Posted on 02/06/2013 5:41:08 AM PST by NKP_Vet
A senior Defense Department official said the ban on women in combat should be lifted because the military's goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field." I'd like to think the goal of the military should be to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. But let's look at "gender-neutral playing field."
The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age, the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 situps and a 19:42 two-mile run. Why the difference in fitness requirements? "USMC Women in the Service Restrictions Review" found that women, on average, have 20 percent lower aerobic power, 40 percent lower muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting strength and 26 percent slower marching speed than men. William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army's Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers' Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The "fight load" -- the gear an infantryman carries on patrol -- is 35 percent of the average man's body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman's weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men's average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run"
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
"This takes it one step further. Now Democrat men just want to send the women out to die.
If this reduces the stock of available sows for them to copulate with, that's ok, they will just go for the boars".
2.9 percent
About what I would of guessed.
Only 2.9% of women are freakishly strong enough to match up with the weakest of men.
I think before they start lowering the standards to allow more women into the armed forces, they should first start lowering them for the secret service.
Ask them if they are OK with Gay men preying on young boys in the boy scouts as Obama wishes?
Obama and his Liberal/Progressives are corrupting America at a break neck speed.
“This takes it one step further. Now Democrat men just want to send the women out to die.
In case you missed it the past 10 years, military women have been dying in hostile action zones. You can disagree on if women should be there or not just don’t neglect to realize that they already are.........
Yes, but the numbers will increase by a high percentage.
Iraq(female deaths) 2.5%
Afghanistan (female deaths) 2%
A battlefield is not a “gender-neutral playing field”. It is a place to kill people and break things. Now, if your goals were to make sure the U.S. would never win another battle and to ensure that the last vestige of civilization vanishes within U.S. borders, then the decision makes perfect sense.
Demthink:
Women in infantry is only “fair!”. After all, we will never have a female Joint Chief if the glass ceiling starts at the Private level. /sarc
But don’t let boys play football. That’s too dangerous.
“You can disagree on if women should be there or not just don’t neglect to realize that they already are.........”
They are not in infantry units and they are not in Special Forces. The ones that are there are in support roles. The ones that are flying any type of aircraft in direct combat have been put there in DIRECT VIOLATION of stated Congressional law.
If I had my druthers there would be no women at all in the military. I am a retired Air Force senior NCO and in all my years of active service never saw one job that woman could do better than a man. Fighting wars is a man’s responsibility. We have enough men to go off and do the fighting for this country, without sending women to die because feminist and politically-correct chickenhawk democrats want to see them die alongside men. It’s all BS. A nation that sends it’s women to fight it’s wars ain’t worth defending. The Kenyan King is destroying this country from within, starting with the mission effectiveness of the US military. He wants to see us relegated to a third world country.
“You can disagree on if women should be there or not just don’t neglect to realize that they already are.........”
They are not in infantry units and they are not in Special Forces. The ones that are there are in support roles. The ones that are flying any type of aircraft in direct combat have been put there in DIRECT VIOLATION of stated Congressional law.
If I had my druthers there would be no women at all in the military. I am a retired Air Force senior NCO and in all my years of active service never saw one job that woman could do better than a man. Fighting wars is a man’s responsibility. We have enough men to go off and do the fighting for this country, without sending women to die because feminist and politically-correct chickenhawk democrats want to see them die alongside men. It’s all BS. A nation that sends it’s women to fight it’s wars ain’t worth defending. The Kenyan King is destroying this country from within, starting with the mission effectiveness of the US military. He wants to see us relegated to a third world country.
This notion of placing woman is just so easy to refute. Many of you may have heard of a little dustup called World War II. At the peak of United States involvement in that war there were 16 ½ million personnel in uniform, many of them women. We also had over 400,000 personnel killed in the line of duty, against the toughest battlefield enemies this country has ever had to face, ones that were capable of and often did inflict shattering BATTLEFIELD defeats upon our sea, land and air forces. Despite this no one saw any need to place women into combat roles that had the responsibility to directly close with, engage, and destroy the enemy..
Today with a much smaller and almost hand picked elite Armed Forces, and a population base that is more than twice as large as that during World War II, there is even less need for it now than then.
This entire idiocy is being propelled by the demand for selfish feminists to qualify for chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nothing more and nothing less than that.
This has absolutely nothing to do with enhancing the ability of the Armed Forces to fight, rather it will weaken it if for no other reason than the logistics strain that it will place on the Armed Forces for separate housing and the like.
The effort required to obtain a relative few qualified women will not result in anything remotely resembling any accepted model of effeciency, but since that is NOT the object any way, why worry about that? This is merely another sop to the perverted Cultural Marxist notion of fairness and equality and another step on the road of “fundamental transformation” of the vital institutions of this nation.
“to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field.”
I guess the American Supreme Soviet must think that war is a “playing field.” How sad for the young women who will be turned into cannon fodder.
Bravo!!!
Indeed! For a number of reasons, but Dr. Williams gives hard numbers illustrating two that can be critical in combat: physical strength and speed.
The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age, the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 situps and a 19:42 two-mile run. Why the difference in fitness requirements? “USMC Women in the Service Restrictions Review” found that women, on average, have 20 percent lower aerobic power, 40 percent lower muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting strength and 26 percent slower marching speed than men.SECURE AMERICA, it's not about the chance of being killed or wounded. It's about what they can do. IIRC, those who join ROTC are usually given two or four year scholarships. Those female officers probably had two years advance notice, yet "only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men’s average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run." I think that explains why I don't remember ever seeing any female furniture movers.William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army’s Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers’ Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The “fight load” — the gear an infantryman carries on patrol — is 35 percent of the average man’s body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman’s weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men’s average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run.
In a January report titled “Defense Department ‘Diversity’ Push for Women in Land Combat” Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, points to U.S. Army studies showing that women are twice as likely to suffer injuries and are three times more undeployable than men. Women are less likely to be able to march under load — 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load — and to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles with that load or move a casualty weighing 165 pounds or more while carrying that load. Plus, there are muscle-challenging feats, even for men, such as field repairs on an M1A1 Abrams tank.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has pretty much admitted that the standards will be lowered, despite Panetta lying and saying they wouldn’t be.
I see nothing wrong with neglecting what is irrelevant to the debate. All manner of human being has been killed in hostile action zones including children, murderers, pedophiles, transvestites,and homosexual sex practitioners to name a few. In fact, children have been killed in hostile action zones -should for instance children be placed in service of our combat efforts too?
In case YOU missed it, what it comes down to is that this irrelevant argument is mainly employed by delusional utopian leftists promoting the leftist 'equality' agenda.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has shown by actions that at best he is a spineless kiss ass and at worst a leftist himself. Regardless his treasonous activities he too will suffer at the hands of his leftist master -I am sure he will be replaced eventually by an affirmative action female transsexual bull dyke that will further decimate the US military 0that is the leftist plan.
What is the fuss here? Israel has had frontline women soldiers in the IDF for years.
“What is the fuss here? Israel has had frontline women soldiers in the IDF for years”
Do the research. Israel tried it and it didn’t work. No women are in front line combat roles now.
http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.