Women in Combat?
 

With our President and Mr. Panetta's decision to allow women to hold a Combat MOS. Do you believe we will be seeing women in SFAS in the near future? I am curious as to your opinions on the matter.

Good question.

There's a reason we don't have professional woman's football, basketball, hockey teams and why women don't compete against men in the Olympics. It has nothing to do with intellect but everything to do with strength.

But to answer your question, yes, I'm sure the US military will lower the standards to accommodate women in all combat roles.
TS

Now with SFAS that is a selection process by current SF members if im not mistaken? I can forsee these women making a big stink about not getting selected and blame it on being a woman not because they just cant do the job required. I would not want to be in the shit and the woman have the realization this is not for her. I understand the need for political correctness and equality but maybe instead of a complete change of rules a test group or 2 in a limited role?? It just seems rushed.

Well thats good to hear. Thanks for the info

I don't. Please explain. :munchin

Here's a question from me...just out of curiousity...are you now or have you been in the military?

Feb 11 I sign 11x opt 4 contract. I do not have any previous service and I look forward to serving my country Sir

Not trying to be a dick...well not a total one anyhows...but I wouldn't want to be "in the shit," when you come to that same realization. I'll give you the same advice I gave my son when he enlisted...take it one day at a time and see if you even have the capacity to serve in the military.

I thank you very much for your advice Sir. It was very similar advice given to me by my father. Focus on the 25m target get your bearings and make sure it is what you want to do. In re reading my comment I did not have the intention to come across that I know anything of "being in the shit" just a bad use of wordage it was just an opinion on my behalf.

No harm no foul...good luck to you next week.

Do you think the standards will be changed in order to facilitate entry for those women (and there must be some) who would ponder entering an MOS whose standards they can't meet, as they stand, at present?

Kate Wilder..... No stink at all.....

Concur. As I've stated before, Ma'am, as long as the current standards aren't modified, there should be no reason to exclude a female from entering a combat MOS.

I don't agree with the chauvinistic misogynists who compare it to a man trying out for the Bearded Lady gig at Barnum and Bailey. :D

Or get out/retire. but, I agree, staying in and bitching about isn't the right course of action.

Actaullay, I retired 5 years ago.;) I used to tell myself the kind of stuff you just said. But, I have become cynical and I don't think "change from within" ever happens. The forces of evil are too strong. You have to live by your principals.

I now subscribe to the "Dusty effect'. Hunkering down in my bunker and waiting for the apocolypse.:D

Not me - I was wild as a dry August wind and always wanted to live as far away from my 'principals' as possible. :D :D

Richard :munchin

"Imitation is the sincerest forum of flattery." :D

There will not be equality and a sexless military until everyone is treated the same and comfortable with co-Ed everything.

As long as we have "Men" and "Women" seperate latrines and shower facilities and a different physical fitness standard to define "qualified" there will be issues with men and women serving in specific roles together.

There is no reason not to expect that many will suffer and some will die, so that a few can achieve some fantasy about what equality is and is not.

There may be roles for women in combat units and those should be defined with tests and qualifications that differ from their male counterparts but do not disrupt the natural order of things.

JMO

ETA: We have and have had women in SF (support roles) for years, they perform their duties with great enthusiasm and professionalism. Some would even be an asset in the field but those roles are limited and very specific.

My sister in law was the Athletic Director at a school here in California when Title IX passed, dictating that both men's and women's athletic teams had to have equal facilities, funding, etc.

I asked her if this meant women could try out for men's teams, she said yes.

I asked her if I could try out for her women's softball team, she said no and couldn't tell me (or admit) why...

There are no women playing in the NFL, the NBA, MLB or NHL for a reason...

Which also begs the question...why do our fearless leaders need all female FETs and CSTs? Why can't a male join those two units? Is my testosterone level too high? I think men should be allowed the option of going out for the CSTs and FETs.

Since when did equality, cultural sensitivity and gender have anything to do with logic?

That's correct. Now, if we flip the circumstances, how effective will a female infantry company commander be at conducting a shura with a local Afghani tribal elder? Nowadays, SF aren't the only ones out in the wild building rapport and partnerships, and there are a heck of a lot of cultures around the world where women are treated far less than equal.

I hear women complaining, with some regularity, that all of the real men are gone, and men don't act like men anymore.

Then I hear my Chief of Staff saying that in order to get women into units where they do not meet the standards, the units will have to reevaluate and justify those standards.

What do you think has happened to the boys who wanted to be men?

Eventually, this is going to get a lot of people hurt.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, there was a combat load study of a "light infantry" unit in the box, and their measured loads ranged between 125 and 145 pounds per man, at significant altitude, for days on end. Any women I know who could physically lift that load (less strength, especially upper body), could not sustain it for as long as the men (lower aerobic capacity), and would suffer permanent damage to their bodies (lower bone density).

TR

I can imagine VERY few places in the 5th Group AOR that would react well to a female Detachment Commander showing up to meet with a counterpart military commander.

These?

Well I'll say, even if USASFC brings back the SF yearly certification, this wouldn't help Groups or the Regiment in a cause. The standards will be changed and arms/hands tied.

Thanks for the assist...and it was my point exactly. Growing up in 7th SFG was another prime example of why women on teams wouldn't being accepted.

Couldn't resist

Attachment 24222

lol Made my day. :D:D

I agree with The Reaper. The standards won't be lowered, until they see that the number of women who meet the current standards are incredibly few. Then of course they will be lowered, don't fool yourself. It will get a lot of good people killed. Take a look at the average size of a light infantryman today. 6 foot tall and 170lbs. That is a good sized linebacker on a HS football team. There is a reason for that. The combat load has steadily increased. It takes somebody that size to carry that for an extended duration and not break down.:mad:

BTW awesome cartoon!:p

Panetta is the outgoing SECDEF that will not have to implement this decision. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who isn't going anywhere for another year or so, said this:

Just in case you had any doubt that the standards will soon be lowered. Here is a quote from todays Washington Times article:
At a news conference last month, Gen. Dempsey said: “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?”

He also said the goal is to have a significant number of women, not just a few, qualify as land combatants.

Gen. Dempsey said job performance for men and women will be assessed by the same standards. This means that, if a certain standard is to be lowered, it will be reduced for men and for women.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2KGeFUs00
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

So soon we will not only have a vast influx of women that could not meet the original standards but a bunch of men also. I truly feel sorry for the infantry squad leaders of today.:mad:

This thread has absolutely zero to do with Special Forces.

It should be deleted Post Haste.

Bold Talk
 

Bold Talk for somebody not following the board rules.

I checked your join date and all three posts.

Square yourself away by the time I get back from supper - or else.

Pete

Ya' so what's your opinion?

It's not just about physical strength and standards...it's about a whole lot more.

It's complicated!

To which posts are you referring? I see two posts by you prior to Old Dog New Trick's post.

Oh, and lighten up, Francis...there are plenty of women here that post pretty frequently. Life wisdom says those that go out looking for a fight tend to find one.

MISO MED,

The fact that women are serving in combat roles is not the issue here. The issue is that the CJCS has already STATED that the standards will be lowered to allow women into roles that they would not qualify for (that quote was posted further up in the stream) That concerns us that have spent our entire careers in the combat arms because we KNOW without a shadow of a doubt the issues caused by men who cannot handle the physicality of the job. Now we are going to make the problem even worse by adding more men and women who cannot handle the job.

Thankfully at least the senior leadership at SOCOM has resisted the idea of lowering standards. It also looks like the Commadant of the USMC is doing the same thing.

Standards:
 

In Combat, Who sets the Standards? Do they factor in Gender? TK