predefined quota of women in an occupation or role is asinine at best, counterproductive and harmful at worst. That is just as true for a quota of zero women as for a higher number. If someone is willing and able to do the job, their sex should not be an issue. Likewise if someone is not able to do the job, their sex shouldn't come into the equation. It may be that there'll never be women in the SAS or Navy SEALs, but that's no reason to deny any potentially promising soldier the opportunity to try.

For an infantry officer, a high level of physical strength and endurance is certainly necessary but isn't the only or even most important requirement. Yet somehow at least four people have decided straight off the bat that no women could possibly be tough enough and capable enough to do the job; you apparently think there should be a predefined quota for women in those roles, of zero.

Henrin · Apr 17, 2016

Mithrae said:
For an infantry officer, a high level of physical strength and endurance is certainly necessary but isn't the only or even most important requirement. Yet somehow at least four people have decided straight off the bat that no women could possibly be tough enough and capable enough to do the job; you apparently think there should be a predefined quota for women in those roles, of zero.

Why not? Can any of them reach the top of charts in all areas? What will the average be that gets in terms of capability? How many will fail to even get in v. how many will get in? Do we need women in these roles for some reason? How is it worth the cost?

What I find interesting is that people like you are arguing from the exception to establish the rule that should be followed. I want to know where else we argue from the exception like this and people defend it.

legalimmigrant · Apr 17, 2016

Same with firemen - I am so sorry - firepeople. When I am standing on a third-floor balcony and my a** is about to burst out in flames, I want to see a six-foot-six, 250-pound guy who can throw me over his shoulder like a roll of carpet and take me down that ladder to safety, not an affirmative action chick who was made a firewoman only because she has a vagina.

woodsman · Apr 17, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
OMG....you are totally out of it! Liberal civilians dictate what the military does, and how it does it!

I guess you have missed how this administration has been changing the command structure of all branches of the military. And yes, these officers and commanders are more in line with his political leanings and vision. Obama is very open that this is a purposeful action, after all we need a kinder more gentler, PC military.

Mithrae · Apr 17, 2016

Henrin said:
Why not? Can any of them reach the top of charts in all areas? What will the average be that gets in terms of capability? How many will fail to even get in v. how many will get in? Do we need women in these roles for some reason? How is it worth the cost?

Whether or not it's worth the cost to the public is for the public to decide, through the government. It's hardly likely to be a huge expense building an extra set of toilets here and there.

Henrin said:
What I find interesting is that people like you are arguing from the exception to establish the rule that should be followed. I want to know where else we argue from the exception like this and people defend it.

You're the one arguing the exception here, unless you believe that sexual discrimination should be the norm. The notion that if (and only if) someone can do the job they should be free to do so, not arbitrarily discriminated against on the basis of what's between their legs is hardly a radical one.

Cardinal · Apr 17, 2016

JoeTrumps said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-22-female-officers-into-ground-combat-roles/

is there a shortage of men willing to take these positions? I doubt it, so now we're allowing social justice warriors to put our actual warriors lives at stake for no other reason than to advance their misinterpretation of equality. Terrible. Cowardly. Dishonorable.

If they qualify they qualify. I don't see why this is an issue.

legalimmigrant said:
Same with firemen - I am so sorry - firepeople. When I am standing on a third-floor balcony and my a** is about to burst out in flames, I want to see a six-foot-six, 250-pound guy who can throw me over his shoulder like a roll of carpet and take me down that ladder to safety, not an affirmative action chick who was made a firewoman only because she has a vagina.

Have you had this fantasy often?

Henrin · Apr 17, 2016

Mithrae said:
Whether or not it's worth the cost to the public is for the public to decide, through the government. It's hardly likely to be a huge expense building an extra set of toilets here and there.

Trying out all these women that will fail does actually have a cost, you know.

You're the one arguing the exception here, unless you believe that sexual discrimination should be the norm. The notion that if (and only if) someone can do the job they should be free to do so, not arbitrarily discriminated against on the basis of what's between their legs is hardly a radical one.

Actually you're the one arguing from the exception. You think that because a small group of women can get in that we should open up the job to women. Tell me exactly how that isn't arguing from the position of the exception? Maybe we should open the job up to dwarfs, because who knows, there might be that one dwarf that can do the job at the very minimum requirements that we made sure to LOWER just for them.

woodsman · Apr 17, 2016

BrewerBob said:
As they say, elections have consequences.

Yes, they do, and the current stat of our military shows that. I wonder If they will implement safe zones from the drill instructors. Will they have kits packaged like the MRE’s for females EMK’s, Emergency Menstruation Kit?

