Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army leaders vow 'gender-neutral' standards for women in combat
al.com ^ | January 29, 2013 | Leada Gore

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?'"


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: stupid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

1 posted on 01/29/2013 7:38:16 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Yea, right.


2 posted on 01/29/2013 7:39:24 PM PST by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

“”I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army.””

Is this a joke?


3 posted on 01/29/2013 7:39:35 PM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh (I cling to guns and religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

General idiot here is just angling for a another star.


4 posted on 01/29/2013 7:41:19 PM PST by max americana (Make the world a better place by punching a liberal in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Should be, but isn’t.

WRT “...such as Iraq and Canada, where women already serve in combat roles.” What was the last time Canadian’s were in combat and how many of their women were involved in sustained, direct ground combat? As far as the Iraqi army, well, we know how their last two major theater wars turned out. Maybe this is designed to give them a “fair” shot.


5 posted on 01/29/2013 7:43:53 PM PST by redlegplanner ( No Representation without Taxation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

How about you dimwitted generals worry about combat effectiveness. This is not it.


6 posted on 01/29/2013 7:44:34 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Women soldiers used in front-line offensive combat operations just don’t cut it.


7 posted on 01/29/2013 7:48:07 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"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.

Right. In other words they will determine that the current standards are no longer necessary and they will lower them so that women will be able to qualify. Hence, making them the same for men and women.

8 posted on 01/29/2013 7:50:10 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (Bathhouse Barry wants YOU to bend over for another four years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Which will decrease the margin of safety resulting in unnecessary loses that gets friendly combatants killed.


9 posted on 01/29/2013 7:53:33 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army."

Translation: Standards will be lowered across the board so that everyone feels better about themselves. Whether or not America will ever again win a war is irrelevant, as long as nobody's feelings are hurt.

Is this guy actually a career soldier? Did he draw the short straw in the Marxist Club in college and have to infiltrate the military to further their goals?

10 posted on 01/29/2013 7:54:42 PM PST by Washi (PUSH BACK! Encourage your legislators to introduce pro-second amendment legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

PREZACTLY!!!!!!!


11 posted on 01/29/2013 7:55:07 PM PST by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Great vid by ShorelineMike! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZjJk6nbD4&feature=plcp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

The nail has been struck squarely on the head.


12 posted on 01/29/2013 7:55:22 PM PST by animal172 (The weak and uninformed will inherit the Earth.......and they have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I sure hope our enemies on the battlefield are kind enough to comply with these rules.

13 posted on 01/29/2013 7:55:59 PM PST by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Does that mean that the women entering the infantry will have to meet the same minimums on the PT test as the men?

The minimum passing score in the Army in each category (pushups, situps, and the 2-mile run) is 60 points.

For a 20-year-old male, that’s 42 pushups. For a female, it’s 19.

The more common minimum acceptable score for infantry units is 70 points, with a strong push for 80 points. Which are 49 and 57 pushups, respectively.

There certainly are some women who can meet these standards, though not many. Will the women entering the infantry be held to the same standards as the men? Or will they be held to the lower, gender-specific standards?

In the case of an electronics tech, the gender-specific standards make some sense. In terms of general health and conditioning, the male and female standards represent roughly equivalent levels.

But when you’re dragging a wounded buddy out of an alley after an ambush, he doesn’t get lighter just because you’re a woman. In the infantry, objective, rather than relative, measures of performance are appropriate.


14 posted on 01/29/2013 7:56:38 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army."

Ugh. Where is fairness suppose to fit into an organization in which the main function is to kill or die in order to protect the nation. With men like this running our military it's not really our military anymore is it? I mean these guys are paid to protect our way of life not transform it into somekind of Communist ideal. And the destruction of the natural differences between men and women and all peoples really is at the core of Communism, which itself is just a means to a end.

15 posted on 01/29/2013 7:56:42 PM PST by Count of Monte Fisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
So, with a stroke of the pen, we will overcome thousands of years of hardwired social/cultural/genetic programming and make everyone equal.

What's next? Pass a UCMJ regulation against gravity?

