Posted on 01/14/2019 4:43:31 AM PST by reaganaut1
The Obama-era policy of integrating women into ground combat units is a misguided social experiment that threatens military readiness and wastes resources in the service of a political agenda. The next defense secretary should end it.
In September 2015 the Marine Corps released a study comparing the performance of gender-integrated and male-only infantry units in simulated combat. The all-male teams greatly outperformed the integrated teams, whether on shooting, surmounting obstacles or evacuating casualties. Female Marines were injured at more than six times the rate of men during preliminary training—unsurprising, since men’s higher testosterone levels produce stronger bones and muscles. Even the fittest women (which the study participants were) must work at maximal physical capacity when carrying a 100-pound pack or repeatedly loading heavy shells into a cannon.
Ignoring the Marine study, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened all combat roles to women in December 2015. Rather than requiring new female combat recruits to meet the same physical standards as men, the military began crafting “gender neutral” standards in the hope that more women would qualify. Previously, women had been admitted to noncombat specialties under lower strength and endurance requirements.
Only two women have passed the Marine Corps’s fabled infantry-officer training course out of the three dozen who have tried. Most wash out in the combat endurance test, administered on day one. Participants hike miles while carrying combat loads of 80 pounds or more, climb 20-foot ropes multiple times, and scale an 8-foot barrier. The purpose of the test is to ensure that officers can hump their own equipment and still arrive at a battleground mentally and physically capable of leading troops. Most female aspirants couldn’t pass the test, so the Marines changed it from a pass/fail requirement to an unscored exercise with no bearing on the candidate’s ultimate evaluation.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
All true. Women have skills that are useful in many areas but not out in Indian country. As a woman I know that men will always try to protect women at their own peril. It’s not right to put our precious young men in a bad situation and then make it worse. There is zero chance I could carry a 6ft 200 lb guy out of harms way. Then if they get captured the guys get to watch a bunch of monsters beat and rape their comrades in arms. The whole thing is a terrible idea.
Finally, the wall street urinal writes something I can agree with.
Duh.
Then if you restrict their options you restrict their options for advancement. Can’t do that of course. Only one alternative, NO to women in combat roles.
America is definitely on the decline. Not being a Debbie-Downer here. But there is so much built-in stupidity in the government and operating machinery of the country that it should be more than obvious to all how this will end.
Yes, I am very grateful for Trump, but the middle-class is being further weakened and destroyed. And the leeches are being encouraged to be even more leech-ful.
God have mercy on those who seek Him.
Too late. Stupid leftists are in charge and making decisions.
JoMa
As usual, you come up with the most liberal BS post on the thread. Congrats on being consistent.
Whether it is liberal or not is a matter for conjecture. But one thing's for sure, it's far from the dumbest post on the thread.
>>Heather Mac Donald is a treasure. She coined The Ferguson Effect and called out those pushing the anti-police narrative of the #BLM movement.<<
Just finished reading her recently published book entitled The Diversity Delusion. Highly recommend it!
>>Kick out all the women and you’re going to need to recruit a lot more guys. Where are you going to get them when the military is already having problems attracting recruits.<<
DRAFT
>>These social experiments are absurd and dangerous and a threat to national security.<<
A threat to national security is precisely why radical leftists support them. Undermining our defenses is their primary goal!
>>Some have the same concerns about police & firefighters.<<
Anyone with a normally functioning brain would have such concerns.
Bttt.
5.56mm
So kick out the people who want to be there and replace them with people who don't?
>> So kick out the people who want to be there and replace them with people who don’t?<<
The females who want to be there want to be there for all the wrong reasons. And the men who don’t want to be there will, with very few exceptions, “man up” and do what they are trained to do. And those are the facts which those who are not embarrassed to reveal their ignorance are welcome to dispute.
And you know this how?
>> And you know this how?<<
Doodle, tell me how you learn whatever it is that you think you know. I’ll help you to think about that with a little clue: Unless you’re illiterate, you learn some of the things you think you know by what you read. Now with that little clue, give the question some thought and tell me how ELSE you learn what you think you know. Take your time.
Kick out all the women and you’re going to need to recruit a lot more guys. Where are you going to get them when the military is already having problems attracting recruits.
OTOH, there’s a considerable body of evidence that suggests that a major reason for more difficulty in recruiting guys is because of recruiting women and the lowering of imputed standards.
Once a tradition is destroyed, it is difficult to get back.
“I think some women can be in some combat situations but only when tested and proved. The idea of just throwing all women into all combat situations is insane. Scientific Method; people! Come on!”
_______________________________
I respectively disagree with you. There is no one testing method by which you could ‘test and prove,’ women who can/should be allowed into combat on an individual basis.
The testing of men is the prime example of why women cannot be tested on an individual basis. Men are tested as a Grouped Working Unit, and those that do not make it are rejected (discharged or regulated to lesser job if seeking specialized jobs).
There is no way you could have women, in general, tested individually for combat. For one, it would be prohibitively expensive; secondly, it would lead to accusations of either favoritism or discrimination. We’re talking active combat, especially.
I’m not saying women cannot be trained to shot and defend themselves and their homeland. Far from it. Our pioneer women-folk did just that, and did as well as they could given they were literally on the front line of their survival. It’s a belief of mine that once you teach either sex how to handle a gun responsibly it changes their way of living and usually for the good of the community. Which is why the Democrats and other Weak-willed political parties don’t want it done.
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.