Army to commission first 22 female officers into ground combat units

[Gathomas88]

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

Which is kind of exactly my point. Officers generally aren't held to be worth a damn until they actually manage to prove themselves to their soldiers. The ones who stick around, and climb up the ranks, usually do. They're just as tough as the men they lead, if not more so.

Hell! I've met some combat arms USMC Captains and Majors who easily could have passed for 50 at 35. They had attitudes and physicalites to match. Even most Army combat arms officers I've met haven't tended to be the "mealy mouse" type either.

Quite frankly, that's hard enough for even a man to pull off. A woman, who's smaller, weaker, and generally less intimidating than basically everyone else in their unit by nature, and is going to struggle not to come in at the back of the pack on every single ruck march, run, and exercise the unit participates in, is going to have things all that much worse.

2nd LTs don't get much respect anyway. Female 2 LTs are going to be nothing less than an absolute joke, as far as the high testosterone types who populate the combat arms profession are concerned.

Sure, hard-assed NCOs can pick up some of the slack there. However, a generally subpar Officer is ultimately going to cause problems either way regardless. NCOs can't run the unit entirely by themselves.

 

[Absentglare]

: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?

Oh- do you think our military is so small that no woman should qualify ? I don't think you understand how statistics work.

And your hysterical accusation that my policy makes me a murderer would make Godwin blush.

 

[Gathomas88]

Oh- do you think our military is so small that no woman should qualify ? I don't think you understand how statistics work.

I certainly think the number of women who can legitimately qualify by the present standard is so obscenely small that the only way programs aimed at "equality" will ever be able to succeed is for performance standards to be lowered in such a manner as to specifically pander to female physical limitations. That's exactly what Leftist politicians are going to push for.

Stick your head in the sand if you want, but all that's ultimately going to result in is a generalized "softening" of the military as a whole. Again, that is unacceptable.

You're needlessly breaking something that works just fine.

And your hysterical accusation that my policy makes me a murderer would make Godwin blush.

It's accurate. :shrug:

If you go deliberately out of your way to push for the inclusion of in adequate Soldiers in combat, whose presence actually reduces the effectiveness and lethality of our forces, rather than enhancing it, you are ultimately going to get people killed. That's really all there is to it.

I'm sorry, but the first to go will most likely be the very women you're trying to force into places where they don't fit, followed closely thereafter by the men unfortunate enough to have to try and pick up the slack their presence creates.

 

[Absentglare]

I certainly think the number of women who can legitimately qualify by the present standard is so obscenely small that the only way programs aimed at "equality" will ever be able to succeed is for performance standards to be lowered in such a manner as to specifically pander to female physical limitations. That's exactly what Leftist politicians are going to push for.

Stick your head in the sand if you want, but all that's ultimately going to result in is a generalized "softening" of the military as a whole. Again, that is unacceptable.

You're needlessly breaking something that works just fine.



It's accurate. :shrug:

If you go deliberately out of your way to push for the inclusion of in adequate Soldiers in combat, whose presence actually reduces the effectiveness and lethality of our forces, rather than enhancing it, you are ultimately going to get people killed. That's really all there is to it.

I'm sorry, but the first to go will most likely be the very women you're trying to force into places where they don't fit, followed closely thereafter by the men unfortunate enough to have to try and pick up the slack their presence creates.

Ah, so you define success so as to necessitate your strawman (lowering standards) for the sake of promoting your blanketed ban on all women in combat roles- and you don't see a problem with that ?

It isn't accurate, it's a despicable appeal to emotion fallacy. If you want fewer troops to die, hey, how about you stop going to war ...?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

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.

If cutting it under the current standards isn't sufficient then the standards need to be raised because a significant number of males who passed just barely did do as well.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Our military is rotting fast.

Thanks Professor!

 

[Gathomas88]

Ah, so you define success so as to necessitate your strawman (lowering standards) for the sake of promoting your blanketed ban on all women in combat roles- and you don't see a problem with that ?

It's already happening, genius. :roll:

Marine Corps Weighs Lower Standards for Women After None Pass Officer Course

It isn't accurate, it's a despicable appeal to emotion fallacy.

Why? Because you say so?

What do you think would happen if we were to suddenly start recruiting persons older than 50 or younger than 16 en masse? This is really no different.

If you want fewer troops to die, hey, how about you stop going to war ...?

Lol. :roll:

Here we come to the heart of the matter. The Left doesn't care about women lowering combat effectiveness, because as far as they're concerned, we really shouldn't even have a military to begin with, let alone ever use it.

Hate to break it to you, but someday there will be a war. That war might even be a big war, against a foe with a well developed military that actually knows what the Hell it's doing (like the Chinese, Russians, or Iranians).

If you go deliberately out of your way to compromise our own military, how do you think such a conflict is going to turn out?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Which is kind of exactly my point. Officers generally aren't held to be worth a damn until they actually manage to prove themselves to their soldiers. The ones who stick around, and climb up the ranks, usually do. They're just as tough as the men they lead, if not more so.

