Posted on 05/20/2013 11:42:03 AM PDT by servo1969
Well, it appears that TRADOC is now well into the process of attempting to destroy the greatest armed force that the world has ever known.
Training and Doctrine Command has launched “two major efforts in support of this full integration of women soldiers.” TRADOC has started a scientific review working with U.S. Army Medical Command, U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine and Army Research Institute to assist in the development of gender-neutral physical standards for all Areas of Concentration for commissioned officers and military occupational specialties for enlisted soldiers.
In addition, the “TRADOC Analysis Center is examining the institutional and cultural barriers related to integrating women soldiers into previously all-male specialties and units in order to develop strategies to overcome these barriers,”
I am curious how the armed forces, particularly the US Army (and by extension the US Marines) are going to "gender norm" the physical standards.
My argument is, the standards are already gender neutral...
First, let's have a look at the physical standards. Take a look at the one everyone is talking so much about. For those of you following along at home, that would be: 11A Infantry officer/11B Infantry.
Let's have a look at the physical requirements in summary. I know I have mentioned it here before, but let's look at the specifics. I got this from some academic reports on the Land Warrior System.
The physical requirement for the infantry do not differ from those for all Army personnel. The physical demands for infantry soldiers include the following:
occasionally raise and carry 160-pound persons on their back;
frequently perform all other tasks while carrying a minimum of 65 pounds, evenly distributed over entire body; for miles;
frequently walk, run, crawl, and climb over varying terrain for a distance of up to 25 miles (while carrying these loads)
frequently give oral commands in outside area at distances up to 50 meters;
able to hear oral commands in outside area at distances up to 50 meters;
occasionally climb a rope a distance of up to 30 feet;
frequently throw 1-pound object 40 meters;
- frequently visually identify vehicles, equipment, and individuals at long distances.
The physical profile also refers to functional capacity to perform as determined by medical personnel in six areas: physical capacity, upper extremities, lower extremities, hearing-ears, vision-eyes, and psychiatric. These areas are always presented in the same order. A score of 1 is normal and 4 is diminished performance. The required physical profile for an entry infantry soldier is translated as follows:
physical capacity (1)--good muscular development with ability to perform maximum effort for indefinite periods;
upper extremities (1)--no loss of digits or limitation of motion; no demonstrable abnormality; able to do hand-to-hand fighting;
lower extremities (1)--no loss of digits or limitation of motion; no demonstrable abnormality; be capable of performing long marches, standing very long periods;
hearing-ears (2)--audiometer average level of six readings (three per ear) at 500, 1000, 2000 Hz or not more than 30dB, with no individual level greater than 35dB at these frequencies and level not more than 55dB at 4000Hz; or audiometer level of 30dB at 500 Hz, 25dB at 1,000 and 2000 Hz, and 35dB at 4000 Hz in better ear (poorer ear may be deaf);
vision-eyes (2)--distant visual acuity correctable to 20/40-20/70, 20/30-20/100, 20/20-20/400;
psychiatric (1)--no psychiatric pathology; may have history of a transient personality disorder (well duh, you did pick the Infantry--ed).
As I said at the outset of this argument, the standards are normed already. There are already a large group of 18 to 24 year old males who already have the ability to "perform maximum effort for indefinite periods," the ability "to do hand-to-hand fighting," and are capable of performing "long marches" and there are some 18 to 24 year old females who are just as capable, but there are alot less who are capable of these standards. I know that I can take a group of those males and a group of those females from the general population (because that is who we recruit from) in that same group and get an 80 percent success rate on "occasionally raise and carry 160-pound persons on their back" from the men.
Anyone want to hazard a guess on what the success rate would be for that same group of women? Does anyone think it would even break into the double digits? What is going to be the injury rate, percentage wise? What do you think the rate of success is going to be if the men start lifting the women? How about if the women start lifting the men? More? Less?
So tell me Big Army, is the plan to have the female infantry soldiers only lift their battle buddy and carry them if they are smaller than them; only after stripping them of their 65 pounds of additional equipment? Start making plastic artillery shells? Insist that manufacturers of tanks and fighting vehicles make the component parts from plastic? Only fight wars in countries with temperate climates and low rolling hills? The base plates on mortars, Ma Deuce receivers, Mark 19 ammunition and machine gun barrels are not going to get lighter, so my guess is that Big Army's plan is to make soldiers lift them less, tote them half as far and involve twice as many soldiers to do it. Infantry squads will go from 9 to 15, gun crew size will double and it will take twice as long to get anything done that involves physical work.
No matter what part of the equation you look at here, the only part you can change is the part you can't change: The averages and genetics., because ON AVERAGE (which is where the Armed Forces recruits from) the average 5'4" 150 pound female can't run faster, punch harder, run farther or lift more than the average 5'10" 180 pound male. I don't need the the wizards of smart at U.S. Army Medical Command, U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine and Army Research Institute to crunch any numbers, study any cohorts, evaluate the kinestetics, or discuss this in a committee to know what is plainly obvious: Girls do not have a propensity for violent physical combat, nor do they possess the requisite muscle mass, bone density or aptitude for it. Call me a misogynist and a chauvinist; I don't care. The fact that I have to explain this tells me just how dumb the people who study this stuff have become.
