Women in the mil (study)

[Averageman]

So, looking at the expense to train, the greater probability of injury and the lesser efficiency, just what is the added expense for female grunts?
You know at some point, you're going to have to Dollar value on political correctness.
Bang for the buck?

[SteyrAUG]

I'm actually a bit surprised by the "less accurate" finding. It's one of the few areas where physical strength isn't the primary factor and females in general terms are more receptive to correct instruction than many of their male counterparts who believe they were born knowing how to fire a weapon. I would have thought this would be one area where everyone is "about equal."

I'm still in favor of volunteer females being able to qualify for any area of military service where they can satisfy identical performance standards. If somebody wants to serve, if they are willing to put their own life on the line, anyone who qualifies should be permitted.

But if you cannot carry the fire hose, you aren't much good at a fire and you need to stay out of the way of those persons who can carry the fire hose. That includes quite a few males who cannot satisfy performance standards so that is what genuine "equality" looks like.

That is just one of many reasons why I'm not a Delta operator. Because if just anyone was allowed to do it, and if they came up with special standards for guys who can't carry a lot of stuff for a long time, it sounds like it would be a lot of fun to shoot Bin Laden in the face and stuff like that. So if arduous qualifications such as basic Q, keep me from being a Delta dude, then the ladies who can't meet basic 0311 qualifications need to accept it as well.

I admire all that try, but nobody who satisfies the minimum requirements should have to suffer the liability of somebody who could not. If a bunch of women Marines got killed because they were in a platoon full of Paul Reuben's there would be no end to the outcry that followed.

[OH58D]

I'll add my 2 cents to this business of women in the military, but from an Army perspective. Most of the tough women I encountered were Bull Dyke Lesbians; tough as nails some of them. I remember one Black gal who was with an artillery unit out of Fort Bliss and she was a "Fister". Tough little bitch about 5 foot 5 and could have been an asset in a firefight.

In fact a lot of the females going into the Army these days are taking advantage of the new rules and are open about their sexual orientation. Some I've seen are squared away and depending on the MOS could be an excellent part of a combat unit. These "persons" like to flaunt exceeding the males during the APFT, including qualifying with male standards. My son at West Point told me he suspects about 40% of the females during his Plebe year were Lesbians.

During my Aviation Career, we had some excellent female pilots; some straight, some lesbian. Nobody cared.

[26 Inf]

The second, I fear, would reduce the overall pool of men as well and we might not be able to field enough fighters at all. There is also the problem of bureaucratic overhead. Who is going to devise all of those requirements? Who is going to enforce them?

You should read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Women-Militar.../dp/0895263769

If you read it you will find the DOD knew the all volunteer Army was going to need more females in more roles to make it work. In preparation for that. they (DOD) were working with DOL to develop work related physical standards for various jobs in the services. The idea was, that with the exception of Combat Arms, these jobs would be open to both male and female soldiers who met the standard.

The book explains how things were moving along until the Women's Congressional Caucus interfered.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Kind of off topic but...

Will, I know you get to meet and converse with a lot of Team guys due to your volunteer work. If you ever get the chance, ask the Task Force Blue guys who hunted war criminals in Bosnia where they acquired the female personnel they utilized in ops. I always assumed they came from the IC.

[Voodoo_Man]

At what cost? I believe the number would be very small, and fewer still would be ok with the utter lack of privacy in the infantry.

Oh, also waiting for the pink hats to protest not being registered for selective service.

So what if it's small?

This is America. We are free to follow whatever path we may choose. If a woman wants to be infantry and can pass all the requirements, not injury or preg out and have the same appetite for it than her male counterparts there should be no obstacles other than the standard requirements. Equality of opportunity. That's all.

[flenna]

If you would like an interesting read get "American Knight: The life of Colonel John Ripley", available on Kindle Unlimited. The book itself is a biography of a real hero, but in the back is the Colonel's address to Congress on the topic of women in frontline combat units. The Colonel makes very convincing arguments on the moral and physical aspects of why women should not be in combat units.

