3
3
0
This study highlights the physical differences between men and women. Not here for opinions just thought it was an interesting read.http://cmrlink.org/content/women-in-combat/37700/co_ed_combat_tests_hazardous_to_women_s_health
Posted in these groups: 
Women in the Military
Women in the Military
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
It could have been a good article, I really wanted it to be a good article, it even had all the material to do it. I've even made the same point, that females in combat arms bigger medical bills and will perform poorly in promotions against males, especially as they age.
But, this guy actually went out of his way to present information purposely out of context, and irrelevant information to make a point.
Females have a higher injury in all MOS's not just combat arms. In fact, the study the article cites doesn't even show a major difference between the normal injury rate and the injury rate of gender integrated combat arms jobs. The quotes by General Dempsey are taken completely out of text. In fact they are quotes so much as paraphrasing. The part where he talks about adding extra personnel for training and extended maternal leave... The Army doesn't slot against maternal leave. It doesn't calculate that a support unit gets an additional 15% more personnel for those women who will remain constantly pregnant, just popping them out. Any "attitudinal" training the author suggests would be covered in normal SHARP/EO classes. Just as when DADT was repealed, we all sat through a class that said what we were and we're not allowed to do. No additional instructors were needed.
It had so much potential to be a good article, it just ended up failing critical thinking test and disappointing.
But, this guy actually went out of his way to present information purposely out of context, and irrelevant information to make a point.
Females have a higher injury in all MOS's not just combat arms. In fact, the study the article cites doesn't even show a major difference between the normal injury rate and the injury rate of gender integrated combat arms jobs. The quotes by General Dempsey are taken completely out of text. In fact they are quotes so much as paraphrasing. The part where he talks about adding extra personnel for training and extended maternal leave... The Army doesn't slot against maternal leave. It doesn't calculate that a support unit gets an additional 15% more personnel for those women who will remain constantly pregnant, just popping them out. Any "attitudinal" training the author suggests would be covered in normal SHARP/EO classes. Just as when DADT was repealed, we all sat through a class that said what we were and we're not allowed to do. No additional instructors were needed.
It had so much potential to be a good article, it just ended up failing critical thinking test and disappointing.
(3)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
The quote about standards being unmeetabe will be reviewed is completely true though. They are talking about doing just that for the Marine Infantry Officers course because no women could make it past the first week.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
The actual quote-
Dempsey replied: “No, I wouldn't put it in terms of operations, Jim. What I would say is that, as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict, not just COIN, counterinsurgency, we really need to have standards that apply across all of those.”
He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”
“If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job--and let me be clear, we’re not talking about reducing the qualifications for a job--if they can meet the qualifications for the job then they should have the right to serve,”
The biggest reason difference between why women passed Ranger School and not Marine Infantry, is that we permitted all the recycles a student is entitled to. In the Marine school the girls weren't allowed to recycle like normal students were.
Dempsey replied: “No, I wouldn't put it in terms of operations, Jim. What I would say is that, as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict, not just COIN, counterinsurgency, we really need to have standards that apply across all of those.”
He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”
“If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job--and let me be clear, we’re not talking about reducing the qualifications for a job--if they can meet the qualifications for the job then they should have the right to serve,”
The biggest reason difference between why women passed Ranger School and not Marine Infantry, is that we permitted all the recycles a student is entitled to. In the Marine school the girls weren't allowed to recycle like normal students were.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SFC (Join to see) - The greatest failure with applying men standards to training women, is that no one applies what a well trained Women Warrior can do to a religious misguided women hater. We defeat ourselves with our machismo.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SFC Jason Boyd- While the article did paraphrase, questioning the standards has already been an ongoing thing. Before the women came to Ranger school we had several IPRs where we determined why our standards were what they were and if they should be adjusted. Last I knew our rationales went all the way to the top. People were questioning why we make Ranger do 6 pull ups.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The crux of the matter is implementing equality when females and mens' bodies are not equal.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
How far will we go? We will go far enough to risk losing a fight, a battle, a war even for the sake of being "PC". Oh ya, those Israelis have it figured out. They have women in combat units...serving as instructors or admin positions and not in front line positions as everyone thinks they are.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google