Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A military advisory panel appears poised to recommend allowing female troops to serve in combat units without any restrictions, calling the current prohibition an out-of-date idea that unnecessarily discriminates against women.
This comes up every few years, and dies down just as quickly. This will probably do the same, especially with a Republican congress. Considering DADT barely squeezed by, and it had the full backing of the gay community – I don’t see a lot of feminist groups taking this up as a cause – I don’t think this will go much further anytime soon.
I had no problem with gay men in the military. I've got a few guys in my platoon who I think might be - either that, or they're just really bad at picking up dates. But while it will be a little weird for us, I think we'll handle it fine.
I can’t say the same about women in combat units. I’m sorry – I’ve served with women and most of them have been excellent soldiers. But the Infantry – where I am, 4th BCT 2nd ID – is the last place in the military where political correctness hasn’t taken root. Where a GI can relax in the barracks, smoke a cigarette, and tell some stories without worrying if he’ll offend sensibilities.
And believe it or not, yes, that makes a difference. In a combat unit, you have to feel 100% comfortable with your squadmates. I just can't imagine being that okay with a woman in my squad.
Also, it really upsets me how much easier the physical standards are for women. Even now, when they’re not in combat units – for example, to pass the APFT, I need to do about 40 pushups. A woman needs to do 17. I need to run 2 miles in about 16:30. A woman gets 20:00. It upsets me that they get it easier.
I don’t want to sound misogynistic or overreactive about this. I don’t think this will happen any time soon – at least, not in the few years I’ve got left on my hitch. And I hope I didn’t offend anyone – that was not my intent.
I'm a female and served in the Marine Corps. I also disagree with women in combat units. Until they get rid of gender norming and women have to perform the same physically as men, they should not be allowed to serve in combat units.
Where a GI can relax in the barracks, smoke a cigarette, and tell some stories without worrying if he’ll offend sensibilities.
And believe it or not, yes, that makes a difference. In a combat unit, you have to feel 100% comfortable with your squadmates. I just can't imagine being that okay with a woman in my squad.
Also, it really upsets me how much easier the physical standards are for women. Even now, when they’re not in combat units – for example, to pass the APFT, I need to do about 40 pushups. A woman needs to do 17. I need to run 2 miles in about 16:30. A woman gets 20:00. It upsets me that they get it easier.
For the first paragraph, I really hope that doesn't end up being the case for our next deployment. Because as it stands, there are a very small number of females being attached to combat arms units (including all the infantry, cavalry, artillery, and armor) to be Female Engagement Teams for our upcoming deployment and they'll be with their unit at small outposts over there. We're talking only 2-6 females among all the guys in that unit. I know all the females assigned so far were briefed by the CSM as well as their PSGs to have a thick skin and told if they don't think they can handle the way the guys talk and act around each other, to turn down becoming a part of the female engagement team. They were very big on saying they don't want the females to feel uncomfortable but they don't want the males to feel that way either and they don't want them to feel like they need to censor themselves. I mean there is some limit in that if they want to talk about girls and such, that's fine, but they can't start talking that way to and about the specific females assigned to them. So far things seem to be running smoothly as we train for deployment and the guys have started to get used to the females being around and they've realized they can behave normally.
As for the physical standards, I agree. They are ridiculously easy for females compared to males. But that's not really the females fault, it's whoever had the ultimate say in what those standards were going to be. They're talking about developing a new pt test without differences in gender that has activities to do that are more relevant to combat. I guess all I can say to that is until this does change, keep in mind that there are plenty of females who don't like the differences either and who strive to pass their pt test by the male standards. So even though it technically equals a higher score, it's not about that and is really the only thing females can do to go against that at this point and show that they are willing to do the male standards.
For the first paragraph, I really hope that doesn't end up being the case for our next deployment. Because as it stands, there are a very small number of females being attached to combat arms units (including all the infantry, cavalry, artillery, and armor) to be Female Engagement Teams for our upcoming deployment and they'll be with their unit at small outposts over there. We're talking only 2-6 females among all the guys in that unit. I know all the females assigned so far were briefed by the CSM as well as their PSGs to have a thick skin and told if they don't think they can handle the way the guys talk and act around each other, to turn down becoming a part of the female engagement team. They were very big on saying they don't want the females to feel uncomfortable but they don't want the males to feel that way either and they don't want them to feel like they need to censor themselves. I mean there is some limit in that if they want to talk about girls and such, that's fine, but they can't start talking that way to and about the specific females assigned to them. So far things seem to be running smoothly as we train for deployment and the guys have started to get used to the females being around and they've realized they can behave normally.