[Averageman]

So what if it's small?

This is America. We are free to follow whatever path we may choose. If a woman wants to be infantry and can pass all the requirements, not injury or preg out and have the same appetite for it than her male counterparts there should be no obstacles other than the standard requirements. Equality of opportunity. That's all.

You are free to follow whatever path you choose, but...
Are we changing the standards to fit you?
How committed are you to achieving this goal?
Are you doing this on your dime?
My point is, if you hold something, such as being an Infantryman, in such high regard, then you not only respect the title, but you respect everything to include the standards it takes to achieve it.

I'm guessing if we need to change that PT standards, have different body fat standards and then we allow different performance expectations, we will get them and not in a good way for anyone involved.

Overall, we are seeing physical conditioning in the average applicant fall and at the same time we are opening new traditionally male jobs for women. So, before you can prove that you are physically able to perform the job, you sit down with a Career Counselor at MEPPS and choose an MOS, as is the case in the Army.
Perhaps the better way to go about this would be to have your MOS awarded based upon the same original factors plus a physical fitness score you achieve in Basic Training? A generic standard Basic Training that is tough and physically and mentally equal for all and that way we are not using a bigger hammer to fit square pegs in to round holes.
If you want to have a specific MOS such as Infantry, then you begin earning it from day 1 based upon a number of factors to include your physical ability to perform the standard regardless of your sex.
It seems fair for everyone involved, or at least as fair as possible.

[Voodoo_Man]

You are free to follow whatever path you choose, but...
Are we changing the standards to fit you?
How committed are you to achieving this goal?
Are you doing this on your dime?
My point is, if you hold something, such as being an Infantryman, in such high regard, then you not only respect the title, but you respect everything to include the standards it takes to achieve it.

I'm guessing if we need to change that PT standards, have different body fat standards and then we allow different performance expectations, we will get them and not in a good way for anyone involved.

Overall, we are seeing physical conditioning in the average applicant fall and at the same time we are opening new traditionally male jobs for women. So, before you can prove that you are physically able to perform the job, you sit down with a Career Counselor at MEPPS and choose an MOS, as is the case in the Army.
Perhaps the better way to go about this would be to have your MOS awarded based upon the same original factors plus a physical fitness score you achieve in Basic Training? A generic standard Basic Training that is tough and physically and mentally equal for all and that way we are not using a bigger hammer to fit square pegs in to round holes.
If you want to have a specific MOS such as Infantry, then you begin earning it from day 1 based upon a number of factors to include your physical ability to perform the standard regardless of your sex.
It seems fair for everyone involved, or at least as fair as possible.

I'm not advocating changing anything unless it absolutely requires it due to a data proven need to produce the best possible soldiers, in this case, for infantry.

It's simple really, there is a standard now that's been acceptable in producing a decent infantry soldier. If females can pass it, awesome, welcome aboard. If they can maintain it and not dq or fail out on a medical or whatever, great congrats for staying on.

Equality of opportunity. That's all. It's America.

As I stated above, this will yeild smaller numbers but those females who get there will have earned it, just everyone else with the same standards.

[Averageman]

I'm not advocating changing anything unless it absolutely requires it due to a data proven need to produce the best possible soldiers, in this case, for infantry.

It's simple really, there is a standard now that's been acceptable in producing a decent infantry soldier. If females can pass it, awesome, welcome aboard. If they can maintain it and not dq or fail out on a medical or whatever, great congrats for staying on.

Equality of opportunity. That's all. It's America.

As I stated above, this will yeild smaller numbers but those females who get there will have earned it, just everyone else with the same standards.

I think I am going to default back to physical conditioning being part of the MOS determination after the completion of basic training.
Qualify to enter, physical condition pre basic training being the baseline, a second physical after basic and before Advanced Individual Training being the predictor. This way everyone gets the job they can physically do rather than a bar that is too high to be achieved.
Throwing money away to promote a failed Social Justice experiment that 99% aren't going to achieve doesn't make sense.

Nothing you don't earn is valued.