Hell! I've met some combat arms USMC Captains and Majors who easily could have passed for 50 at 35. They had attitudes and physicalites to match. Even most Army combat arms officers I've met haven't tended to be the "mealy mouse" type either.

Quite frankly, that's hard enough for even a man to pull off. A woman, who's smaller, weaker, and generally less intimidating than basically everyone else in their unit by nature, and is going to struggle not to come in at the back of the pack on every single ruck march, run, and exercise the unit participates in, is going to have things all that much worse.

2nd LTs don't get much respect anyway. Female 2 LTs are going to be nothing less than an absolute joke, as far as the high testosterone types who populate the combat arms profession are concerned.

Sure, hard-assed NCOs can pick up some of the slack there. However, a generally subpar Officer is ultimately going to cause problems either way regardless. NCOs can't run the unit entirely by themselves.

My wife could do it, but God Damn it took a lot of years for her to gain the respect of the soldiers, and it helped that she was such a good interrogator that the CIA came to get her to break people when they had failed, that she had proven abilities. These women are not going to get any more respect than affirmative action hires ever have until they prove themselves. The Pentagon understands that, they are looking at all of the females and then they go try to talk the best of them into taking these new positions. The Navy did it as well when they were looking for Sub Officers, and they are putting female officers in before they put female enlisted in, under the theory that female officers will protect female enlisted (and in the process drive down the female officers credibility with the men). One thing that really helped my wife in leadership was that she was consistently just as tough with women as she was with men, had she done anything that so much as looked like being den mother to women she would have been toast. I am not at all sure that good officers are going to play PC cop like the Pentagon expects them too.

 

[Gathomas88]

My wife could do it, but God Damn it took a lot of years for her to gain the respect of the soldiers, and it helped that she was such a good interrogator that the CIA came to get her to break people when they had failed, that she had proven abilities. These women are not going to get any more respect than affirmative action hires ever have until they prove themselves. The Pentagon understand that, they are looking at all of the females and then they go try to talk the best of them into taking these new positions. The Navy did it as well when they were looking for Sub Officers, and they are putting female officers in before they put female enlisted in, under the theory that female officers will protect female enlisted (and in the process drive down the female officers credibility with the men). One thing that really helped my wife in leadership was that she was consistently just as tough with women as she was with men, had she done anything that so much as looked like being den mother to women she would have been toast. I am not at all sure that good officers are going to play PC cop like the Pentagon expects the too.

No one's saying that women can't be good officers. I've met plenty who are exceptional.

The issue is how they'll fare in frontline combat units, which exist for the sole purpose of seeking out and destroying the enemy in close quarter operations on the ground.

Your wife was an interrogator. That's certainly respectable, but it's an entirely different dynamic than being an Infantry Officer, leading men in combat operations.

 

[Henrin]

If cutting it under the current standards isn't sufficient then the standards need to be raised because a significant number of males who passed just barely did do as well.

Men can fill out the chart from bottom to top and have done so for a very long time. Women on the other hand can't with the vast majority of them being at the bottom. You're equating something that isn't even close to equatable.

 

[sookster]

I think it's funny how liberals make up a minority of the military, but at the same time liberals are making the rules for the military.

Could it be possible that Liberals are not making these policies?

 

[Cardinal]

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.

In every issue concerning equality there is a side dedicated to warning us of the horrors that will beset us if we should move forward with said equality, and they have been on the wrong side of history every time. It is for this reason that I'm willing to assume they are wrong and to automatically give the side vying for equality the benefit of the doubt. If it should be proven that women can't be capable infantry, if it should be should be proven it is inefficient overly costly, then so be it. At that point I will be on board with your position.

 

[Hawkeye10]

No one's saying that women can't be good officers. I've met plenty who are exceptional.

The issue is how they'll fare in frontline combat units, which exist for the sole purpose of seeking out and destroying the enemy in close quarter operations on the ground.

Your wife was an interrogator. That's certainly respectable, but it's an entirely different dynamic than being an Infantry Officer, leading men in combat operations.

I am talking about her time as First Sergeant in MI companies which were part of combat brigades , which is not an entirely different dynamic than being an officer in combat units. I have also said in other threads that in Iraq commanders had permission to ignore the women in combat restrictions, and often did, my wife and her female soldiers routinely went out on raids (though she did that herself before she became First Sergeant).

Now that we have cleared that up what do you think of the Pentagons theory that putting female officers in first will help the female enlisted survive in the often hostile environment of their units?

 

[Gathomas88]

In every issue concerning equality there is a side dedicated to warning us of the horrors that will beset us if we should move forward with said equality, and they have been on the wrong side of history every time. It is for this reason that I'm willing to assume they are wrong and to automatically give the side vying for equality the benefit of the doubt. If it should be proven that women can't be capable infantry, if it should be should be proven it is inefficient overly costly, then so be it. At that point I will be on board with your position.

