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

Pima said:
+1 MedB

As a wife of a now retire AF flier, I remember when Jeaanie Flynn, now Leavitt became the first female fighter pilot. It was akin to this conversation now.

Was I opposed then? Yep! Am I still opposed? Yep!

Jeannie and Fifi Malachoski (1st female Thunderbird) are both amazing pilots. Nothing can change my opinion on that fact. Their flying skills are amazing and they earned the opportunity.

However, they did allow them to enter under female standards, not their male counterparts and that is where my issue lies.

Bullet is not a small guy...5'11 @ 195 lbs. Fifi is a tiny thing compared to Bullet,.they both flew the Strike and if that jet went down in the drink or on land I know Bullet could pull them out due to the standard he had to obtain, but I can't say the same for them because their standard are lower than his.

I now have a DS that is an AF pilot and he will have female co-pilots. It is my Daughter in law that worries if they can pull her DH out of the drink with 20/30 foot swells wearing gear and weighing 40-50 lbs less than him.

All because the AF when allowing women into the rated world were not forced to meet the same standards as men.

Every year this becomes an issue/discussion/debate.

I will end my post with what I always say. I dang well know there are women that can run faster than their male counterparts, that they can lift/pull/whatever at the same level or better, so why when lives are on the line do we accept the fact that we need to lower the bar?
~ Oh yeah...I forgot...because we have MoCs pushing it with little to no current combat experience and they want to appease their constituents for re-election. I am old enough to remember the media realized years ago Soccer Moms were a force to be reckoned with as voters...a new constituency that could bring them across the finish line!

I know that Jeannie and Fifi due to their flying skills got their aircraft home safely, and luckily the AF has never lost a jet where women were involved, but it wouldn't shock me if they do and the crash review board determines that the guy could have lived if they were held at the same physical standards the AF addresses this issue.

I am not a litigitous person, but if my DS dies in the drink because the female co pilot couldn't get him, after the funeral my first phone call will be to Frank Spinner to sue the AF for allowing standards to be set lower from a physical perspective.
Click to expand...

The physical standards are meant for fitness, and even then, the men's standard is hardly difficult. The test is a WAIST MEASUREMENT, push ups, sit ups, and a run. Things like pull ups that might actually test the ability to pull someone out of the water are not a requirement. I see many men around my squadron that would struggle to pull a large guy out of the water. Several of the women I work with are power lifters and rugby players that would do better at pulling me out than several of the men. There is no standard that tests the ability to help aircrew and there are just as many men who would struggle as women. Unfortunately, I think this is a straw man argument given the realities. What should we do? We could always limit them to single person cockpits to make sure they don't get in that situation. I'm sure many would not mind that limitation. ;)

Though, does not politics play a large part in the issue before us?
Click to expand...
You've classified these policy revisions as social engineering. The same was said of integrating blacks, women, gays... and more recently the scandals about saying God in the oath. Without some of the "social engineering," I would have been barred from military service for no logical reason as I'm perfectly fit to serve, as are many who were once barred.

It's disingenuous to build a straw man to disqualify women. Support it and demand standards remain the same via letters to congress, etc. MemberLG does a good job of properly separating the arguments. Advocate and demand the same standard. If it is then changed, demand reprisal from those who changed the standard. But don't bar women from serving because of the idea standards might change. Demand they don't change and allow women to serve.
 
I wondered what set you off. "social engineering" - got it. I'll stay away from that one.

Sexual dimorphism in the mountains of Afghanistan is not a straw man.
 
hornetguy said:
If it is then changed, demand reprisal from those who changed the standard.
Click to expand...
Demand the political savvy General or Admiral lose their pensions as reprisal for carrying out the political will of others. Don't re-elect a President that can't be re-elected. Have lower regard for your Congress people than you already do....but continue to return them to Washington.
 
Folks,

Let's keep this on the topic of the original post -- and civil, of course!

If you want to discuss generally political issues, please start a thread in the Off-Topic forum.

Your Friendly Mod
 
usna1985 said:
folks,

let's keep this on the topic of the original post -- and civil, of course!

If you want to discuss generally political issues, please start a thread in the off-topic forum.