The next, more sinister part of this will be how they address the institutional and cultural barriers related to integrating women soldiers into previously all-male specialties and units in order to develop strategies to overcome these barriers. Anyone want to walk down this path with me so we can wrap our minds around all the rules and regulations this is going to spawn? I can't wait to hear about the ongoing battle against sexual harrassment in the workplace in Infantry units (i.e. the battlefield) and how it affects readiness, or the massive sea change taking place in Infantry combat becoming more focused on efficiency and less focused on power and strength. If women can't as a group in units of type A+ personalities whose main mission is to violently end the intentions of our nations enemies deal with some dirty jokes and scat humor, FFS how the hell are they going to close with and destroy the nation's enemies? The combat arms better get ready for an epic ass-load of sensitivity training and diversity indoctrination.
None of our enemies have ever been killed with kindness; it generally takes a bullet, an artillery shell or an airstrike.
But more importantly, the institutional and cultural barriers related to integrating women soldiers into previously all-male specialties is about turning men, and I mean rough, violent, skirt chasing, beer drinking, march 25 miles with a 60 pound ruck and a 60mm baseplate with a bad hang over, put their foot up your ass if you can't meet the standard, wood-line attitude adjusting, stick a knife in you with extreme prejudice, hard men into something the Big Army thinks will make senators, Congresswomen and defense secretaries more apt to promote the officers that supervise these new age, kindler, gentler, happy warriors who are all too glad to have females in the combat arms.
Does anyone doubt that our misogynist enemies who think women belong in burkas and shouldn't be allowed to drive or see phallic vegetables in the market (yeah, a real news story) are not in the hospital right now being treated for the damage they have done to their insides from the epic belly laughs as they watch us weaken our armed forces in the name equality?
One of the maxims of battle is when your enemy is about to make a critical error, don't interfere. I know that if I watched my enemy get ready to start putting soldiers, who are by every measure that matters, weaker soldiers, into front line, meeting the enemy combat; I would relish the thought of meeting them in battle.
And now that the words are out there (gender norming), is there any doubt about what Big Army has in mind and the outcome of this little experiment? Or, I could be wrong, maybe Big Army will do all that studying and come to the logical conclusions I have listed repeatedly here.
Tell me when I can stop holding my breath....
Unless, of course, someone has decided that victory is no longer the goal.
Can’t wait for the first woman to hump the 81 mm mortar baseplate on a 15 mile hike. Should be interesting...
hilarity ensues...
The ‘ONE’ will simply ordain an executive order mandating that women are physically equal to men, thus warping the laws of the universe so that the rainbow-unicorn army can succeed!
I’d just like to see 100% of the women combat ready and not bowing out by getting preggers or claiming medical issues. Getting pregnant is the one thing women can do that men cannot.
These anti-American jackasses have already put homosexuals in the barracks, women in the foxholes, and umbrellas in the hands of our beloved marines (didn’t they look embarrassed?).
Too bad that they have so much contempt for America and what made us great. May this administration go straight to hell.
First gulf war, 30% were preggers at any given time and more than half never deployed for one reason or another.
I don’t understand why women can’t serve in combat. After all, when I got to the movies, all the Mila Jovich types can kick men’s a$$es$ at will. I’m sure ALL women could perform at that level if they really wanted to.
Life and death are not important to the left - “equality” is the only thing that matters.
Like little children they want attention and rewards and awards without doing what it takes to get them.
No hilarity...it ain’t funny!! Let’s compare this nonsense to actual history, but with “Modern” thinking. Men and woman are deem absolutely equal. Equal intellect, ethics, physical ability and endurance. Equality all the way.
IF a “Titanic” went down today, who would call “women and children first?” There would be a panicky push to the boats and who do you think would survive.
Seek out the factual story of the British vessel “Birkenhead”. Troop sailing ship carrying soldiers AND their families. Ship sank as the MEN lined up in formation and watched and their women and children rowed away.
Feminists call for total equality, not realizing they are rapidly eliminating any reason for chivalry, courtesy, special care for the FEMALE of the specie. Sometime the worst that can happen to you is to ACHIEVE your aims.
Consider the highway at night. You, a MAN, see an apparently disabled car, a FEMALE standing forlorn beside it. Is this legit or a trap come-on leading to a criminal charge that can’t be fought? Too many would be afraid to take the chance.
Sounds like homos wanting to change the definition of marriage so they can do it, too. They don't want to do what it takes to be married...like finding someone of the opposite sex to marry.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
not so fast, toad
some of these odd coules are going to claim full maternity leave by use of surrogates to breed babies, just wait
My friend JB stopped to help two girls; they said give us $50 or we’ll rip our blouses off and call the cops. I said let’em rip. He said how do I explain to my wife why I even stopped.
I was a USAF officer and had hell getting them to work their normal night shifts. I imagine getting them into combat is really hell.
Or break track on an M-1, or kneel in the back of a Bradley, using brute upper body strength to lift 70-pound TOW missiles and load them into the launcher. Do that repeatedly, all day long, for days on end. As a big, strong, 23-year old Cav Scout, it kicked my backside! The average woman couldn't do it.
Then, of course, are the hygiene requirements of females. I'm not sure about today, but back in the 80s and 90s, we often would spend 30-45-60 days in the field with maybe a single shower run, IF we were lucky. We'd bathe as well as we could, out in the open, out of our steel pot or a 5-gallon jerry can. What about that, TRADOC?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Yep, two homos will fight over who gets the “maternity” leave.
“I was a USAF officer and had hell getting them to work their normal night shifts”
I did a tour in a NORAD facility that of course was 24x7x365. The women bitched and moaned about their kids and not able to work shifts. Well, they did their shifts under direct threat of prosecution if they were late. That was 30 years ago. I was stupefied then that women who begged to be in the military wanted nothing to do with actually being in the military. I know it is far worse today. I can’t imagine being an office now and trying to get past all the PC crap and get the single women and men to get to work.
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.