16 posted on 01/29/2013 7:57:40 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
then put them in ALL female companies/battalions and let them sink or swim on their own...
17 posted on 01/29/2013 7:58:56 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

No problem, people. We’ll just make a standard that lots of women can pass and make THAT the standard for both sexes. Then we’ll have infantry made up of women AND weak men! Mission accomplished!

(What mission? Why, turning our armed forces into a new Peace Corp, of course! Only with rifles and APCs!)


18 posted on 01/29/2013 8:00:55 PM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
There certainly are some women who can meet these standards, though not many. Will the women entering the infantry be held to the same standards as the men? Or will they be held to the lower, gender-specific standards?

Spelling out the realities. You ever go up 1 on 1 in sports against a female? They are always in slow-mo vs a man no what shape the female is in.

19 posted on 01/29/2013 8:01:18 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jdege
But when you’re dragging a wounded buddy out of an alley after an ambush, he doesn’t get lighter just because you’re a woman. In the infantry, objective, rather than relative, measures of performance are appropriate.

Does that mean the women will have to walk point?

20 posted on 01/29/2013 8:01:35 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"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?'"

Gender neutral = lower standards for all members. Great! The feminization of our Military has begun. How long before we have a military equivalent to France's???

21 posted on 01/29/2013 8:08:41 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

As long as their packs are the same weight and they take their turn humping the .60 cal.


22 posted on 01/29/2013 8:11:25 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Soylent Green is Boomers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

winnah winnah chicken dinnah.

I remember during rugby practice one time the women’s varsity politely asked the men’s freshman team to scrimmage so they could “up their game”. The scrimmage was called after 5 minutes due to the men, playing at 3/4 speed, runing over the women. Both sides realized it was a pointless exercise, not repeated.


23 posted on 01/29/2013 8:12:52 PM PST by redlegplanner ( No Representation without Taxation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: animal172

The nail has been struck squarely on the head.
__________________________________________________________

Yep! Straight into the cranium. America.....folks......is DEAD.

She was a good country while she lasted, tho, and I loved her dearly. Had great hope for my children.

Be ready to pay up....and accept whatever our elite masters want from us.


24 posted on 01/29/2013 8:15:22 PM PST by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Great vid by ShorelineMike! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZjJk6nbD4&feature=plcp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Does that mean the women will have to walk point?

Yep, if they're cherries.

No double entendre intended.

5.56mm

25 posted on 01/29/2013 8:15:44 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Couldn’t resist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:YouveComeALongWayBaby2.jpg


26 posted on 01/29/2013 8:16:40 PM PST by Bronzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

First screening test using a live grenade:

Can the women candidates throw a hand grenade far enough to not be killed or wounded by the grenade?


27 posted on 01/29/2013 8:22:18 PM PST by Calamari (Pass enough laws and everyone is guilty of something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

So violence against women is values based? And they cried that the republicans were waging war on women, butdems are putting them women in war and hiding behind them.


28 posted on 01/29/2013 8:22:48 PM PST by DaveyB (Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. -John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

the worst part of this horrendous decision is this....if a woman is allowed to be given a combat role, then she can, and will be ordered into one.....she, like every male in the military, will have to accept whatever position that she is ordered to fulfill.BAD IDEA.....of all the inane things coming out of the Obama administration, this is, by far, the worst.


29 posted on 01/29/2013 8:23:21 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Somebody mentioned in the past the Israelis tried combat roles for the gals
years ago and dropped it. When the Arabs captured one they would torture
her into screaming and the Israeli grunts went nuts and against orders tried
to save them. Men, other than moslem males that is, are hard wired that
way. The ambushes set up by the Arabs slaughtered them.
30 posted on 01/29/2013 8:26:06 PM PST by QT3.14 (Political Correctness: Intellectual AIDS - It sickens and kills everything it touches ~ Wm. Lind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Forgive me but our military leaders running the army talk like little PC pussies.


31 posted on 01/29/2013 8:28:43 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

With all that is going on, I am SO thankful that being in the armed forces is still voluntary.


32 posted on 01/29/2013 8:29:34 PM PST by Rocky Mountain Wild Turkey ("I have an open mind ... just not so open that my brain falls out onto the floor!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redlegplanner

Someone once said, when a country sends their wives and daughters to fight its war it will soon have neither. ...Or something like that.