Henrin · Apr 17, 2016

woodsman said:
I guess you have missed how this administration has been changing the command structure of all branches of the military. And yes, these officers and commanders are more in line with his political leanings and vision. Obama is very open that this is a purposeful action, after all we need a kinder more gentler, PC military.

He's not actually entirely wrong. Women being in combat roles was pushed by liberal women and men outside of the military and government far more than it was by anyone in the military or even in government.

Gathomas88 · Apr 17, 2016

Mithrae said:
It could only ever be a political issue to ensure that there's some women doing a job if other people have first been saying that they can't do it.

Having a predefined quota of women in an occupation or role is asinine at best, counterproductive and harmful at worst. That is just as true for a quota of zero women as for a higher number. If someone is willing and able to do the job, their sex should not be an issue. Likewise if someone is not able to do the job, their sex shouldn't come into the equation. It may be that there'll never be women in the SAS or Navy SEALs, but that's no reason to deny any potentially promising soldier the opportunity to try.

A) It's problematic because virtually no women will pass given the current standards (in fact, no women did pass until higher ranking brass became involved, and started giving them special treatment). Even those who do will be at best average performers, and more likely sub-par. How much time, money, and opportunity are we going to waste for such a lackluster outcome?

B) Because women are so unlikely to pass, the most likely outcome here is that self-interested politicians will simply enact quotas, and force the military to lower performance standards all the way around. That will degrade the quality and effectiveness of the force as a whole.

That is something which, as a nation, we do not want in an organization responsible for protecting our sovereignty and security. For that exact reason, the simplest, and most effective, solution here is simply not screw around with what works perfectly fine to begin with.

I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is no need for women in combat. It is a political want for certain ideologically inspired interest groups, nothing more.

For an infantry officer, a high level of physical strength and endurance is certainly necessary but isn't the only or even most important requirement.

You flatly have no idea what you're talking about.

For an officer in the field, those qualities are just as important as they are for any grunt, if not actually more so. Keep in mind, officers basically have to prove themselves to the grunts they lead if they want to be able to effectively command.

Granted, some of that can be eased by the presence of a hard-assed NCO or two keeping the lower ranking soldiers in line. However, that is ultimately only a stop-gap.

NCOs and Officers both have roles to fill. If half of that equation isn't up to snuff, it's going to cause problems.

Absentglare · Apr 17, 2016

Gathomas88 said:
A) It's problematic because virtually no women will pass given the current standards (in fact, no women did pass until higher ranking brass became involved, and started giving them special treatment). Even those who do will be at best average performers, and more likely sub-par. How much time, money, and opportunity are we going to waste for such a lackluster outcome?

B) Because women are so unlikely to pass, the most likely outcome here is that self-interested politicians will simply enact quotas, and force the military to lower performance standards all the way around. That will degrade the quality and effectiveness of the force as a whole.

That is something which, as a nation, we do not want in an organization responsible for protecting our sovereignty and security. For that exact reason, the simplest, and most effective, solution here is simply not screw around with what works perfectly fine to begin with.

I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is no need for women in combat. It is a political want for certain ideologically inspired interest groups, nothing more.

You flatly have no idea what you're talking about.

For an officer in the field, those qualities are just as important as they are for any grunt, if not actually more so. Keep in mind, officers basically have to prove themselves to the grunts they lead if they want to be able to effectively command.

Granted, some of that can be eased by the presence of a hard-assed NCO or two keeping the lower ranking soldiers in line. However, that is ultimately only a stop-gap.

NCOs and Officers both have roles to fill. If half of that equation isn't up to snuff, it's going to cause problems.

A) Ah, the old argument that women aren't worth the time and expense to train. Sociobiologists claimed that women's "lady parts" made them unsuitable for college and suggested that they shouldn't be admitted. Luckily, that kind of sexist prejudice no longer takes root. I guess we still have other kinds...

B) Can't even pretend to care. You have no basis to disqualify a candidate based solely on their gender. Period. End of story. Move along now.

Gathomas88 · Apr 17, 2016

Absentglare said:
A) Ah, the old argument that women aren't worth the time and expense to train. Sociobiologists claimed that women's "lady parts" made them unsuitable for college and suggested that they shouldn't be admitted. Luckily, that kind of sexist prejudice no longer takes root. I guess we still have other kinds...

:roll:

It's an all but iron-plated scientific fact, at this point, that women are not only generally weaker than men, but have bodies which simply do not withstand physical abuse as well either. Simply speaking, they break down after a certain point, most drastically in the musculo-skeletal system. That greatly limits both their effectiveness, and their available lifespan as frontline combatants.

Given that fact, why on Earth would any sane person want to throw them into life or combat situations, upon the outcome of which rests the future of our nation?

