Posted on 12/18/2004 1:34:07 AM PST by huac
"Officials Ignore DoD Rules, Congressional Notification Law"... "The United States Army plans to force female soldiers into land combat units, despite current regulations and a law requiring prior notice to Congress. CMR has learned that some Army leaders believe there might not be enough male soldiers to fill the new “unit of action” combat brigades. They are therefore making incremental changes in policy that will soon force young unprepared women—many of them mothers—to fight in land combat."
(Excerpt) Read more at cmrlink.org ...
Physical Capabilities>
Q: Since modern combat is more “high-tech,” why can’t women handle it?
A: In close combat environments, which fit the definition above, physical capabilities are as important as ever. Equipment and survival gear carried by today’s combat soldiers, including electronic weapons and ammunition, satellite communication devices, batteries, and water weigh 50-100 pounds—a burden that is just as heavy as loads carried by Roman legionnaires in the days of Julius Caesar.
Modern body armor alone weighs 25 pounds. This weight is proportionately more difficult to carry by female soldiers who are, on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance. Even in current non-combat training, women suffer debilitating bone stress fractures and other injuries at rates double those of men.
To summarize an enormous body of well-documented evidence produced by physiologists in the U.S. and Britain, in close combat women do not have an “equal opportunity” to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.
Opportunity vs. Obligation
Q: But if women can do the job, why shouldn’t they be given the opportunity?
A: Every attempt since the 1970s to establish single standards for men and women, commensurate with the demands of actual combat, has been discontinued or rendered meaningless due to political pressures from feminists and allies who demand that standards be adjusted, or gender-normed, so that female trainees can “succeed.” In various types of training, “equal effort” is equated with “equal results,” and group evaluations substitute for individual achievement scores. In some forms of physical training events that are more difficult for women are dropped in order to make training more “fair.” The resulting regimen is described as “equal” between men and women, even though it is less demanding for the men.
Only a few female trainees are able to perform in physically demanding events at the same levels as average males, but policies must be based on the majority of average soldiers, not the exceptional few.
There is more to be found and to educate yourself at the Center for Military Readiness - explore and learn.
The underlying desire is to destroy our military readiness....because if our military is weakened, our nation is weakened. If women are drafted into combat roles, our families are weakened.
I may be mistaken but I believe Elaine Donally was an associate of Phyllis Schafley who is one superb expert on these and many associated issues as well.
So I respect this lady's alarm that has been sounded and it is a call to concerned people to get active and "lobby" to change what could be a disaster in the making in our military.
How much strength does it take to move a wounded 180lb man wearing 50lbs of gear? How many women can move 100lbs of ruck and gear more than a mile, and have enough strength left over for dismounted combat? You can't cherry pick which skills women can do as well as men, and then use it as evidence that they are suitible for combat.
A female soldier has lower numerical standards to meet to be considered 'top rate'. That doesn't change reality. If a woman who maxes her PT test can be easily killed by a man who barely passes his, what is that test really telling us?
Just as the blacks proved themselves...women will be proved as well.
Nice try. Trained black males make as good combatants as trained males of any ethnicity. Women don't. Women can develop techical skills on par with any males', but tactical ability is far more physically demanding. Women simply aren't built for it.
There are a tiny few who can attain the mental and physical attributes needed to be a close combatant, but the military is not interested in making them meet those standards. Most women fall very short, physically, but those numbers are concealed by deceptive standards and grading curves.
Most women in the military also think women don't belong in close combat. I used to have a link to the survey in more detail, but I can't find it, so this will have to do. From CMR
"The Army Research Institute (ARI), in a series of surveys since 1993, also found that most military women want nothing to do with combat assignments. In 2001, for example, Question #60 in the ARI “Sample Survey of Military Personnel” asked military people whether women should be assigned to direct ground combat (DGC), which was defined as” engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew-served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force’s personnel. [2] ......ARI asked whether current policy “should be changed so that females can also be ‘involuntarily assigned’ [to combat units]” [3] The results, which should have given the Army pause, indicated that only one-tenth of enlisted women (10%) wanted the Army to force female soldiers into combat units" more here
The question then becomes...Why are you arguing for a policy that most military women don't agree with....are you attempting to speak for the advance of feminism for the sake of feminism?
What Group? Me-1st, on the rock 71-74.
The reverse is also true.
If a combat unit of 100% of some population sub-group is never as effective as the current all-male combat units, then integrating those new sub-groups doesn't make sense.
Female infantry units would lose to male infantry units in the same way that female football teams would lose to male football teams.
There are some cases where you could work a female onto an all male team, and the team would still win. But the more women you add on, the faster the odds will stack against that team. The women may be as skilled players as men, with good instincts and a can do attitude, but it doesn't change the fact that they can't hold the line against stronger opponents.
Don't know if it is intentional, but that would be the result.
I believe you are correct about Elaine Donally being an associate of Phyllis Schafley.
You are deluded. Get back on your meds.
Ask him in front of the camera, where he's worried about violating an EO regulation, and you'll get one answer.
Ask him again at the bar, after you build a little rapport with him, and you'll get another.
Israel dropped women from combat because it did not work...even in their socialist utopia.
Women do other duties which still carry some danger though.
bttt
amen to that.
i had that conversation exactly with two of Nashville's finest a few weeks ago.
ditto for firemen.
Weakening the front line of combat weakens America's defenses and our war fighting ability and putting women there is one way to weaken our military.
It is not difficult to imagine such a policy being pushed in the Clinton years. But for it to be pushed today under President Bush and Rumsfeld - I think there is more to it (as always) and there must be just as rigorous a challenge to it no matter who is in charge.
Once again, Elaine Donelly and Phylis Schafley ROCK.
Hooaaah!
This is just debate. These things need to be discussed, because lives are on the line.
Even if some people are not coming across as terribly enligntened, I think you're missing the thrust of the conversation.
People are concerned that unqualified women may be put into close combat. We'd raise the same concern against risking adolescents, or the elderly, or handicapped, or anyone else not physically capable of combat, so why not women?
Rest assured, there is no plan, nor will there be a plan, to make women meet the same standards as men. To do so would be an open admission that the military's use of different male/female standards is deceptive and wrong. This will never happen. Instead, women could wind up in jobs that all but a handful of them can't do. This could get them killed, and get others killed.
Expressing concern over this isn't sexist. It's facing the reality of armed combat and tactical operations.
I can see why you were a Dem for so long dear....no offfense.
Wishing men and women equal in all things will not make it so, not to mention the cultural damage.
Why do not even primitive cultures use women in combat?
Have you pondered that?
We flirt with it because we can afford to. In a real cataclysmic war, all such "great" notions will be tossed rather quickly.
You should read Ohioan's essay.
Would it be accurate for me to surmise that you are a social lib who voted for W because of the WOT.
Respectfully.
Merry Christmas.
Whew.....bet that one had to hurt Joe PC. Well done and God bless you for your service. Freetown...late 80s.....left when things got too hot...call me a wuss..lol Merry Christmas.
Remem when Rush talked about having batallions of crazed
amazons afflicted by PMS?
You know, come to think of it, Ms. Donelly and Mrs. Schafley did such good jobs fighting this fight back in the days of their fighting against the ERA and then again during the Clinton years, it had totally fallen off the radar of many folks. I deeply hope this is not really happening at this time. I know we need more troops but putting women into combat is not the solution. It's just bad to be coming down at the same time of the other Dept of Defense issues that seem to be hammering this administration right now. Don't need another one.
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.