Army to commission first 22 female officers into ground combat units

[notquiteright]

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.

I guess you served in a different Army than I. Good, bad, indifferent Officers 'stuck around'. We respected the rank if not the person wearing it. 'just as tough' as in ball busting bitch???

Ya actually MET combat arms Captains and Majors- wow- tell us more!!!! I SERVED with nothing but the above- some looked old, some didn't. I wouldn't make too much out of meeting- try serving with 'em for a few years... the meanest, toughest, hard ass captain I ever had the misery to serve under was as baby faced as you...

I don't get how you think a female combat arms Captain would be a 'mealy mouse'- just seems like a bit too much sexism and a bit too little thought.

You keep talking about combat arms folks like you know them- what did you do in the Green Machine to have only met some but so opinionated on how they are?

While you CAN use the term high testosterone- I'd say driven, competitive, goal oriented, determined...

Now a bit of my EXPERIENCE over 'meeting'... Back in the bad ol' Warsaw Pact days the first platoon of Alpha Company didn't have an Officer- it was run by the PSG and ran amazingly well. Our Bn CO was a 'mealy mouse' light Bird who rotated out to the Pentagon. Everyone agreed he was far better suited to serve in the puzzle palace than in a combat arms unit tasked with meeting the Roosian horde in the Fulda gap.

So there is meeting and there is serving with.... eace

 

[Socrates1]

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.

Well the dem's want a commie coward to become commander in Chief and he was too dam cowardly to fight for our Country ! Somebody has to pull up their pants and defend our Country ! :shock:

 

[legalimmigrant]

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.

BS. It is very defensible. They menstruate, can get pregnant, and are more emotional - all great attributes to make babies, not war. Please drop that liberal bs. It's annoying.

 

[Cardinal]

BS. It is very defensible. They menstruate, can get pregnant, and are more emotional - all great attributes to make babies, not war. Please drop that liberal bs. It's annoying.

Thank you for demonstrating the underlying the reason for being against women's equality at pretty much every moment in history.

 

[Gathomas88]

Stop telling me that i stand for unequal physical standards. I do not.

If you support the Obama Administration's integration policies, then, on a de facto basis, that is exactly what you support. End of discussion.

Again, all available facts and evidence support the conclusion that this integration will only serve to degrade the effectiveness of our forces, not improve it.

 

[legalimmigrant]

Thank you for demonstrating the underlying the reason for being against women's equality at pretty much every moment in history.

You knee-jerk liberal attachment to "equality" at all cost is annoying by now. I am talking about women in combat. Some did get captured and raped. Men did too, thanks to that moron Hillary, but the possibility that a man can get pregnant is quite low, even if his name is Caitlyn. Is that clear enough or do you want me to rephrase it?

There are many things in life that deserve to be called as obscene. At the top of my list is the American government's idea to send out our daughters and wives to spill blood fighting Stone Age throat-slashing lunatics while the overweight and overpaid women-abusing NFL thugs play safely at home. Sick.

If you want to make me even sicker, tell me again about "equality" and, since our army is voluntary, tell me that there is no problem if women get tortured and raped by the enemy.

 

[Cardinal]

You knee-jerk liberal attachment to "equality" at all cost is annoying by now.

Awwwwww...so sorry.

 

[Gathomas88]

I guess you served in a different Army than I. Good, bad, indifferent Officers 'stuck around'. We respected the rank if not the person wearing it. 'just as tough' as in ball busting bitch???

Ya actually MET combat arms Captains and Majors- wow- tell us more!!!! I SERVED with nothing but the above- some looked old, some didn't. I wouldn't make too much out of meeting- try serving with 'em for a few years... the meanest, toughest, hard ass captain I ever had the misery to serve under was as baby faced as you...

I don't get how you think a female combat arms Captain would be a 'mealy mouse'- just seems like a bit too much sexism and a bit too little thought.

You keep talking about combat arms folks like you know them- what did you do in the Green Machine to have only met some but so opinionated on how they are?

While you CAN use the term high testosterone- I'd say driven, competitive, goal oriented, determined...

