USA: All Combat Roles Now Open to Women: Defense Secretary

[wiesiek]

I`m in the love with sex.
Is it make me the sexist ?
Ian?

[wiesiek]

@yeniseri
You don`t need 13 Charles`s Angel,
3 are sufficient

[David Boxen]

https://www.t-nation.com/opinion/women-in-ground-combat

http://startingstrength.com/site/article/strength_in_combat

From the strength perspective.

[Steve James]

My own interest is personal because my new daughter-in-law has just come back from deployment. I haven't asked her or her husband's (the major's) opinions. I did, however, do private pilot's training; so, I was interested in the situation regarding female pilot's because I had heard that women (because of their physiology) can withstand G-forces better. Anyway, I did a search on that, and I found an article written by a woman in the service that gives her argument. It's only fair to hear her pov. Btw, I believe in quantifiable qualifications even if they are higher than the average woman can usually achieve. But, here ares her arguments: she gives her qualifications at the bottom: http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html

[windwalker]

well I dont know,,there are many, many reports that would show much of what she presented as false.

lets look at one

"No official records were kept on the impact of pregnancy on women's deployabilty rate to the Gulf war or their evacuation from the Gulf."
According to General Holm in "Women in the Military" - "after the war DOD reported to Congress that the deployment of women was "highly successful".

really?

The Commission found that
the non-deployability rate for women was three times greater than that of men, largely
due to pregnancy. When pregnancy is taken into account women have nearly four times
as much lost time as men.
Table 1. Overall Percentages for Desert Shield/Desert Storm Non-deployability
Source: Presidential Commission on the assignment of women in the Armed Forces.3
% MALE----------------- %FEMALE COMPARISON
FACTOR
ARMY 2.7--------------- 9.0 3.3X
NAVY 1.5 ---------------- 5.6 3.7X
AIR FORCE 1.8 --------- 6.4 3.5X
MARINE CORPS 8.8--------26.3 3.9X

Deployment figures from the Gulf War confirm that commanders of combat service
and combat service support units, like a Division Support Command (DISCOM) should
anticipate a higher rate of nondeployability among female soldiers.

A report from the Center for Army Lessons Learned states that in some units 18 to 20 percent of female
soldiers were nondeployable, primarily for disqualifying physical profiles and pregnancy.

One senior officer who commanded in the Gulf discussed the problems he had with
pregnancies stating 33% of the women in his battalion could not deploy because of
pregnancy or they were sent home early because of i

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf


I was in the Army as they transitioned from WAC unites into the regular army and opened more positions.
I was also part of the staff of what was called land combat missile systems developments,
we studied this from many different factors. If anyone knows what
"MANPRINT " Manpower & Personnel Integration" means they will know and understand this.

It was / is bad policy being fostered by those who've never served and does not do anything for combat efficiency
it is sad that we can no longer depend on senior leadership to support the obvious, "bad" career move.

[windwalker]

MANPOWER & PERSONNEL INTEGRATION
The goal of MANPRINT is to enhance soldier-system design, reduce life-cycle ownership costs, and optimize total system performance.

Manpower requirements are based on related ILS elements and other considerations. Human factors engineering (HFE) or behavioral research is frequently applied to ensure a good man-machine interface.

Manpower requirements are predicated on accomplishing the logistics support mission in the most efficient and economical way. This element includes requirements during the planning and decision process to optimize numbers, skills, and positions. This area considers:

Man-machine and environmental interface
Special skills
Human factors considerations during the planning and decision process

the whole question is really crazy just glad I am out of it,,,

@ steve,

"What I would have to do is if I decide I want an exception, I would have to say why I believe we shouldn't open armor and infantry to females, and I would have to demonstrate why that's important," he said. "If I don't make any recommendations, everything will be open as of January 1st, 2016."

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military ... /25243687/

[P. Li]

http://www.usashooting.org/news/2012/2/28/195-usa-shooting-viewpoint--men-vs-women-in-competitive-shooting

Recent history also suggests that woman can perform alongside men in shooting competitions. At the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, female competitor Shan Zhang of China became the Olympic gold medalist that year in mixed-event skeet competition. Over two days of competition she produced a score of 373 out of 375, a new Olympic and world record. She also became the first woman to topple the men in the history of the Olympic Games' shooting competition. Since that time, no mixed events have been held in an Olympic shooting competition.

[windwalker]

SF my home town...

The reality is that those few Jewish women who happened to have fallen into Arab hands before the Six Day War were treated with respect and returned in a few days.
The "fight to the death" theory is also not so - when Israeli women went out on patrol their opponents surrendered or retreated rather than engage in battle - for religious reasons - a man killed by a woman cannot have a desirable after-life.

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html

myths lets see if they really are.

fast forward

Just prior to Lynch’s rescue, American forces found in this building the bloody uniform of a female soldier near a metal bed, electrodes, and a car battery used for purposes of torture. Medical records later revealed that Jessica had been raped without mercy. One can only imagine what both women and the men suffered at the hands of rape-room irregulars known for savaging women and children just for fun.

