This article is not talking about women in designated combat units, but rather a woman veteran of the US Navy joining the Army and serving as an E-5 paralegal. Women have been doing that sort of work on an emergency basis in uniform since World War II, and on a permanent basis since the late 1940s. She has received combat training to prepare her for things that are unlikely to happen, but the reality of our modern combat situation with no front lines is that if her Army Reserve unit gets activated and deployed, anybody could get attacked at any time, and therefore everybody needs to be prepared.
@ PapaBear: We agree on the scoring of the PT tests. However, note this item from the article: “Coast even amazed herself when she came in second place during the PT test. ‘I am still kind of blown away by that. I even ran faster than all but one female,’ Coast said.”
If the reporter is correct — and she works for Army Public Affairs with her work being reviewed by a retired LTC who serves as her editor so it should be accurate — she's talking about coming in second-place overall on scoring including the men, but second-place in actual speed among the women.
Pretty good, I'd say, for a 51-year-old competing against people who are mostly in their teens or twenties.
I suppose I ought to add that the retired LTC who edited this article, although he's now in Army Public Affairs, retired as an Army infantry officer. His immediate supervisor, the Fort Leonard Wood chief of public affairs, was an Army engineer officer before he retired from active duty. At least one of those two men started his career on the enlisted side of the house before becoming an officer. I know very little about the reporter who wrote the story, except that her position typically gets filled by Army spouses, but I think it's pretty clear both of her bosses know what they're doing in making sure her facts are right.
You need to become better informed. For simple example, if it were a settled issue this controversial article would not have been published.
The practice may have gone on for decades, but the issue is far from settled. Conservatives believe in a strong military, and as several Freepers have pointed out succinctly, females in the military very often interfere with that goal.
“The Army is ordering its hardened combat veterans to wear fake breasts and empathy bellies so they can better understand how pregnant soldiers feel during physical training.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2848440/posts
This foolishness is going to get us all killed.
Women in finance, legal medicine, were fine. As you should know, before the left got it's way in the 1070s, females were restricted to not exceed 2% of the force.
Women, as women, don't really add much to the readiness of the US military to perform its mission, and detract from readiness in a number of ways.
Women make up about 14 percent of the active duty military. Subtract out nurses and administrative personnel serving primarily in the US (and whose duties could be taken up by civilians) and the actual impact of removing all women from all deployable units would be very small, and quickly replaceable by increased recruiting of men.
Meanwhile, the PC atmosphere that women in the military create, and the cost of accommodating them, decrease readiness.