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

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by MemberLG, Sep 23, 2014.

  1. hornetguy

    hornetguy 10-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    213
    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. ;)

    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.
     
  2. hornetguy

    hornetguy 10-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    213
  3. Sledge

    Sledge 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    757
    Likes Received:
    585
    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.
     
  4. aglages

    aglages 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    6
    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.
     
  5. usna1985

    usna1985 10-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,781
    Likes Received:
    2,538
    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
     
  6. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006 10-Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    9,206
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    **Edited**
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2014
  7. cga82

    cga82 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    50
    Could you explain each sentence of this post to this grumpy old dude? I don't understand what you are getting at.
     
  8. Pima

    Pima 10-Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    13,860
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    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: Sep 24, 2014
  9. cga82

    cga82 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    50
    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: Sep 24, 2014
  10. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    6,683
    Likes Received:
    2,304
    Makes sense to me.
     
  11. EDelahanty

    EDelahanty 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    581
    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: Sep 24, 2014
  12. MemberLG

    MemberLG 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    528
    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?
     
  13. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    289
    Best quote on this thread.

    Lets see what happens folks
     
  14. Zaphod

    Zaphod 10-Year Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    6
    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: Sep 29, 2014
  15. cga82

    cga82 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    50
    ^^^^
    ^^^^^

    100% Right on!:thumb:

    I would do the same for my wife and kids until the day I die.:smile:
     
  16. Frankie

    Frankie 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  17. MabryPsyD

    MabryPsyD Dr. G. 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    152
    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.
     
  18. Zaphod

    Zaphod 10-Year Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    6
    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: Sep 30, 2014
  19. goaliedad

    goaliedad Parent 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    39
  20. MemberLG

    MemberLG 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    528
    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.