Lynch was then taken to the Hussein hospital where she was rescued. Outside that facility rescuers found shallow graves containing the bodies of American soldiers, including that of Pfc. Piestewa, the single mother of two young children.

This is not the first time that the truth about a captured female soldier was withheld from the American people. During the first Persian Gulf War, then-Maj. Rhonda Cornum, a medical doctor, was subjected to sexual indecencies within hours of her capture in 1991. An ardent advocate of women in combat, Cornum kept silent about that experience for more than a year. During that time Congress was debating and repealing one of the laws exempting women from combat. Candor about her experience in captivity, which later appeared in her own 1992 book, could have changed the course of the congressional debate.

http://www.cmrlink.org/content/women-in ... sica_lynch

This is not the first time that the truth about a captured female soldier was withheld from the American people. During the first Persian Gulf War, then-Maj. Rhonda Cornum, a medical doctor, was subjected to sexual indecencies within hours of her capture in 1991. An ardent advocate of women in combat, Cornum kept silent about that experience for more than a year. During that time Congress was debating and repealing one of the laws exempting women from combat. Candor about her experience in captivity, which later appeared in her own 1992 book, could have changed the course of the congressional debate.

kinda tells the story that most dont hear or ignore...
why did she keep quite about it,,,,,

wonder if she got that promotion.
ya think

In 1994, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense Les Aspin announced new personnel assignment regulations that were billed as expanded “career opportunities” for women. Female enlistees, including Lynch and former prisoner of war Spec. Shoshana Johnson, clearly were not aware that the rules had changed. No one told them, it seems, that women would be assigned to previously all-male units, even in support missions known to involve a “substantial risk of capture.”

this is why we have woman now serving in hot combat zones

yep "career opportunities"

[windwalker]

Donnelly concluded, “Comprehensive Marine Corps research tests have produced highly credible, reality-based, scientific data that discredits theories about gender equality in the combat arms. Much of this information was not available when the Obama Administration announced that women would be assigned to direct ground combat units.

“The armed forces should not be forced to rely upon unsupported theories, convoluted calculations or “best case scenarios” that disregard known high risks. It is necessary to analyze mitigation ideas that would make life in the combat arms more difficult and more dangerous, with no offsetting benefits in terms of military effectiveness

http://www.cmrlink.org/content/women-in ... rt_part_ii

bottom line
"military effectiveness"

Women are as strong as men, but women are victims of men. They are not strong enough to prevent rape stateside, but they are sure-as-hell ready to go hand-to-hand with members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

I also reject Santangello’s charge that men in the military are encouraged to perceive women as weak. If anything, they are encouraged, at peril of ending their careers, to make themselves believe that women and men are interchangeable. Those who do not sing that tune are charged with waging the “war on women.”

In my experience, feminism and political correctness are so prevalent in the military that men trip over themselves trying to ensure they do not offend. Military leaders cannot afford to even think the truth: Women are not as strong and athletic as strong, athletic men. It is biology and physics. It is Nature. Most important, it is consistent and predictable. Women’s biology makes them a deficit in combat. Those who insist combat units should be opened to women can never prove it’s a real benefit because of all the persistent issues. They can only institute a mandatory double-think.

http://politicalanimalblog.com/2015/03/ ... standards/

wont say any more on this, I was against it in the service and find my self still very much against it out of it.
Not because as some would suggest some type of sexism,

but because for those who will be in harms way we owe them
the best chances to come back, while still accomplishing the mission at hand.

[yeniseri]

To re-iterate, women have been in combat roles but it is only know that it is "OFFICIAL' to the extent that it is extended to SF and the more traditional Infantry of all kinds!
In my last deployment I have seen a few of the gunships piloted by women and the usual FOB Medevac tents staffed by women so it isn't a stretch that more choices are availabe, which is good. it is less about career opportunities but about serving one's country in the best practical way based on education, experience and MOS (military occupational specialty). I think that more of the cooks were men compared to the hospital staff in some areas, usually staffed by women. For some women, the kitchen is a hellhole but some men do enjoy it

[windwalker]

To re-iterate, women have been in combat roles but it is only know that it is "OFFICIAL' to the extent that it is extended to SF and the more traditional Infantry of all kinds!
In my last deployment I have seen a few of the gunships piloted by women and the usual FOB Medevac tents staffed by women so it isn't a stretch that more choices are availabe, which is good. it is less about career opportunities but about serving one's country in the best practical way based on education, experience and MOS (military occupational specialty). I think that more of the cooks were men compared to the hospital staff in some areas, usually staffed by women. For some women, the kitchen is a hellhole but some men do enjoy it

what kind of "gun ships"
care to share your rank and mos

If you feel its not about career opportunities, who do you feel is pushing for the change?
As a policy it has no basis to support it, other then it might be good for "career opportunities"
for some.

about serving one's country in the best practical way based on education, experience and MOS (military occupational specialty).

agree, but studies show that its not a good idea.

. The argument for the combat exclusion is provable all the time, every time. Political correctness has no chance against Nature. Her victories are staring us in the face at all times. The men just keep being able to lift more and to run faster, harder, longer with more weight on their backs while suffering fewer injuries.

For the sake of women’s career opportunities, the old tougher standards have already been lowered or abandoned over the decades.