Your friendly mod
Click to expand...

**Edited**
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hornetguy said:
You've classified these policy revisions as social engineering. The same was said of integrating blacks, women, gays... and more recently the scandals about saying God in the oath. Without some of the "social engineering," I would have been barred from military service for no logical reason as I'm perfectly fit to serve, as are many who were once barred.

It's disingenuous to build a straw man to disqualify women.
Click to expand...

Could you explain each sentence of this post to this grumpy old dude? I don't understand what you are getting at.
 
Hornet,

Let us be honest....the person that runs the fastest will get behind the tree or whatever faster when bullets are flying.
~ And the stronger one will be able to carry/pull their team member instead of being told...GO leave me.

I also was not discussing pull ups, sit ups, push ups I was talking about WATER survival, why I kept saying the drink...going down in the drink in an aircrew airframe, dragging that member into a raft or whatever matters.
~ You know my DD and my DIL, if it was your DH do you think that they would have the upper body strength to save him? Would you rather my DS as his wingman or crewmate?
~~ My bet is you would say I want your DS not your DD if I had a choice! He is your love. He is your future happiness, my DD and DIL would do everything possible to save him, but if standards are lowered than honestly it will become...GO leave me, she yourself.

This is an emotional issue because all of them are placing their lives at risk so we can sit back on our electronic devices and debate the issue.
That link meant nothing to me...USA did that back in 1994 when Jeannie was OPs during ONWand OSW. Heck, Jeannie also went to WIC as an O3. almost 17 years ago.
~~ where in that link does it address her physical ability? Where in that link is it OMG a woman flying a fighter? Again the USAF has many female pilots for 20+ years. Was your point that UAE has changed their attitude towards women?
~~~ Great...that is the UAE, this is the USA, and we did it in 1992!

I am not saying women should not be allowed to go this route. They should and I support it...but ...

I am going to use a golf analogy....if you want to compete on the PGA as a woman don't ask to tee off from the ladies tee box!

Yes, that means impo hornet that they do the PFA at the standard of their male counterparts.

Goose meet gander...gander meet goose!
 
Last edited:
Right on Pima and your first post.

I hope Hornet can explain my question.

Originally Posted by hornetguy View Post


You've classified these policy revisions as social engineering. The same was said of integrating blacks, women, gays... and more recently the scandals about saying God in the oath. Without some of the "social engineering," I would have been barred from military service for no logical reason as I'm perfectly fit to serve, as are many who were once barred.

It's disingenuous to build a straw man to disqualify women.
Could you explain each sentence of this post to this grumpy old dude? I don't understand what you are getting at.
 
Last edited:
hornetguy said:
You've classified these policy revisions as social engineering. The same was said of integrating blacks, women, gays... and more recently the scandals about saying God in the oath. Without some of the "social engineering," I would have been barred from military service for no logical reason as I'm perfectly fit to serve, as are many who were once barred.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.
 
Is it a cliche that someone with Air Force connections would break it down for us simpletons by using a golf analogy?

I still want to know more about Sexual Dimorphism in Afghanistan. It sounds like a Hunter Thompson title. Isn't that why the Afghan hillbillies make the women wear burqahs - so that the menfolk won't be titillated?

As far as women in the infantry, i.e., the subject of this meandering thread, if they can get through the Ranger Training Assessment Course and then Ranger School, I'm fine with that, provided that standards aren't lowered. Those would be some extraordinary human beings. As it is, most male soldiers can't make it through RS.
 
Last edited:
EDelahanty said:
As far as women in the infantry, i.e., the subject of this meandering thread, if they can get through the Ranger Training Assessment Course and then Ranger School, I'm fine with that, provided that standards aren't lowered. Those would be some extraordinary human beings. As it is, most male soldiers can't make it through RS.
Click to expand...

The Ranger School is the ultimate straw man argument for the both sides.

One side argues if the Infantry is open to females, females must should be allow to attend Ranger school. Ranger school is an integral part of Infantry career progression. If Ranger school is open to female, the graduation rate for female students will not be acceptable, so the standard will be changed to increase the passing rate.

Other side argues that there are females that can graduate from Ranger school. We don't know if the standard will be changed or not, so cannot use something that might happen to argue against females .