Where's the logic?

B) Can't even pretend to care. You have no basis to disqualify a candidate based solely on their gender. Period. End of story. Move along now.

Your apathy will result in our having a less effective military, which needlessly gets people killed, and has only a very questionable ability to actually compete with our international rivals.

Congratulations. :roll:

I really can't help but find it somewhat baffling how many civilians seem to place less value in having an effective military (i.e. the thing that ultimately keeps them safe) than they do having an effective local sports team. Skewed priorities, much?

Henrin · Apr 17, 2016

Gathomas88 said:
:roll:

It's an all but iron-plated scientific fact, at this point, that women are not only generally weaker than men, but have bodies which simply do not withstand physical abuse as well either. Simply speaking, they break down after a certain point, most drastically in the musculo-skeletal system. That greatly limits both their effectiveness, and their available lifespan as frontline combatants.

Given that fact, why on Earth would any sane person want to throw them into life or combat situations, upon the outcome of which rests the future of our nation?

Where's the logic?

Your apathy will result in our having a less effective military, which needlessly gets people killed, and has only a very questionable ability to actually compete with our international rivals.

Congratulations. :roll:

I really can't help but find it somewhat baffling how many civilians seem to place less value in having an effective military (i.e. the thing that ultimately keeps them safe) than they do having an effective local sports team. Skewed priorities, much?

What I can't understand is how people that call themselves the party of science is ignoring the science when it comes to this issue. It seems as if the notion of equality has blocked their ability to think.

Tigerace117 · Apr 17, 2016

JoeTrumps said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-22-female-officers-into-ground-combat-roles/

is there a shortage of men willing to take these positions? I doubt it, so now we're allowing social justice warriors to put our actual warriors lives at stake for no other reason than to advance their misinterpretation of equality. Terrible. Cowardly. Dishonorable.

If girls want to fight let them. I don't see a problem.

Henrin · Apr 17, 2016

Cardinal said:
Have you had this fantasy often?

Being thrown over a shoulder and carried out of a fire is better than being dragged out of a fire.

woodsman · Apr 17, 2016

Cardinal said:
If they qualify they qualify. I don't see why this is an issue.

Have you had this fantasy often?

So you agree that women shouldn’t be in front line combat/infantry rolls. With very few exceptions they do not qualify with the same physical standards. They do ok with the reduced physical requirements in some branches, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. Both the Army and Marines have lowered the physical standards overall over the years to accommodate women but the special operations/forces are still almost exclusively male, Navel Seals, Marine Recon and Army Green Berets.

You suggest that It’s a non issue, the part you may not get is our male/female military force is different, (equal but different.) The forced mix is in fact just a social experiment by a liberal administration. I can’t back this next statement up with a link but I did read a poll taken with war zone female support soldiers asking if they felt qualified for foot patrol, meaning house to house, possible hand to hand in the Middle East theater. The percentage surprised me, that’s why I recalled it. 98% said (no) with the qualifications.

notquiteright · Apr 17, 2016

Gathomas88 said:
Now we just have to wait until they start coming home in body bags. :roll:

Female infantry officers are actually a bit more problematic than regular soldiers, to be honest. If a grunt gets broke, or can't hack it, the mission can continue, albeit at reduced strength. If you lose leadership, that's when **** truly starts to hit the fan.

Infantry officers are also supposed to be some pretty damn tough MF'ers, setting the example for the troops, and even scaring the piss out of them to help keep everyone in line, if need be. That's going to be difficult for a woman to pull off. Female commanders, in my experience, tend to more often fall somewhere between "motherly" (which is fine, and all, but not really useful in combat), and "obnoxious overbearing bitch everyone hates." The latter is more likely to result in fraggings, than obedience, when you're dealing with a troop of trained killers.

Oh like there were no male PTLs fragged... :doh

There is no rule saying a penis on a PTL means the leadership won't break down.

I had enough 2LTs to know the penis doesn't make them better leaders. I have to laugh when someone calls a ball busting woman a bitch but a ball buster with a penis is a 'hard charger'...

In my experience it is the tough as nails, extremely experienced PSG that keeps everyone in line, along with a supporting cast of hard charging squad leaders- LT's are there to learn...

Some do and some don't....

eace

woodsman · Apr 17, 2016

Henrin said:
He's not actually entirely wrong. Women being in combat roles was pushed by liberal women and men outside of the military and government far more than it was by anyone in the military or even in government.

Yes, to a point It Is correct. If you want to nitpick and blur lines. I tend not to be excepting with social experiments and a PC military force. The goal should be to achieve the most lethal group possible.

Army to commission first 22 female officers into ground combat units

Respected On All Sides