Skip to comments.Army leaders vow 'gender-neutral' standards for women in combat
Posted on 01/29/2013 7:38:09 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
As military officials formulate plans to open combat positions to women, the Commander of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command is vowing any changes in job requirements will be handled fairly.
"Soldiers - both men and women - want fair and meaningful standards" Gen. Robert W. Cone said. "I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army."
Last week, Secretary of State Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced the end of the 1994 policy that prohibited women from serving in combat positions below a brigade level. At that time, Panetta said each branch of the military will examine requirements for positions and provide information by May 16 if they feel some jobs should remain off limits to women. Full implementation is due by 2016.
The vast majority of the newly opened positions will be in the Army. As of September, 418 of the Army's 438 military occupational specialties, known as MOSs, were open to women. The remaining positions are now being examined to determine if they will be opened.
Cone said the Army will be "looking at knowledge, skills and attributes of soldiers and get the best match in specialties (now restricted) like infantry, armor, field artillery and engineers."
One of the main areas of examination will be physical requirements.
"Soldiers don't want to see (that) degraded," Cone said.
Cone said each requirements for each position will be examined, such as information on how much infantry soldiers are required to lift and carry and for how long. Once that information is complete, Cone said scientists will develop physical tests to validate those requirements.
He added that TRADOC is also examining armies in countries such as Iraq and Canada, where women already serve in combat roles.
In comments made shortly after the change was announced, Dempsey echoed Cone's statements about fairness and training.
"Some fear that this decision will lower standards in our military. That is simply not the case. The services will carefully examine current standards to ensure we have them right, taking into consideration lessons learned from a decade of war and changes in equipment, tactics and technology. We will study each closed occupational field or unit to determine where women are able to serve," he said.
"Let me be clear: The standards will be gender-neutral -- the same for men and women. The burden of proof used to be 'why should a woman serve in a particular specialty?'" Dempsey added. "Now, it's 'why shouldn't a woman serve in a particular specialty?'"
Something you’re never going to hear in an Army squad in 2013:
“Jenny, you’re hauling the SAW today. Barb, you’ve got the M-2.”
Cone said scientists will develop physical tests to validate those requirements.
This is all good and dandy, until the first female POW is taken by any enemy. I hate to say it, but it will be horrible what the scum does. And mostly because of the stupid rules of engagement that liberals and rinos impose of the military.
THAT is the true test of "fairness"
Beware when liberals start using the word "fair"!
As a start, the term "Infantryman" will no longer be used. The new term will be "Infantroid."
I can imagine all of these folks clamoring to be sent into the maelstrom of fire and death chanting: “Send me! Send me!!” Nope, not a chance. It would be: “Anyone but me! Anyone but me!! I'm too young and beautiful to die.”
Off topic but in the Middle East they do not have urinals. Men have to squat to pee or have a really good aim.
You don't have to tell me. I took Basic Training at Ft Dix in 1979. My platoon had females in it and the DIs told us that we were the first "mixed" cycle. Though I wouldn't know if the standards were lowered for them at the time.
Having ‘really good aim’ is a quality I would expect to find in soldiers.
This stupid change of policy might just effectively end women in the Army and Marine Corps. To have gender neutral standards, the General probably means physical fitness standards for woman volunteering for infantry duty; however, if they actually do this, how can they still have different standards for women and men in non-infantry fields? They can’t. Many women will not join under these changes and many more women will be physically broken. Only a small fraction of currently serving women would be able to meet minimum male pt standards. Only a handful could make it through infantry training or last very long in that job if they do make it through training.
Really, that bites.
Really, that bites.
Based on what my Army buddies have told me, everyone is infantry. Your tank is diabled, infantry. Helicopter down, infantry. I would think that you would still have to have some type of skill to make it back to your own lines.
Based on that theory the standards are already dumbed down. Didn’t the convoy with that Jessica gal get lost and then cut off?
And the reason we are speaking gibberish and acting like fools is.....?????
That is certainly true in a combat zone. In Iraq and Afghanistan, being in motor transport, supposedly a non-combatant mos, was one of the more dangerous activities to be involved in. IEDs and ambushes of convoys are very common and woman have been in harm’s way. I don’t believe woman should be put in this position and I certainly don’t think women should be in the combat arms. There are certainly a handful of women of could do the job, but for a whole laundry list of reasons not related to the physical demands of the job, it would be very stupid to make this policy change. The idea is so dumb it barely warrants any discussion. The people in charge are criminally stupid, IMHO.
I read an article (I don’t think it was here but maybe?) in which Dempsey was quoted as saying something like “If women can’t pass the standards then the standards may be too high”.
So maybe they’ll just lower all the standards.
After all, the goal is to destroy the military.
Nope. He's completely serious. Welcome to 21st Century Army leadership.
All Army Basic Trainees throw 2 grenades, men and women. Let's try to do this better, please.
This is what CMR had to say.
Really, I think that was their goal. Infiltrate and subvert. Destroy from within. When I was a kid, these leftists were the same people that spat on my father when he returned from Vietnam (Boy, that was the wrong move for sure with him!). Anyhow, now they pretend to love the military. They are full of it. They may have even convinced themselves that they have only good intentions. It’s just self-delusion on their part. The enmity is still there and now they have the power to destroy our country’s institutions. They are doing so even if they are not aware of it.
Yep. Bears repeating in words, 'cause empires have done it often enough.
Remember he and his handlers are masters at sowing the seeds of destruction. In true Communist style, he billed himself as a "unifier", just as he said his administration would be the most "transparent". He isn't, it isn't--quite the opposite.
Well, I think we can see through the latest attempt to destroy the nation, just as we can see he is an enemy of the Republic. That he was able to bamboozle so many into believing he was re-elected (Come on, Romney was not the candidate to inspire, but Obama was--one to inspire people to vote against him--do you believe Republican voter turnout was THAT low?) was bad enough, but to think that there are not those in the flag ranks who can see what is being done to their country is insane.
I think Obama is trying to smoke out the opposition to eliminate them before he tries his anti-Constitutional dictatorial coup. If he can eliminate the oath-keepers from the higher ranks, he might be able to pull it off. If he can't convert or at least neuter the military, he doesn't have a chance.
I have always found that Khaldun expresses the rise and fall of a people best:
“A victorious people settles down after victory to enjoy its new conquest, whether new lands they have expanded into, or a new regime that has taken over the existing land.
“They grow in complexity of social relations and authority is concentrated and institutionalized to maintain order.
“With order comes growth in wealth and education. Science, philosophy and arts grow. Cities grow as rural life diminishes. Urbanization and widespread comfort mark the beginnings of decay.
“The enriched society comes to love pleasure, luxury, and ease, over work, risk, and martial strength. Religion weakens, morals become confused and deteriorates, pederasty and homosexualaity and other abnormal practices grow. Foreigners are brought in and used for the work. These lack natural patriotism to assist and defend the ideals of the society that are now nebulous and weakened.
“The troubled society invites conquest, whether from without, or by revolution or intrigue from within. The cycle begins again at phase one.”
Tell me that’s not us.
Yes sir I threw my two at Ft. Dix in 1967. Threw them and took cover behind the grenade pit wall after throwing each one. You can throw them and survive on the grenade range even if the throw is short. My question is how far can an average female soldier throw the grenade. Only place I’ve seen a grenade pit is on a grenade range. A short throw with out that protection can be fatal.
As far as the snake eating I would suggest making a chili and simmering it for a while.I’ve got a good one that works well for venison, pork or beef. Probably would work for snake. Will send it if you want it.
All kidding aside Thank you for your service and the deployments you were sent on. Best wishes on your career and stay safe.
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.