Women in the Infantry

[C-grunt]

This topic has been brought up across the internet since the two chicks passd Ranger School. We have a lot of vets and grunts on here and was wondering what you guys thought?

I personally think the number of females that could actually perform the job well is pretty small. I don't see the process of wedding out the few that are capable, increasing our combat effectiveness.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

If they can pass all the same standards as the average male, who cares? Sure, they'll screw and get the mensies, but I've known some garbage ass infantrymen in my time that I wouldnt trust much if at all.

[C-grunt]

But my point is how many women are going to pass the minimum standards let alone exceeded them? In my unit the guys who routinely passed at the minimum got shitcanned to a support role real quick.

We already don't let a lot of men in because of medical conditions that have shown to have a higher percentage of failures. So if we don't let guys in because they have flat feet because of a higher chance of injury/failure, then why are women different? How is spending the time, effort, and money to find the few that can do it going to increase a units ability?

[Averageman]

But my point is how many women are going to pass the minimum standards let alone exceeded them? In my unit the guys who routinely passed at the minimum got shitcanned to a support role real quick.

We already don't let a lot of men in because of medical conditions that have shown to have a higher percentage of failures. So if we don't let guys in because they have flat feet because of a higher chance of injury/failure, then why are women different? How is spending the time, effort, and money to find the few that can do it going to increase a units ability?

You have a very valid point.
It's one thing to make it through a school, it has minimum standards and if you meet them, you move on. In a unit, the minimum doesn't cut it and those who's minimum is their maximum find themselves some niche in the Battalion where they wont get anyone hurt as they get placed a little further back from the point of the spear.
In the end though, what did it cost in dollars and cents to participate in a social experiment gone wrong? The cost of the school is one thing, but if their is permanent damage to someone physically, not just to the female mind you, but those around you carrying the slack, then what is it worth?
There has been some talk of putting females on Tanks over the years. Can they drive or gun the Tank, without a doubt, but when it comes to throwing a main gun round every three seconds for multiple engagements, or putting some track together, it's just not going to work.
Social experiments seem to take place in environments that are strictly limited to the school rules, the real life day in day out grind is not conducive to those who only meet the minimum.

[KalashniKEV]

I look at it in two ways:

OFFICERS: I know female officers who are technically and tactically proficient. I know female officers who are tough and fit. I also knew a lot of officers in the Infantry who were garbage, unfortunately. If a female officer desires to lead an Infantry unit and can do it better than Freddy O'Shitstain, then I say go for it. Ranger Griest was 2nd on the 12 mi RM, and the honor grad of Pre-Ranger right?

Maybe start them out in 3rd or 4th ID to see how they do...

;)

ENLISTED: This presents more problems. One-block the standards. Yes. At the height of sectarian violence in Iraq? No problem. In garrison, when things get stupid? Not sure. If Joe wants to get wasted and rape Josephine? Clip his nuts and throw him in a cage. Maybe just give him a bullet. This is not the problem. If Josephine has the hots for Joe because they both like The Smiths and then later falls for Jose, because he's a PT stud... who wants that drama?

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

I wonder how many of our MOH winners started as shitbird privates that at one point it didnt seem prudent to "waste the time" on? If they can do it, and succeed, how is that a waste of time?

[Digital_Damage]

What do I think? I think this could have been discussed in the other thread...

[Averageman]

What do I think? I think this could have been discussed in the other thread...

I can see your point, but to be honest in most "elite" units you're dealing with folks that are a cut above the norm. Your average booger eating moron isn't going to get within a grid square of one of the two new female Rangers.
When you are a bit farther from the flagpole a lot of stuff goes on peer pressure wise that is a bit "Unique" to say the least. You can be politically correct and call it assault in some cases, but it can also be a form of "jungle justice."

[Firefly]

Strong opinion/Trigger warning:

We can either win battles or we can be politically correct.
I don't think we can do both.

[Wake27]

Strong opinion/Trigger warning:

We can either win battles or we can be politically correct.
I don't think we can do both.

I'm really not sure how I feel about the whole thing, but I did love Gov Huckabee's response to the military question in the debate. I'll see if I can find it.

http://youtu.be/bccTLyQOHO8

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Todd00000]

But my point is how many women are going to pass the minimum standards let alone exceeded them? In my unit the guys who routinely passed at the minimum got shitcanned to a support role real quick.

We already don't let a lot of men in because of medical conditions that have shown to have a higher percentage of failures. So if we don't let guys in because they have flat feet because of a higher chance of injury/failure, then why are women different? How is spending the time, effort, and money to find the few that can do it going to increase a units ability?

It's not about combat effectiveness, it's all about politics. The Infantry is an extreme sport that breaks young men and sends them home, or if you stay in it 19 years like myself your are broken by then. LOL. Anyway these same politicians would never gender norm the Olympics because they know they would never see a woman on the podium. But they will reduce the combat effectiveness of the Infantry to buy some votes.

[Pilot1]

It's not about combat effectiveness, it's all about politics. The Infantry is an extreme sport that breaks young men and sends them home, or if you stay in it 19 years like myself your are broken by then. LOL. Anyway these same politicians would never gender norm the Olympics because they know they would never see a woman on the podium. But they will reduce the combat effectiveness of the Infantry to buy some votes.

^^^^^^This. Pure PC politics at work. I think the issues are actually more psychological than physical, although the physical part is very important also. The world is upside down in a lot of ways, this is just another example.

[ABNAK]

There is no first-rate military in the world that has women in active duty, frontline infantry units (not talking support positions, but 11B or 0311 type MOS's). Please don't mention the IDF because those women are NOT in the active duty, frontline infantry units as trigger-pullers.

There must be a reason for this, yet our PC libtards are bound and determined to socially experiment until they get their way, combat effectiveness be damned.

[SeriousStudent]

What do I think? I think this could have been discussed in the other thread...

Winner, winner, chicken dinner:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?172712-Well-two-women-to-graduate-Ranger-School