Set participation requirements without regard to gender and those who can withstand the demonstration of skills go forward. Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?
An unintended consequence, of appeasing proponents of having women in infantry is, it will become a norm. When civil war comes to this country, herding women and their children into FEMA Camps, as enemy combatants, will give the praetorian guard a quasi-legal excuse for doing it. Unlike the FBI's brutal, systematic, murder of women and children at Waco, they want it to seem to be a humanitarian way of conducting warfare. How you, as individuals, respond to their war on your women and children, is a matter of conscience.
Anon. 12:45pm, I agree with you: set req's w/out regard to gender. If 1% of women and 80% of men make that, so be it. I follow women's college basketball. I guarantee that these women can outperform most men. But the req's should be real.
On another note: regarding 88 lbs. being a typical load for those in the military. Really! Routinely? From a perspective of business, one would never, in a mechanized environment put people at that risk. Simply stated, how easy is it for someone carrying 88 lbs. to defend themselves or their team. We spend outlandish sums on mechanized transport, how can this be true for more then very short durations. Am not saying this is not true, but it sounds that there are caveats to this. Sounds like a bias, a soundbite for those not wanting women in combat roles... Maybe it is this bias, that the military is trying to rid itself of, and not trying to allow any women (or any man, for that matter) into combat.
"88lb" is the typical load of body armor weapon and ammo (180rd). "Everything else" can add as much as another 100ld to an infantry load. The politicians unholy terror of the "flag draped coffin" and "military draft" is the reason for ALL of this. Add to that the fact that the "typical" American male now tips the scales at 300+lb and can't run 100ft without having a heart attack, and the desperation play by the pentagon soon becomes clear.
This argument, been there done that. In Vietnam, I as needed carried a flamethrower(PFT), loaded wt. 60 lbs. plus gear 40 lbs. MOS 54E4H. As I was promoted, I carried it less. The WACs wanted the MOS without the weapon qualification, but they wanted the position of CBRNCO and felt they could be promoted over me, based on written test. Meaning I was locked in to that lower rank. At Ft McClellan, WACs hated me for saying this, I got out.
There are some women firefighters who have passed the same physical qualifications and training as men. More power to those women! I feel the same for women who want to qualify for combat. If they can meet the same requirements as men, then OK! I've encountered some women I wouldn't want to challenge.
Anon 11:05, Obviously you have never been infantry, much less any branch of the military. That much load may be a bit much, but it's not far off the mark. As a non-infantry commo support I was required to ruck up to 50 lbs. The only bias involved is #1 yours for suggesting that there is a bias for not allowing women into the infantry and #2 the immutable laws of genetics that make the average man that much stronger than the average woman. Next time, get at least semi-educated before offering your opinion.
The most important factor is the most overlooked. Male psychology is the limiting factor. Men do a good enough job in combat that they do NOT need the assistance of women. In general, the psycho-emotional nature of a man is most vulnerable to lose objectivity when it comes to protecting women, and also being distracted by them sexually. Therefore the presence of women no matter how equal they are in combat, is likely to disrupt the discipline of the men in all phases of combat. If the women don't like that fact, and want to fight so bad, then they need to create an all female army and have at it.
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. Hey, B. Woodman. Kiss my ass. I've run many 100 yard dashes carrying a 240 pound man on my back. In my day I'm sure I could have done anything physically that you have ever done. Again, Woodman, KISS MY ASS! I think I've met a few women who could whip your ass, or mine for that matter. So, more power and praise to firefighters, whether they are men or women.
Old Greybeard, Who was speaking of firefighters, besides yourself? The conversation was on "women in the infantry". Don't mis-direct the conversation. You have made yourself irrelevant to this conversation from your first words. Besides, my comments weren't directed to you in the first place. Unless you're "Anon 11:05". In which case, they still apply, unedited. Sure, you may have been able to carry 240 lbs for 100 yards. So what of it? What does you, a "man" carrying a load a short distance, have to do with women doing front line combat duty in the armed forces?? Were you able to carry 88+ lbs for hours and days at a time, in 100+ degree temps, under a blazing sun? Through hostile city streets or steep rocky mountains? All while keeping alert lookout for snipers, IEDs and ambushes? Ready to protect your brother infantry at a moment's notice, at the first crack of a rifle shot?
WHen you can discuss and converse intelligently and civilly, on this one particular topic, then come back and try to behave yourself. Otherwise, crawl back under your troll rock, and leave the conversation to the adults.
12 comments:
Set participation requirements without regard to gender and those who can withstand the demonstration of skills go forward. Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?