You're aware that women have consistently shown the inability to pass even military training courses (let alone the real deal) for frontline combat without being given special treatment, and that the USMC actually did a multi-year long study on this which pretty definitively showed that the presence of women in combat units diminishes combat capability, right?

At least you're honest about deciding the issue purely based on political bias though. :roll:

 

[Cardinal]

You're aware that women have consistently shown the ability to pass even military training courses (let alone the real deal) for frontline combat without being given special treatment, and that the USMC actually did a multi-year long study on this which pretty definitively showed that the presence of women in combat units diminishes combat capability, right?

At least you're honest about deciding the issue purely based on political bias though. :roll:

I assume you meant to say "...have consistently not shown..."?

And yes, after all the arguments against women voting, civil rights and gay marriage, I'm naturally skeptical about any position against equality.

 

[Henrin]

Could it be possible that Liberals are not making these policies?

What is Obama? Did he not make this happen all by himself?

 

[Henrin]

I assume you meant to say "...have consistently not shown..."?

And yes, after all the arguments against women voting, civil rights and gay marriage, I'm naturally skeptical about any position against equality.

:lol: The study done right before Obama acted backed up his post.

 

[Cardinal]

:lol: The study done right before Obama acted backed up his post.

As I said in my first post in this thread, if women qualify, then they qualify. If they don't, then...they don't.

Disqualifying women on the basis of their gender, however, is indefensible.

 

[Gathomas88]

I am talking about her time as First Sergeant in MI companies which were part of combat brigades , which is not an entirely different dynamic than being an officer in combat units. I have also said in other threads that in Iraq commanders had permission to ignore the women in combat restrictions, and often did, my wife and her female soldiers routinely went out on raids (though she did that herself before she became First Sergeant).

Now that we have cleared that up what do you think of the Pentagons theory that putting female officers in first will help the female enlisted survive in the often hostile environment of their units?

Again, "MI Company" is the operative word there. She wasn't training or operating anything like combat arms does, even if she was working with them.

Also... What exactly was she doing? I highly doubt she was the "first one in" kicking down doors.

Frankly, even if she was, infantry does a lot more than that. People tend to forget that Iraq isn't a real "war" at this point. It's an occupation.

Our people live on established bases with air conditioning, beds, three meals a day, and other amenities. Combat arms needs to be able to (and would, under normal circumstances) operate without such things.

 

[Henrin]

As I said in my first post in this thread, if women qualify, then they qualify. If they don't, then...they don't.

Disqualifying women on the basis of their gender, however, is indefensible.

Well, I'm always a fan of doing things in inefficient ways because it makes people feel better.

Oh wait...

 

[sookster]

What is Obama? Did he not make this happen all by himself?

I think it is possible that he didn't. We just don't know any more information, and we know nothing about who made the decision. Obama and his administration are human beings, certain decisions are made by other people. Considering what you said, that liberals are the minority and yet they are making these policy changes, poses the possibility that conservatives are making these changes. One reason why is this would expand the amount of people they could recruit, if women could do more stuff. I believe I read an article on these forums that women can now train as Seals, and yes they are put at the same standards as men. If they make hell week, they will be a seal.

 

[Gathomas88]

I assume you meant to say "...have consistently not shown..."?

And yes, after all the arguments against women voting, civil rights and gay marriage, I'm naturally skeptical about any position against equality.

And you realize this has absolutely nothing in common with any of that, right?

Again, I don't what else to tell you people, other than to stop looking at this as being a political "equality" issue, and start looking at it in other contexts instead.

Would you want your favorite professional sports team to start allowing women in? No? Why not?

Your though process regarding the military should be absolutely no different. The simple fact of the matter is that women aren't "competitive" with male recruits with regards to the jobs we're talking about here. They're going to struggle against our enemies for that exact reason.

 

[Cardinal]

Well, I'm always a fan of doing things in inefficient ways because it makes people feel better.

Oh wait...

Did you mean to make an argument there? Because if so then I didn't see it.

 

[Gathomas88]

Could it be possible that Liberals are not making these policies?

No. Full stop.

 

[Henrin]

I think it is possible that he didn't. We just don't know any more information, and we know nothing about who made the decision. Obama and his administration are human beings, certain decisions are made by other people. Considering what you said, that liberals are the minority and yet they are making these policy changes, poses the possibility that conservatives are making these changes. One reason why is this would expand the amount of people they could recruit, if women could do more stuff. I believe I read an article on these forums that women can now train as Seals, and yes they are put at the same standards as men. If they make hell week, they will be a seal.

There is no shortages of recruits in these positions. Where there is shortages is in positions in jobs that require a higher knowledge base. Jobs that I might add women could have already sign up for before Obama acted.