Not infantry but nonetheless she was wearing body armor.
Posted on 10/05/2012 3:55:13 PM PDT by presidio9
Not infantry but nonetheless she was wearing body armor. That it was not even a front line location emphasizes the point rather than refutes it. And she has serious weight-stress related injuries recognized by the VA.
Wiki says....... U.S. troops routinely burdened with upwards of 100 lbs. of weapons, ammunition, armor, food, water, and other assorted equipment.
Why would you want to quibble about the obvious physical impact of putting women in roles for which their physiognomy is not designed?
Females in the proper front-line roles (ie, pilots, truck drivers, tank drivers, artillery crews, etc) did the USSR a lot of good during WWII (many of the Soviet Union’s top snipers were females), so perhaps there is some merit to this.
However, that is being said with the full knowledge of political correctness nowadays, as well as the full knowledge that some people view equality as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
Not infantry but nonetheless she was wearing body armor. That it was not even a front line location emphasizes the point rather than refutes it. And she has serious weight-stress related injuries recognized by the VA.
Wiki says....... U.S. troops routinely burdened with upwards of 100 lbs. of weapons, ammunition, armor, food, water, and other assorted equipment.
Why would you want to quibble about the obvious physical impact of putting women in roles for which their physiognomy is not designed?
Not infantry but nonetheless she was wearing body armor.
“Why is it that we never hear about women headed for the NFL?”
Because their slaughter would be broadcast live to millions and that experiment and others like it would end.
I don’t doubt that she was wearing body armor, but it doesn’t weigh 70 lbs. The basic interceptor body armor with two SAPI plates weighs about 12 pounds. With side plates, deltoid covers, and other accessories, it comes in at about 33 pounds. Not 70 pounds. Infantry soldiers add to that load 300 rounds of 5.56, 100 rounds of 7.62, hand grenades, claymores, batteries, NODs, chow, water, radios, etc., etc.
She may have had an injury carrying something that weighed 70lbs, it just wasn’t body armor and typical green zone battle rattle. You need to use another example to better make your quite valid point that 99% of females cannot carry and infantry load over a sustained period of time.
Females, in proper roles, are performing very valuable service in combat in the U.S. Army and the USMC. Those roles include conducting patrols where their expertise and their sex are very valuable when dealing with local female villagers. But, those are not infantry roles, and we still have cases where females are expected to carry out tasks beyond their physical abilities. Truck drivers don’t just drive the trucks, they also must change the tires, load the trucks, winch it out of the mud, etc. When they can’t do it, a male soldier must be diverted from his job to pick up the slack.
Grr.
Grr.
Maybe they're supposed to be used as cover in that situation. Just grab one, wrap her around you like a shawl and pull out.
;-)
Though female world class professional athletes are on a par with fairly athletic high school kids, that is adequate for infantry.
We are not talking about joining the Rangers or SEALs. Just so make it through Basic and AIT and work in an infantry unit without being a drag.
We designed the FMTV army trucks so that a 5% female can change the tire. That requires a jack, a hydraulic lift to move the tire from in back of the cab, and a bit of technique.
A woman has played in the NFL. She spotted the ball for her husband, who was the place kicker.
She didn’t last the game. One of the players on the other team fouled her, and she didn’t play again.
Women as total cannon fodder. Reduces the human population which is such a concern for libs.
Most women think it doesn't really apply to them, since they haven't made a choice to go into the armed forces, let alone to serve in combat. Isn't "choice" such a lovely, comfortable illusion?
But the precedent is being set. We have come from a society where men only were drafted and sent to war in order to spare our women from all that "war in person" is, to one where that kind of protectiveness of the so-called "weaker sex" just seems illogical and old fashioned. And also, indefensible.
The Draft is not over, it's just not being used right now. In the case of another world war, the "voluntary" nature of armed service will quickly be replaced by conscription, and in view of all the precedent set by placing women in close proximity to harm's way, there is no way that the "weaker sex" will be exempt from it. And having crossed the barrier about women in combat, there is no way to justify exempting them from that either.
I pray I'm wrong about that, men of my generation sacrificed their lives and freedom to keep our women safe an away from war, but that's not where we are today...
She did not do so well against a bar stool in Elizabethtown, KY!
She looks very College.
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.