Now a bit of my EXPERIENCE over 'meeting'... Back in the bad ol' Warsaw Pact days the first platoon of Alpha Company didn't have an Officer- it was run by the PSG and ran amazingly well. Our Bn CO was a 'mealy mouse' light Bird who rotated out to the Pentagon. Everyone agreed he was far better suited to serve in the puzzle palace than in a combat arms unit tasked with meeting the Roosian horde in the Fulda gap.

So there is meeting and there is serving with.... eace

Well... Yes. I joined the Army in 2008. You seem to have served during the height of the Cold War during the post-Vietnam era. Those pretty much are completely different armies.

While I don't know how an "Old Army" infantry grunt may or may not define a "good" infantry officer, I can tell you that the vast majority of the (usually former) combat arms officers I've served with have been a definite "cut above" the "I could easily be mistaken for a retail manager if I wasn't wearing fatigues right now" officers you tend to find in most other areas of service.

They tend to be fit (very often 'jacked' or 'cut,' in point of fact), aggressive, and have a certain presence about them. They're usually the sorts to consistently turn in 10 to 12 minute two mile runs on every PT test, in spite of being well into their thirties (by way of contrast, the best I was ever able to do was a 13, even at age 20 right out of Basic). They are not by any means "soft" men. They're just as hard - and slightly crazy - as any other infantry soldier I've met.

Again, the simple fact of the matter is that I still have as of yet to meet a single female Soldier - Officer or otherwise - who comes even remotely close to that.

The reason for that is such women don't really exist. If they do, they're such an extreme minority as to be an almost complete non-factor. Hell! They're probably making big bucks fighting MMA, or competing in the Olympics, or something, not wasting time in the Army.

 

[notquiteright]

Well... Yes. I joined the Army in 2008. You seem to have served during the height of the Cold War during the post-Vietnam era. Those pretty much are completely different armies. While I don't know how an "Old Army" infantry grunt may or may not define a "good" infantry officer, I can tell you that the vast majority of the (usually former) combat arms officers I've served with have been a definite "cut above" the "I could easily be mistaken for a retail manager if I wasn't wearing fatigues right now" officers you tend to find in most other areas of service. They tend to be fit (very often 'jacked' or 'cut,' in point of fact), aggressive, and have a certain presence about them. They're usually the sorts to consistently turn in 10 to 12 minute two mile runs on every PT test, in spite of being well into their thirties (by way of contrast, the best I was ever able to do was a 13, even at age 20 right out of Basic). They are not by any means "soft" men. They're just as hard - and slightly crazy - as any other infantry soldier I've met. Again, the simple fact of the matter is that I still have as of yet to meet a single female Soldier - Officer or otherwise - who comes even remotely close to that. The reason for that is such women don't really exist. If they do, they're such an extreme minority as to be an almost complete non-factor. Hell! They're probably making big bucks fighting MMA, or competing in the Olympics, or something, not wasting time in the Army.

I missed your MOS... what was that again???

I live near Ft.Sill and see army officers all the time these days- artillery is combat arms. I easily confuse them for average joe's except for the high and tights. I don't see your 'cut' officers... you sure you are not thinking of the showers at the YMCA?

Sounds like you use your bias to observe a flawed subset of soldiers and attempt to paint a picture more fantasy than reality. I was light and mech- we were never 'cut' as time to work out at a gym was rare- field duty took up most our time- the REMFs tended to be gym rats and strutted around like they took Ramadi single handed. :doh

being fit- isn't the same as being a hard charger- well to those who do more than stare at them... A 'fit' Officer simply means he can out run us if things go south in a hurry...

You have ZERO idea why these excellent specimens of officerhood are not leading steely eyed grunts into harm's way- THE pinnacle of a hard charger's career... perhaps they couldn't hack the stress of command and unable to make good decisions under stress- but looked damn good in combat gear leading the formation on the PT run.... :roll:

 

[Cardinal]

In other words, you're not debating what's actually happening in the military right now, but some fantasy you created in your head. :roll:

Look, dude. The fact of the matter is this, the "Progressive" politicians behind this nonsense aren't going to allow women to be trained and tested on a truly equal standard with men, because none of them would actually pass. It'd leave egg all over their faces (both ideologically and politically), and it'd be an unjustifiable waste of money sending all of these women to school just for them to flunk out.