Gone are the long jump and the 40-yard man-carry. Training tasks are long-since team-oriented, where individual weaknesses are camouflaged by the group, so the two-person (one dare not call it “two-man”) stretcher-carry is now a four-person stretcher-carry.

Between lower standards for women and political correctness that sees making war-fighting men out of boys as abuse, the results are a lower standard of performance overall.

http://politicalanimalblog.com/2015/03/ ... standards/

[Steve James]

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/kimcampbell.html

[windwalker]

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/kimcampbell.html

interesting
used to watch the A-10s when they first fielded them during war games.
still it does nothing to disprove the basic premise. There are many other factors to consider
other then just flying an air craft.

As I mentioned earlier useing MANPRINT weapon systems are designed around an average male body type.
Ask your son, I think you mentioned he was in charge of an armor unit, about the requirements for tankers, and why they have 4 man crews and to date do not use auto loaders. It might have changed but I dont think so.
You might find it interesting.

As Shane Osborn's experience reveals, strength is not irrelevant to modern aviation. Although it is not usually an issue in flying modern airplanes under ordinary circumstances, when things go wrong the situation can change dramatically. In the words of the principal investigator of a study of strength requirements of aviators, "If they lose hydraulics or an engine or two engines, it gets really tough to fly the plane."

(LOC 1376)

Is the unwillingness of men to follow women into battle "unfair"? What does that question even mean?
Strength matters too for a grounded helicopter pilot or a captured aircrew. Browne notes that about 90% of the prisoners of war held by North Vietnam were downed pilots and aircrew.

The United States is planning its future air force on the assumption that future aircrews need not worry much about enemy fire. That's a very dangerous assumption.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ombat.html

2) One might answer: "Fine. Strength matters. But why should gender matter? Set strength requirements, run the tests. If the women pass, they pass. If not, not."

But that answer ignores the bureaucratic realities. The record shows that the military does not and will not enforce gender-neutral standards.

Sara Lister, [the Clinton-era] Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, candidly stated that the Army does not publicly discuss strength and pregnancy issues because "those subjects quickly become fodder for conservatives seeking to limit women's role in the Army."

(LOC 3831)

Well, yeah. But if your preferred policy can only be advanced by concealing relevant facts, isn't that a blaring warning of a bad policy? A big, rich country like the United States can afford many mistakes. But in this case, the mistakes will exact a cost in lives sacrificed and - very conceivably - future battles lost.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ombat.html

it is very odd talking about this with either those who have not been in, or those who's service rank would not necessarily give them the bigger picture.

What do those supporting this feel they are gaining?

Its a bad policy,,,,there are no studies to date that support it.

this is one example

ongress is prodding the armed forces to come up with a special line of women’s combat boots, in different styles, as studies show that military women are more susceptible to stress fractures from marching and training.

Female troops in Afghanistan have complained to a member of the House Armed Services Committee that they have limited options for acquiring combat boots designed for them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all

you have limited resources, make an argument that supports buying the boot over spending money on either weapon systems, more training or on going operations.

[Steve James]

I didn't have a premise. You asked what kind of "gunships." A-10s and others are flown by female combat pilots. But, if the basic premise was about "combat," generally, women who drive support vehicles on the ground have been around for a while, and have been subject to combat risks. Well, they've been shot at.

I don't know about tanks, but planes are often fitted with seat inserts molded to the pilot's torso. I'm not sure that my son would approve of mixed tank crews, though. He's friends with the woman who was the first to pass Ranger training. I will ask him what he feels about it in general.

[windwalker]

“A woman will graduate Ranger School,” a general told shocked subordinates this year while preparing for the first females to attend a “gender integrated assessment” of the grueling combat leadership course starting April 20, sources tell PEOPLE. “At least one will get through.”

That directive set the tone for what was to follow, sources say.

“It had a ripple effect” at Fort Benning, where Ranger School is based, says a source with knowledge of events at the sprawling Georgia Army post. “Even though this was supposed to be just an assessment, everyone knew. The results were planned in advance.” [Emphasis mine]

kinda of what I was talking about.

The results of the Marine Corps’ 9-month “Gender Integration” study for the combat arms are barely out and already the Secretary of the Navy declares he’ll ignore them and the Secretary of Defense releases a gag order on discussing women in combat units until he makes his decision on the matter.

The Army denies it, but unfortunately lying and concealing data when it comes to opening combat-related jobs to women is nothing new for the military. In the 1990’s, anxious to prove their diversity and women-friendliness in the post-Tailgate, the Navy and Air Force were competing to be the first to open combat aircraft jobs to women. The Navy gave the same directive to their pilot instructors that the Rangers allegedly got:

A woman will pass. And so they did. And then a female pilot, Kara Hultgreen, killed herself when she crashed her plane into the water doing a routine landing maneuver she’d failed at before. Previously touted as proof that women are just as capable combat pilots, the training records revealed that both Hultgreen and the female she went through training with were passed where men would have failed.

http://politicalanimalblog.com/2015/10/ ... iscussion/

This not surprising to me, the job of the military is to make it happen. Its a mind set...