Was There Any Doubt About The Outcome? (TRADOC - Women in infantry. The myth of gender neutrality.)

Blackfive ^ | 5-19-2013 | Deebow

[SoCal Pubbie]

Is there a single active duty general or admiral protestng these changes, up to and including resigning their commissions?

[donna]

“From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey’s in 1993):

“The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter,
has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit.

She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done
in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657794/replies?c=39

4.8 inches shorter
31.7 pounds lighter
37.4 fewer pounds of muscle
5.7 more pounds of fat
55 percent of the upper-body strength
72 percent of the lower-body strength
twice as likely to suffer leg injuries
nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures

[oh8eleven]

Can’t wait for the first woman to hump the 81 mm mortar baseplate on a 15 mile hike.
I humped the Pendelton hills with a four-deuce mortar. Forty years later and I'm still sore.

[Little Bill]

On my first tour in VN I started at 6’2”, 165, I left at 6’2”, 130.

[hinckley buzzard]

Is there a single active duty general or admiral protestng these changes, up to and including resigning their commissions?

Why should they? Nothing to gain, a lot to lose. If a bunch of women break down under stress, no skin off their nose.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[3Fingas]

Possibly 1 or 2% of women could physically complete infantry training and a 4 your tour of duty in the infantry. About 504 of males could do the same. Of the few females that could complete infantry duty, half of them would probably sustain permanent physical injury. Of the males the number of injured would be considerably less. So, in practical terms the number of women who would be able to do such duties is so small that required accommodations to supply chain and social interaction rules could not be justified. Anyway you look at it, this is a very stupid policy change and is a poor usage of available resources.

[3Fingas]

correction.....About 504 males....should be About 50% of males....

[Mike Darancette]

What will be the response if women have a higher casualty rate.