As for the physical standards, I agree. They are ridiculously easy for females compared to males. But that's not really the females fault, it's whoever had the ultimate say in what those standards were going to be. They're talking about developing a new pt test without differences in gender that has activities to do that are more relevant to combat. I guess all I can say to that is until this does change, keep in mind that there are plenty of females who don't like the differences either and who strive to pass their pt test by the male standards. So even though it technically equals a higher score, it's not about that and is really the only thing females can do to go against that at this point and show that they are willing to do the male standards.
Most of the female Marines that I knew could easily pass the same PT standards as the men. But there's always that one. Therein lies my concerns. I worry that, with gender norming, we'll have women that are physically incapable of a combat position being placed in those positions. As a result, her unit will have to compensate for her, which is not ideal, to say the least.
By the way, that doesn't mean a female won't be in harm's way. Just means that there are certain MOS's that are off limits right now.
Most of the female Marines that I knew could easily pass the same PT standards as the men. But there's always that one. Therein lies my concerns. I worry that, with gender norming, we'll have women that are physically incapable of a combat position being placed in those positions. As a result, her unit will have to compensate for her, which is not ideal, to say the least.
By the way, that doesn't mean a female won't be in harm's way. Just means that there are certain MOS's that are off limits right now.
No I agree with you. That's why I don't think any female should get that position until proving she can handle the work without any of the standards lowering. There are males who sign up for combat arms jobs who can't handle it either and when that happens, they usually get reclassed. Same should be true for any females trying to get in.
I don't want to change to subject here, but I feel like you guys are missing the boat on physical fitness. Physical fitness standards are set to ensure we are healthy, we are in shape, and that we are not going to be getting sicknesses and diseases related to a sedentary lifestyle.
Being able to do 17 push ups (female minimum) or 40 (males) is not about the number of push-ups you can do. Being able to do 40 push-ups won't make you better suited for combat than 17 push-ups. It is a measure of health.
A male who can bench press 200lbs for example, is strong, a woman who can bench press 200lbs is a freak on steroids with no body fat who probably doesn't even have a menstrual cycle anymore and is damaging her body.
A male with 15% body fat is in shape and healthy, a woman with 15% body fat is going to have a myriad of health problems and is extremely unhealthy and can be pushing organ damage from starvation.
Who can do more push-ups is not the issue. The issue is if people are in shape and healthy, and what is health for a man is NOT healthy for a woman.
I do believe that when something is important for COMBAT that it should be the same. For example, if a combat troop needs to carry a 50lb ruck-sack for a 10 mile hike, a woman shouldn't get to carry it less, or a lighter load. For COMBAT essential things, like AF Pararescue have to swim 500 meters in 11:30 minutes... if a female wants to do it should should have to swim just as fast. Those are NOT measures of health... those are measure of combat readiness.
This comes up every few years, and dies down just as quickly. This will probably do the same, especially with a Republican congress. Considering DADT barely squeezed by, and it had the full backing of the gay community – I don’t see a lot of feminist groups taking this up as a cause – I don’t think this will go much further anytime soon.
I had no problem with gay men in the military. I've got a few guys in my platoon who I think might be - either that, or they're just really bad at picking up dates. But while it will be a little weird for us, I think we'll handle it fine.
I can’t say the same about women in combat units. I’m sorry – I’ve served with women and most of them have been excellent soldiers. But the Infantry – where I am, 4th BCT 2nd ID – is the last place in the military where political correctness hasn’t taken root. Where a GI can relax in the barracks, smoke a cigarette, and tell some stories without worrying if he’ll offend sensibilities.
And believe it or not, yes, that makes a difference. In a combat unit, you have to feel 100% comfortable with your squadmates. I just can't imagine being that okay with a woman in my squad.
Also, it really upsets me how much easier the physical standards are for women. Even now, when they’re not in combat units – for example, to pass the APFT, I need to do about 40 pushups. A woman needs to do 17. I need to run 2 miles in about 16:30. A woman gets 20:00. It upsets me that they get it easier.
I don’t want to sound misogynistic or overreactive about this. I don’t think this will happen any time soon – at least, not in the few years I’ve got left on my hitch. And I hope I didn’t offend anyone – that was not my intent.
Just out of curiosity- does it irk you that a 50 year old has different fitness standards than an 18 year old? That they get it easier? Or is that OK because you realize a 50 year old body has different thresholds?
My husband is a Cav Scout and he doesn't like the idea of females being scouts or in any combat units, I on the other hand don't see the big deal with allowing women to serve in combat units.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
