Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry‏

DD last summer spent 7 days and 8 nights straight in the field during West Point's CLDT last summer despite the 4 day hygiene rule. She didn't seem to mind and survived. She also scores around 315-320 on the APFT. She has far exceeded every standard that she has faced.

Does that mean she wants to go in the infantry or the Rangers? Absolutely not. But one thing we both realize is that in the past (yes, even the very recent past) every Chicken Little that cries that the "sky is falling" when the military is ordered to diversify has been wrong. We get the job done and carry on. Unfortunately, there are always those who disagree with the new policy and try to subvert it. I was there when the first females went through the Service Academies. The arguments were the same (won't meet the standards, standards will be lowered...sky will fall). Many dragged their feet and made the transition more difficult than it had to be and in the end, it was a fruitless effort. They do themselves and others a disservice by putting their own opinions and beliefs ahead of those of the good of the service. So we can all voice our opinion now, but when the order comes to integrate (the infantry or whatever the civilian authorities tell the military to do), it will be accomplished.
 
Thanks aglages. We are all proud of her.

...but the sky didn't fall. By all accounts, today's cadets are more physically fit than in my day. We were certainly bettet at eating at attention because we had a lot of practice but that is a standard that I'm glad they lowered LOL.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
Classof83 said:
DD last summer spent 7 days and 8 nights straight in the field during West Point's CLDT last summer despite the 4 day hygiene rule. She didn't seem to mind and survived. She also scores around 315-320 on the APFT. She has far exceeded every standard that she has faced.
Click to expand...

What branch? Can't compare a light infantry field exercise, to a tank gunnery in Korea (fixed site with showers), aviation unit field exercise (usually with tents), to a HQ command post exercise (should be AC to keep computers cool). Not all field training are created equal in terms of hardship.

A long time ago went a training rotation at Kuwait, my TF force was about 800, with about 40 female soldiers. Although we lived in tents and had primitive showers, some times the living conditions were worse than when I was at Ranger school. Those females soldiers faced the same rough environment as male soldiers and carried on like male soldiers.

What's my point - if we want true one military, don't treat female soldiers differerently.
 
MemberLG said:
.
Click to expand...

CLDT is hosted at USMA, not to be confused with CTLT

They told us it was modeled after Ranger School. With that being said, there were portapotties and water buffalos at every patrol base sight and enough time between missions for everyone to use them.
 
BigBear said:
CLDT is hosted at USMA, not to be confused with CTLT

They told us it was modeled after Ranger School. With that being said, there were portapotties and water buffalos at every patrol base sight and enough time between missions for everyone to use them.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Might be a stupid question, but during CLDT do you go back to barracks to sleep or something else?
 
scoutpilot said:
Please elaborate with examples.
Click to expand...

I'll admit I don't have any stats to back this up. However, in my class, of those who were kicked out for repeatedly failing Mil Move as plebes, only females were invited to come back after training at home on "admin leave" and try again. A few managed to pass and are now December grads. Additionally, the Mil Move scoring is weighted for females despite most of the graded events being subjectively easier for a small female than a large male. Similarly, despite a female scoring in the men's A- range (several times), there has been no push to lower the female time standard below the men's failing time.

As far as standards that have decreased across the board (for male and female cadets):
-Push-up/PT standard at Beast (Though this was nominally an anti-hazing measure)
-As mentioned earlier, all CLDT lanes were required to terminate in a patrol base positioned near porta-potties and water buffalos. This lead to patrol bases being positioned alongside roads in places you would never want to put a patrol base.
 
Classof83 said:
DD last summer spent 7 days and 8 nights straight in the field during West Point's CLDT last summer despite the 4 day hygiene rule. She didn't seem to mind and survived. She also scores around 315-320 on the APFT. She has far exceeded every standard that she has faced.
Click to expand...

Is that 315-320 on the mens chart?
 
BigBear said:
I'll admit I don't have any stats to back this up. However, in my class, of those who were kicked out for repeatedly failing Mil Move as plebes, only females were invited to come back after training at home on "admin leave" and try again. A few managed to pass and are now December grads. Additionally, the Mil Move scoring is weighted for females despite most of the graded events being subjectively easier for a small female than a large male. Similarly, despite a female scoring in the men's A- range (several times), there has been no push to lower the female time standard below the men's failing time.

As far as standards that have decreased across the board (for male and female cadets):
-Push-up/PT standard at Beast (Though this was nominally an anti-hazing measure)
-As mentioned earlier, all CLDT lanes were required to terminate in a patrol base positioned near porta-potties and water buffalos. This lead to patrol bases being positioned alongside roads in places you would never want to put a patrol base.
Click to expand...

As I expected.
 
as a retired Army Officer who served with many outstanding female comrades I have no problem allowing women to serve in any billet they are qualified for; the reality is that few will ever qualify for infantry slots but if some can hack it more power to them. The unfortunate truth is that standards will be lowered so women can qualify in large numbers because of pressure from the bleeding heart liberals in government who pander to special interests and because in this day and age political correctness demands that you have to be "inclusive" and not "discriminate" against anyone.
 
bob80q said:
as a retired Army Officer who served with many outstanding female comrades I have no problem allowing women to serve in any billet they are qualified for; the reality is that few will ever qualify for infantry slots but if some can hack it more power to them. The unfortunate truth is that standards will be lowered so women can qualify in large numbers because of pressure from the bleeding heart liberals in government who pander to special interests and because in this day and age political correctness demands that you have to be "inclusive" and not "discriminate" against anyone.
Click to expand...

You confuse the word "fact" with your opinions.
 
separate but equal??
Any feminists supported? none...

also
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16102
Defense Department Releases Women in Service Review Implementation Plans

Today, the Defense Department released the U.S. military services’ and U.S. Special Operations Command’s plans for implementing women into previously closed positions.
These plans, which were reviewed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, outline how the services and U.S. Special Operations Command will manage the incremental opening of these previously closed positions.
The successful integration of women into currently closed positions requires the department to be thoughtful and deliberate in determining the next steps. The department will proceed in a measured and responsible way to open positions to women. In all cases, notification to Congress is required prior to opening these positions. Full implementation by the services should occur by Jan. 1, 2016.
The secretary’s memo is available at: http://www.defense.gov/news/SecDefWISRMemo.pdf
The U.S. Army’s plan is available at: http://www.defense.gov/news/ArmyWISRImplementationPlan.pdf
The U.S. Navy’s plan is available at: http://www.defense.gov/news/NavyWISRImplementationPlan.pdf
The U.S. Air Force’s plan is available at: http://www.defense.gov/news/Air_ForceWISRImplementationPlan.pdf
The U.S. Marine Corps’ plan is available at: http://www.defense.gov/news/MarineCorpsWISRImplementationPlan.pdf
The U.S. Special Operations Command’s plan is available at: http://www.defense.gov/news/SOCOMWISRImplementationPlan.pdf
The decision to rescind the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule for women was originally announced Jan. 24, 2013, by former Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey


MemberLG said:
The study's title is "The Extent of Restrictions on the Service of Active-Component Military Women."

It is not about if Women belong in the Infantry or not.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top