That's exactly what we saw happen here. Women were sent to these schools, supposedly to be tested on the same basis as men. They all failed.

In turn, the Administration cracked down, and Military Brass started making sure women passed, by giving them special treatment (special supervision, rest periods male candidates don't get, and etca). Now, they're talking about just lowering the standard entirely, so none of that "finessing" is even necessary. Quite frankly, anyone who knows how government and the military actually works saw it coming from a mile away, and openly said as much.

This is exactly why it's easier to just keep women out. We know damn well that, in the name of "equality," the bureaucrats and politicians behind this were always going to cheat in order to get what they want.

That "cheating" is going to end up weakening the military as a whole.

Time out.

You do know I'm arguing in favor of equal testing at the original standards, right? I'm just curious if you're digesting that.

 

[Gathomas88]

I missed your MOS... what was that again???

I live near Ft.Sill and see army officers all the time these days- artillery is combat arms. I easily confuse them for average joe's except for the high and tights. I don't see your 'cut' officers... you sure you are not thinking of the showers at the YMCA?

Sounds like you use your bias to observe a flawed subset of soldiers and attempt to paint a picture more fantasy than reality. I was light and mech- we were never 'cut' as time to work out at a gym was rare- field duty took up most our time- the REMFs tended to be gym rats and strutted around like they took Ramadi single handed. :doh

being fit- isn't the same as being a hard charger- well to those who do more than stare at them... A 'fit' Officer simply means he can out run us if things go south in a hurry...

You have ZERO idea why these excellent specimens of officerhood are not leading steely eyed grunts into harm's way- THE pinnacle of a hard charger's career... perhaps they couldn't hack the stress of command and unable to make good decisions under stress- but looked damn good in combat gear leading the formation on the PT run.... :roll:

Whatever, dude. I'm not here to trade random anecdotes with someone who hasn't even been in for twenty years.

Suffice to say, however, from everything I've seen, and everything I've heard, infantry officers are pretty far from being push-overs. Infantry units ruck and run all the damn time, so there really isn't any way they could be.

Maybe that was the case when you were in (it's not like the immediately post-Nam era armed forces have a particularly sterling reputation, after all), but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case today.

 

[Gathomas88]

Time out.

You do know I'm arguing in favor of equal testing at the original standards, right? I'm just curious if you're digesting that.

Do you support the Obama Administration's push towards integration?

 

[legalimmigrant]

This women-in-combat nonsense is merely a manifestation of a greater national malady. When sanity was OK and insanity was not, efficiency of means was near the top and highly respected. Somewhere between then and now, we got this incurable virus that made the nation stupid and replaced reason, common sense with an absolutely non-negotiable demand from the liberals to subject all we do to just one objective: not to offend anyone. All else irrelevant or at least totally insignificant.

Telling women to stay away from the army offends women. Telling gays that we have better use for the courts than record their unions offends gays. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools offend illegals. Calling ISIS thugs Islamic offends Muslims. Saying "all lives matter" offends blacks. "Retarded" in now mentally challenged. "Fat" is large. "Blind" is visually impaired. A cross on a village hall built in the 18th century, offends the ACLU Jews and everybody else.

The only group that is not allowed to feel offended are white Christian men.

 

[Absentglare]

If you support the Obama Administration's integration policies, then, on a de facto basis, that is exactly what you support. End of discussion.

Again, all available facts and evidence support the conclusion that this integration will only serve to degrade the effectiveness of our forces, not improve it.

An argument which might make sense if i defended the Obama Administration's policies.

As it stands, it's just another in a long line of your strawmen.

I don't care about your beliefs on integration.

 

[Cardinal]

Do you support the Obama Administration's push towards integration?

