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

Blackfive ^ | 5-19-2013 | Deebow

[servo1969]

Well, it appears that TRADOC is now well into the process of attempting to destroy the greatest armed force that the world has ever known.

Training and Doctrine Command has launched “two major efforts in support of this full integration of women soldiers.” TRADOC has started a scientific review working with U.S. Army Medical Command, U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine and Army Research Institute to assist in the development of gender-neutral physical standards for all Areas of Concentration for commissioned officers and military occupational specialties for enlisted soldiers.

In addition, the “TRADOC Analysis Center is examining the institutional and cultural barriers related to integrating women soldiers into previously all-male specialties and units in order to develop strategies to overcome these barriers,”

I am curious how the armed forces, particularly the US Army (and by extension the US Marines) are going to "gender norm" the physical standards. 

My argument is, the standards are already gender neutral...

First, let's have a look at the physical standards.  Take a look at the one everyone is talking so much about.  For those of you following along at home, that would be:  11A Infantry officer/11B Infantry. 

Let's have a look at the physical requirements in summary.  I know I have mentioned it here before, but let's look at the specifics.  I got this from some academic reports on the Land Warrior System.

The physical requirement for the infantry do not differ from those for all Army personnel. The physical demands for infantry soldiers include the following:

• occasionally raise and carry 160-pound persons on their back;

• frequently perform all other tasks while carrying a minimum of 65 pounds, evenly distributed over entire body; for miles;

• frequently walk, run, crawl, and climb over varying terrain for a distance of up to 25 miles (while carrying these loads)

• frequently give oral commands in outside area at distances up to 50 meters;

• able to hear oral commands in outside area at distances up to 50 meters;

• occasionally climb a rope a distance of up to 30 feet;

• frequently throw 1-pound object 40 meters;

• frequently visually identify vehicles, equipment, and individuals at long distances.

The physical profile also refers to functional capacity to perform as determined by medical personnel in six areas: physical capacity, upper extremities, lower extremities, hearing-ears, vision-eyes, and psychiatric. These areas are always presented in the same order. A score of 1 is normal and 4 is diminished performance. The required physical profile for an entry infantry soldier is translated as follows:

• physical capacity (1)--good muscular development with ability to perform maximum effort for indefinite periods;

• upper extremities (1)--no loss of digits or limitation of motion; no demonstrable abnormality; able to do hand-to-hand fighting;

• lower extremities (1)--no loss of digits or limitation of motion; no demonstrable abnormality; be capable of performing long marches, standing very long periods;

• hearing-ears (2)--audiometer average level of six readings (three per ear) at 500, 1000, 2000 Hz or not more than 30dB, with no individual level greater than 35dB at these frequencies and level not more than 55dB at 4000Hz; or audiometer level of 30dB at 500 Hz, 25dB at 1,000 and 2000 Hz, and 35dB at 4000 Hz in better ear (poorer ear may be deaf);

• vision-eyes (2)--distant visual acuity correctable to 20/40-20/70, 20/30-20/100, 20/20-20/400;

• psychiatric (1)--no psychiatric pathology; may have history of a transient personality disorder (well duh, you did pick the Infantry--ed).

As I said at the outset of this argument, the standards are normed already.  There are already a large group of 18 to 24 year old males who already have the ability to "perform maximum effort for indefinite periods," the ability "to do hand-to-hand fighting," and are capable of performing "long marches" and there are some 18 to 24 year old females who are just as capable, but there are alot less who are capable of these standards.  I know that I can take a group of those males and a group of those females from the general population (because that is who we recruit from) in that same group and get an 80 percent success rate on "occasionally raise and carry 160-pound persons on their back" from the men.

Anyone want to hazard a guess on what the success rate would be for that same group of women?  Does anyone think it would even break into the double digits?  What is going to be the injury rate, percentage wise? What do you think the rate of success is going to be if the men start lifting the women?  How about if the women start lifting the men?  More? Less?

So tell me Big Army, is the plan to have the female infantry soldiers only lift their battle buddy and carry them if they are smaller than them; only after stripping them of their 65 pounds of additional equipment?  Start making plastic artillery shells?  Insist that manufacturers of tanks and fighting vehicles make the component parts from plastic?  Only fight wars in countries with temperate climates and low rolling hills?  The base plates on mortars, Ma Deuce receivers, Mark 19 ammunition and machine gun barrels are not going to get lighter, so my guess is that Big Army's plan is to make soldiers lift them less, tote them half as far and involve twice as many soldiers to do it.  Infantry squads will go from 9 to 15, gun crew size will double and it will take twice as long to get anything done that involves physical work.

No matter what part of the equation you look at here, the only part you can change is the part you can't change:  The averages and genetics., because ON AVERAGE (which is where the Armed Forces recruits from) the average 5'4" 150 pound female can't run faster, punch harder, run farther or lift more than the average 5'10" 180 pound male.  I don't need the the wizards of smart at U.S. Army Medical Command, U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine and Army Research Institute to crunch any numbers, study any cohorts, evaluate the kinestetics, or discuss this in a committee to know what is plainly obvious:  Girls do not have a propensity for violent physical combat, nor do they possess the requisite muscle mass, bone density or aptitude for it.  Call me a misogynist and a chauvinist; I don't care.  The fact that I have to explain this tells me just how dumb the people who study this stuff have become. 

The next, more sinister part of this will be how they address the institutional and cultural barriers related to integrating women soldiers into previously all-male specialties and units in order to develop strategies to overcome these barriers.  Anyone want to walk down this path with me so we can wrap our minds around all the rules and regulations this is going to spawn?  I can't wait to hear about the ongoing battle against sexual harrassment in the workplace in Infantry units (i.e. the battlefield) and how it affects readiness, or the massive sea change taking place in Infantry combat becoming more focused on efficiency and less focused on power and strength.  If women can't as a group in units of type A+ personalities whose main mission is to violently end the intentions of our nations enemies deal with some dirty jokes and scat humor, FFS how the hell are they going to close with and destroy the nation's enemies?  The combat arms better get ready for an epic ass-load of sensitivity training and diversity indoctrination. 

None of our enemies have ever been killed with kindness; it generally takes a bullet, an artillery shell or an airstrike.

But more importantly, the institutional and cultural barriers related to integrating women soldiers into previously all-male specialties is about turning men, and I mean rough, violent, skirt chasing, beer drinking, march 25 miles with a 60 pound ruck and a 60mm baseplate with a bad hang over, put their foot up your ass if you can't meet the standard, wood-line attitude adjusting, stick a knife in you with extreme prejudice, hard men into something the Big Army thinks will make senators, Congresswomen and defense secretaries more apt to promote the officers that supervise these new age, kindler, gentler, happy warriors who are all too glad to have females in the combat arms.

Does anyone doubt that our misogynist enemies who think women belong in burkas and shouldn't be allowed to drive or see phallic vegetables in the market (yeah, a real news story) are not in the hospital right now being treated for the damage they have done to their insides from the epic belly laughs as they watch us weaken our armed forces in the name equality?

One of the maxims of battle is when your enemy is about to make a critical error, don't interfere.  I know that if I watched my enemy get ready to start putting soldiers, who are by every measure that matters, weaker soldiers, into front line, meeting the enemy combat; I would relish the thought of meeting them in battle.

And now that the words are out there (gender norming), is there any doubt about what Big Army has in mind and the outcome of this little experiment? Or, I could be wrong, maybe Big Army will do all that studying and come to the logical conclusions I have listed repeatedly here.

Tell me when I can stop holding my breath....

[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.