Both sides are making arguments based on what hasn't happened yet.

What's the solution? I think there is no solution. Ideally, the Army should implement position based single standard physical ability test. However, it would be cost prohibitive and will be accused of creating an obstacle to prevent females from going into combat arms. Although there are physical tasks for combat arms position (i.e. two people loading TOW missiles on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, tank loader loading a tank cannon shell, and etc) soldiers going into those positions never had to pass any test. Why, I believe since all these positions were male only, a simple assumption was made that males are capable to performing these physical test. Of course there are plenty of males that lack physical abilities perform these tasks. The soldiers that cannot perform typical physical tasks associated their position don't get ahead in their career. An Infantry platoon leader don't have to be fastest runner in the platoon, but he (for now) needs to a top runner in the platoon. An Infantry platoon leader needs to conduct tactical movement (i.e. 100 lb ruck) better than most of his platoon and be able to carry additional load to lead by example. For leaders meeting the minimum standard is not good enough.

As pointed out in the article, we need to think about what is best for our nation and the military - diverse and integrated military or best fighting force? Are both the same or different?
 
I served with many capable and respectable women.

But I remain old-fashioned. Women do not belong in combat.

Call me what you like, but I believe that we are created with inherent roles, and combat falls on our side of that fence.

I don't want women exposed to the horrors of war if it can be avoided.


I recognize this is not exactly based on science, but there it is. Believe me, it's not because I think women are fragile or that men are better, it's because I believe women are more valuable.

Yes, I still believe in "Women and children first!", and I do so without shame.

I've even said it when undergoing mandatory lifeboat drills before cruises: "Gentlemen! Women and children first, followed by the elderly. The rest of us can swim if we have to!"

I've gotten quite a few smiling nods from the men, and a few shocked looks from the women.

What can I tell you? I still open the car door (any door, for that matter) for my wife, and will throw myself between her and any danger that's heading her way. If that makes me a sexist in someone's eyes, then I guess they're just gonna have to deal with it, because it bothers me not in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
^^^^
^^^^^

100% Right on!:thumb:

I would do the same for my wife and kids until the day I die.:smile:
 
I, too, hold the door open for my girlfriend as well as other people in general. Just to be nice and friendly. Reminds me of the time that I held the door for a woman on my campus, she stopped, looked at me in disgust and said "I am NOT weak, I can hold the door for myself, THANK YOU."

I just didn't see the problem. I would have held the door open if it were any gender. Still not going to change my ways.
 
I'm in a CAB and when we go to the field, the women have to be sent back to shower every 4 days for feminine hygiene reasons. The infantry are notorious for extended field problems. For that reason alone, I don't think women would be able to exist on an equal plane with men.
 
Frankie said:
I, too, hold the door open for my girlfriend as well as other people in general. Just to be nice and friendly. Reminds me of the time that I held the door for a woman on my campus, she stopped, looked at me in disgust and said "I am NOT weak, I can hold the door for myself, THANK YOU."

I just didn't see the problem. I would have held the door open if it were any gender. Still not going to change my ways.
Click to expand...

I had that happen to me at Virginia Beach Mall circa 1994.

I slammed the door in the ungrateful woman's face.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MabryPsyD said:
I'm in a CAB and when we go to the field, the women have to be sent back to shower every 4 days for feminine hygiene reasons. The infantry are notorious for extended field problems. For that reason alone, I don't think women would be able to exist on an equal plane with men.
Click to expand...

Thinking out of the box, why not send Infantry guys back for shower every 4 days also :eek:. I would have appreciated it.

No practicality in being out in the field to just to be out in the field. The commander has to determine the benefits of being out in the field for a long time vs having breaks. I can see during a gunnery cycle, with certain range time being premium, having to train for 10 days or more without a break. However, if the unit is conducting some sort of maneuver training and there is some flexibility in time, why not come back in. I have seen some commanders trying to fill any free time with some sort of training event - my two cents, it might be a sprint for a commander trying to make her mark during her two years of command, but many of her soldiers it is a marathon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top