33 posted on 01/29/2013 8:36:48 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Gender neutral. Does that mean every infantryman will be required to lift a box of girl scout cookies?


34 posted on 01/29/2013 8:40:11 PM PST by Terry Mross (How long does America have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Translation from lawyer speak. “All existing standards will be replaced with standards that both sexes can perform. Existing standards are seen as favoring males”


35 posted on 01/29/2013 8:40:33 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calamari

They will have to make gender neutral grenades.


36 posted on 01/29/2013 8:41:11 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

“I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army.”

Hey general dumbsh!t. Yeah YOU. Life isn’t fair. Neither is combat. Values don’t live between a soldier’s legs.

You dumbkopf’s have just doomed a lot of MALE soldiers to unnecessary deaths in order to butt snorkel owebama and the rest of his metrosexual commie rat b@stards!

Morons!


37 posted on 01/29/2013 8:41:22 PM PST by 43north (BHO: 50% black, 50% white, 100% RED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
Right. In other words they will determine that the current standards are no longer necessary and they will lower them so that women will be able to qualify.

Hate to break it to you, mate, but you are decades too late for that particular worry. Even as far back as the seventies some muck-sucking politico(s) mandated a defined percentage of females in the military. To meet the ordered percentages, standards were lowered across the board by any means necessary, and near as can be determined that has not changed.

38 posted on 01/29/2013 8:41:43 PM PST by Utilizer (What does not kill you... -can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

An Army of none.


39 posted on 01/29/2013 8:42:00 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

They just change the regulations. It’s funny to see four women carrying a stretcher. Mind you this is just in training exercises without full gear and bullets flying.


40 posted on 01/29/2013 8:45:55 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Already lowering standards


41 posted on 01/29/2013 8:46:36 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Spelling out the realities. You ever go up 1 on 1 in sports against a female? They are always in slow-mo vs a man no what shape the female is in.
If you were to say "usually", I'd agree with you. But "always" simply isn't true.
42 posted on 01/29/2013 9:05:27 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jdege

“Always” my case.


43 posted on 01/29/2013 9:10:44 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jdege

“Always” in my case.


44 posted on 01/29/2013 9:10:49 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

No real man would enlist now, only women and homosexuals will sign up.


45 posted on 01/29/2013 9:13:02 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RushIsMyTeddyBear

Every great empire becomes a victim of its own success.

Spoiled by luxury, the population becomes soft in body and mind, while believing itself enlightened when it is really deluded.

Just examine history: it’s the same pattern every time.


46 posted on 01/29/2013 9:20:57 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

Women will probably go Air Force or Navy. SEALS and such you have to volunteer. Homosexuals, not sure where they are hiding out.


47 posted on 01/29/2013 9:22:38 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

You noticed that too? /sarc

I use the common vernacular by calling it the wussification of society.


48 posted on 01/29/2013 9:25:09 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: USAF80

They are. Anyone in the blast radius will be killed or wounded regardless of gender. The grenade does not care what gender you are when you pull the pin and throw it. It will explode regardless of the distance thrown.


49 posted on 01/29/2013 9:27:41 PM PST by Calamari (Pass enough laws and everyone is guilty of something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“Fairness”... who does this general think he is, a five-year-old?

Gender-neutral standards? Obviously he’s fighting a war against reality because a) the vast majority of humans are either male xy or female xx, and b) it is precisely these chromosomal arrangements that decide the upper limits of strength of the fighting force.

How many BS surveys will be conducted/sent out to the troops to obtain feedback... feedback ostensibly used in order to formulate appropriate, workable policy?

It would be what those old FR threads about being Delphi-ed are all about. Institute whatever-the-h*ll policy they intend from the get-go, but keep a revolt down by making survey participants think that it was some sort of consensus within the ranks.

They’ll want honest feedback all right... so they’ll know what kind of opposition they face and can thus counter it effectively.

This one will be the ultimate “gender survey”... on steroids.

I wonder if this latest scheme is a follow-up to intergrating perverts. After all, the women are surely more welcoming (than normal males) of the catty, bitchy... er I mean chatty, crafty interior decorators in their midst.

This must be one of those generals who passed Obama’s “test” with flying colors.


50 posted on 01/29/2013 9:41:45 PM PST by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson