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: 5
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 Just as when DADT was repealed, we all sat through a class that said what we were and we're not allowed to do.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)
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)
1
1
0
Funny article by CMR, because it looks at Women Soldiers from the aspect of Men physical abilities and fails to address the fact that Women Soldiers are critical key to defeating our current Women hating religious misguided enemy. Imagine what happens if we arm women!
(1)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
CPT Pedro Meza - Use them as A-Team leaders? Seriously, do you think that Ranger School qualifies them to be SFOD-A Team Leaders? Also CA is not an organization that has an expertise in poisons, martial arts, or shooting.
I'll also tell you what will happen in a conservative Muslim culture if we "arm women". Nothing, absolutely nothing as they will not follow a woman. The same can be said in Central and South America due to the "machismo" culture or Eastern Europe.
I'll also tell you what will happen in a conservative Muslim culture if we "arm women". Nothing, absolutely nothing as they will not follow a woman. The same can be said in Central and South America due to the "machismo" culture or Eastern Europe.
(1)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
CPT Pedro Meza - I am pretty sure that poisoning is against the Law of Land Warfare. You can correct me if I am wrong. I agree with PFC Smith. A solely female team will have limited abilities to make a difference because of the cultural views on women. Look what has happened in Afghanistan to the female police, pilots, etc. While a US FET team can be effective in gaining information from women in a community, they will always go in with a male team to provide the majority of security. I don't want to imagine what would happen if an all-female team drove into a hostile Afghan village.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
COL Jon Thompson - I did say FET Team-A, meaning a mixture. As for poisons I used training Ex-Wives because there is nothing more dangerous to us Men then a lethal ex-wife. The object of the dialogue is to see the potential.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
PFC (Join to see) - Perhaps you need to look at the potential that women warriors have as a weapon system. And Bob, I was Machista until a mission in Colombia 1985, and seeing M-19 Guerrilla Female Rebel made me see the potential.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
MSG (Join to see) I think this article does bring up some valid issues. Men and women do have different structures and I don't think we have enough data yet to measure the impact of the Infantry's physical demands on women. I am reminded of Captain Linda Bray who in Panama made news for leading an attack with her MPs against a Panamanian Army base. Later on in her career, she had to leave active duty because of a training injury due to the wear and tear of training. In the end, none of that will matter as women will be integrated and the military will have to make it work. By the way, I can only imagine what it has been like for you and the other RIs over these past few months.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
This article uses women's physical differences to justify the reason to keep Women out of combat units, but fail to address that Women Warriors are an effective weapon system against our current religious misguided women hating enemy.
(0)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
CPT Pedro Meza The article does not say that women do not have a place on the battlefield. It questions the cost in terms of female health and how that can impact a unit's readiness. No one can argue there are physiological differences between male and female bodies. And I think we have to differentiate between the combat operations that take place in Iraq or Afghanistan and the combat operations that took place in WWII or Korea where fighting often became hand to hand.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
COL Jon Thompson - the article poisons the well, because it states the obvious while not offering the simple solution train women warriors within their limits and employ them as we do within Spec Ops, the rest I can not say.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No opinions wanted?
The article speaks for itself - "These officials and more in this administration are putting gender politics above national security and the best interests of both women and men in the military. All of them are disregarding previously-undisclosed military combat experiments, which show injury rates among women twice as high as men’s."
The article speaks for itself - "These officials and more in this administration are putting gender politics above national security and the best interests of both women and men in the military. All of them are disregarding previously-undisclosed military combat experiments, which show injury rates among women twice as high as men’s."
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Capt Seid Waddell - Fantasy are the foolish men that want Women Warrior to be like men and fails to see that Women Warriors trained within their abilities can accomplish what men can not against these religious misguided idiots.
(1)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Capt Seid Waddell - recall that I have served from 1974-2015 with experience fighting Female Colombian rebels that were well trained and also during my three Afghan deployments we had Female Civil Affairs Spec Ops. Please use those facts.
(1)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
To be clear, Civil Affairs is part of Army Special Operations forces but they are nowhere near the level of Army Special Forces. I was in a PSYOP unit for 6 years and worked for Special Operations Command - Central in Macdill, Qatar, and Baghdad. I was part of Army Special Operations but we were ordinary Soldiers doing our duty. The same goes for the Civil Affairs soldiers I worked with on all of my deployments.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google