An unintended consequence, of appeasing proponents of having women in infantry is, it will become a norm. When civil war comes to this country, herding women and their children into FEMA Camps, as enemy combatants, will give the praetorian guard a quasi-legal excuse for doing it. Unlike the FBI's brutal, systematic, murder of women and children at Waco, they want it to seem to be a humanitarian way of conducting warfare. How you, as individuals, respond to their war on your women and children, is a matter of conscience.
i don't care about soldiers issues .. they will be pointing guns at me soon I imagine
They must have changed MP duty, or the females have become tougher, because the ones I served with were profiled or pregnant.
God save us all
Anon. 12:45pm,
I agree with you: set req's w/out regard to gender. If 1% of women and 80% of men make that, so be it. I follow women's college basketball. I guarantee that these women can outperform most men.
But the req's should be real.
On another note: regarding 88 lbs. being a typical load for those in the military. Really! Routinely? From a perspective of business, one would never, in a mechanized environment put people at that risk. Simply stated, how easy is it for someone carrying 88 lbs. to defend themselves or their team. We spend outlandish sums on mechanized transport, how can this be true for more then very short durations.
Am not saying this is not true, but it sounds that there are caveats to this. Sounds like a bias, a soundbite for those not wanting women in combat roles...
Maybe it is this bias, that the military is trying to rid itself of, and not trying to allow any women (or any man, for that matter) into combat.
"88lb" is the typical load of body armor weapon and ammo (180rd). "Everything else" can add as much as another 100ld to an infantry load. The politicians unholy terror of the "flag draped coffin" and "military draft" is the reason for ALL of this. Add to that the fact that the "typical" American male now tips the scales at 300+lb and can't run 100ft without having a heart attack, and the desperation play by the pentagon soon becomes clear.
This argument, been there done that. In Vietnam, I as needed carried a flamethrower(PFT), loaded wt. 60 lbs. plus gear 40 lbs. MOS 54E4H. As I was promoted, I carried it less. The WACs wanted the MOS without the weapon qualification, but they wanted the position of CBRNCO and felt they could be promoted over me, based on written test. Meaning I was locked in to that lower rank. At Ft McClellan, WACs hated me for saying this, I got out.
There are some women firefighters who have passed the same physical qualifications and training as men. More power to those women! I feel the same for women who want to qualify for combat. If they can meet the same requirements as men, then OK! I've encountered some women I wouldn't want to challenge.
- Old Greybeard
Anon 11:05,
Obviously you have never been infantry, much less any branch of the military. That much load may be a bit much, but it's not far off the mark. As a non-infantry commo support I was required to ruck up to 50 lbs. The only bias involved is #1 yours for suggesting that there is a bias for not allowing women into the infantry and #2 the immutable laws of genetics that make the average man that much stronger than the
average woman.
Next time, get at least semi-educated before
offering your opinion.
B Woodman
III-PER
The most important factor is the most overlooked. Male psychology is the limiting factor. Men do a good enough job in combat that they do NOT need the assistance of women. In general, the psycho-emotional nature of a man is most vulnerable to lose objectivity when it comes to protecting women, and also being distracted by them sexually. Therefore the presence of women no matter how equal they are in combat, is likely to disrupt the discipline of the men in all phases of combat. If the women don't like that fact, and want to fight so bad, then they need to create an all female army and have at it.
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. Hey, B. Woodman. Kiss my ass. I've run many 100 yard dashes carrying a 240 pound man on my back. In my day I'm sure I could have done anything physically that you have ever done. Again, Woodman, KISS MY ASS! I think I've met a few women who could whip your ass, or mine for that matter. So, more power and praise to firefighters, whether they are men or women.
- Old Greybeard
Old Greybeard,
Who was speaking of firefighters, besides yourself? The conversation was on "women in the infantry". Don't mis-direct the conversation. You have made yourself irrelevant to this conversation from your first words. Besides, my comments weren't directed to you in the first place. Unless you're "Anon 11:05". In which case, they still apply, unedited.
Sure, you may have been able to carry 240 lbs for 100 yards. So what of it? What does you, a "man" carrying a load a short distance, have to do with women doing front line combat duty in the armed forces??
Were you able to carry 88+ lbs for hours and days at a time, in 100+ degree temps, under a blazing sun? Through hostile city streets or steep rocky mountains? All while keeping alert lookout for snipers, IEDs and ambushes? Ready to protect your brother infantry at a moment's notice, at the first crack of a rifle shot?
WHen you can discuss and converse intelligently and civilly, on this one particular topic, then come back and try to behave yourself. Otherwise, crawl back under your troll rock, and leave the conversation to the adults.
B Woodman
SSG (Ret) US Army
III-per
Post a Comment