I don't know the details of existing efforts toward integration. I've explained in multiple times and in excruciating clarity my position, and if Obama or anybody else has proposed an idea that runs counter to that position, then it wouldn't be compatible with my idea of what equality entails.

But I'll say it again for ****s and giggles: Women should be allowed to test at the same standards as men in consideration of what the job demands. If they test and pass, great. If not, so be it. I'm not personally offended by the fact that men on average have superior muscle mass. What does bother me is the idea that that average should de facto bar women from even testing and joining if successful.

 

[Deuce]

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.

So, our illustrious OP is suggesting that merely being male makes one inherently more qualified to take these positions.

 

[Gathomas88]

So, our illustrious OP is suggesting that merely being male makes one inherently more qualified to take these positions.

Physically speaking, yes, it very much does. It's really no different than most sports in this regard.

 

[Deuce]

Physically speaking, yes, it very much does. It's really no different than most sports in this regard.

Do you think every female in the military is physically inferior to the least-capable male in the military?

 

[Gathomas88]

Do you think every female in the military is physically inferior to the least-capable male in the military?

:roll:

The "least-capable male in the military" won't be in the infantry, or any other ground combat unit.

 

[Deuce]

:roll:

The "least-capable male in the military" won't be in the infantry, or any other ground combat unit.

Hedge all you want. It has already proven my point.

 

[Gathomas88]

Hedge all you want. It has already proven my point.

No, the following study "proves" what anyone with common sense already knew all along

Navy Chief Rejects Marine Study Showing Units With Women Underperform

All-male ground combat units in the Marines were faster, more lethal and less injured than units with mixed genders, according to a Marine Corps study that looked at integrating women into all service jobs.

“All male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69 percent of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews,” according a summary of the report released Thursday.

. . . .* The study found all-male squads were faster in each tactical movement than those with both genders, according to the summary. The differences were greater when they were carrying heavy weapons and ammunition.

Also, all-male rifle groups had better accuracy than integrated squads, according to the summary. And women had more injuries such as stress fractures.

This is petty politicking, nothing more. All throwing under-qualified troops into combat will accomplish is to needlessly get people killed.

We shouldn't be trying to "fix" what was never broken to begin with. National Security isn't a game.

 

[Deuce]

No, the following study "proves" what anyone with common sense already knew all along

Navy Chief Rejects Marine Study Showing Units With Women Underperform

​

This is petty politicking, nothing more. All throwing under-qualified troops into combat will accomplish is to needlessly get people killed.

We shouldn't be trying to "fix" what was never broken to begin with. National Security isn't a game.

Funny thing about averages.

 

[Gathomas88]

Funny thing about averages.

Yes, by going out of our way to include a group which, "on average," under-performs, we're bringing the "average" performance of our combat forces as a whole down. That makes us less competitive against our enemies, and therefore puts our soldiers at greater risk.

Funny thing about warfare; it's a team, rather than individual, effort. "Averages" matter a great deal.

 

[Deuce]

In other words, by going out of our way to include a group which, "on average," under-performs, we're bringing the "average" performance of our combat forces as a whole down. That makes us less competitive against our enemies, and therefore puts our soldiers at greater risk.

Funny thing about warfare; it's a team, rather than individual, effort. "Averages" matter a great deal.

Do you think infantry officers are assigned based on the theoretical averages of some demographic study?

 

[Gathomas88]

Do you think infantry officers are assigned based on the theoretical averages of some demographic study?

I don't see any reason why not. Why do you think we categorically reject 70 year olds, and people who weigh under 90 lbs?

Even if an individual happens to be some sort of freak of nature who performs exceptionally well for a member of either of the above groups, the number of individuals who do so is going to small enough, and the performance of the rest of the group weak enough, that it simply wouldn't be worth the effort to try and sift through all the rejects to recruit the small minority of exceptions.

The military isn't about preserving anyone's "feelings," I'm afraid. It's about maintaining a well-trained force capable of killing people opposed to us it in the fastest and most efficient manner possible, and being so proficient at the above task that no one would dare to challenge us in the first place.