Posted on 07/27/2017 7:22:49 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Are recruiters, particularly in the Army and Marines, lying to (or at least misleading) young women who they try to recruit into military service? That’s a question which is asked and answered in the LA Times this week by two people who should know. Julie Pulley is a former West Point graduate Army captain and Afghanistan veteran. Rear Adm. Hugh P. Scott was a Navy medical officer and is an expert in medical physical standards. They discuss the current push to drive up the number of women going into combat roles and the unique stresses which the demands of those duties put on the bodies of women. The difference between the genders in this scenario is significant and worrisome.
SEE ALSO: Venezuelan government bans all protests starting Friday (also, where is Sean Penn?)
The first example is based on nothing more than the fact that men produce a lot of testosterone, leading to larger hearts and more muscle mass.
M]ales have 40% greater aerobic capacity, and higher endurance compared with females. Women’s smaller hearts require more blood to be pumped each minute at a given level of exertion because they have less hemoglobin in their blood to carry oxygen.
These differences will put women at a distinct disadvantage in newly opened infantry jobs, where they will be expected to carry 100-pound packs routinely, or in armor jobs, where they will have to load 35-pound rounds again and again. If you don’t like the rather basic argument of “guys are just stronger” you might want to consider that the different body designs between the genders. These leave women open to more injuries and long term health problems if they have to endure that much physical stress over long periods of time.
Pelvic floor injuries are another gender-specific danger for female troops. Studies have found heavy load bearing and paratrooper training can contribute significantly to urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse among women.
Many of the consequences of taking on additional combat roles won’t be obvious until years later. Just ask Marine Capt. Katie Petronio, who wrote in the Marine Corps Gazette of muscle atrophy, endurance problems, weight loss and infertility she considers the results of two combat deployments. Women have proved themselves in combat, Petronio said, but in the most physically demanding roles, can they endure “and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?” There are more risks, such as bone marrow loss among women who take common hormone treatments to avoid menstruation while deployed. All of the wear and tear which does a number on the men to begin with is multiplied in women over long periods of time. The reason? I know that the SJW crowd absolutely despises hearing this, but as these expert author reaffirm for us yet again… “men and women are not the same.” Those difference are wonderful in so many ways and are woven into the fabric of human society around the globe, but they also put women at a severe disadvantage in certain high stress, physically demanding activities over the long run.
But even as the military pushes to drive up their enlistment numbers for women, actively recruiting female athletes out of high school and college, nobody at the recruiting stations are issuing them warnings about this. That’s despite the fact that the Pentagon has published studies examining these gender differences and the likely medical complications.
By way of full disclosure, I’m one of those old dinosaurs who doesn’t want women in combat to begin with and I’ve made no secret of that here in the past. But if we are going to have to go down this road (and it looks too late to turn back now) we should at least be honest with the young women who volunteer for this dangerous duty. If the training and rigors of deployment are posing a particular medical threat to them they should be going into it with their eyes open.
Which means what? Are you saying that you'd be happy with more of our guys getting killed to satisfy the fantasies of the Democrats?
Women and trans people, if they want to serve, should serve as non-military civilian employees.
Military training is expensive. The purpose of giving it to all recruits is so that, when it hits the fan, those military people doing clerical, supply, etc jobs in the rear, can be moved to the front to fight. If you staff those jobs with people who CANNOT be reassigned to combat, then you LOSE that reserve capacity which might be critical to winning the fight.
There is a HUGE difference between a defensive sniper, who sits by a window waiting for the enemy to come around to her area (and can be relieved at end of shift to eat in a mess room and sleep in a bed), versus an offensive sniper who goes out to look for the enemy, carrying several days worth of supplies on his back.
Your daughter sounds like a fine young lady. But let me tell you what she will experience in the Army or Marines. She will be surrounded by young, physically fit young men at their sexual prime. She will be propositioned constantly by many of these men for sex. She will be exposed to these young men discussing their sexual conquests from the weekend before, in lurid detail. If she complains she will be labeled a bitch and shunned by most of her teammates, except for the ones that still are trying to sleep with her. If she wants to fit in she will laugh at their tales of debauchery and go out drinking with them. She will invariably be attracted to one of her fellow Soldiers and sleep with them. This will offend the other young men who were trying to sleep with her and they will treat her like dirt.
The Marines and Army are not filled with choir boys, they are filled with hard fighting, hard drinking, and hard f$&@ing men. Do you really want your daughter exposed to that?
Grown women have the same athletic ability as 13 year old boys.
Stupid post of the day.
She won’t be able to hump as much belt ammo for the SAW as a male. In a fire fight that could cost everyone their lives.
You make a valid point! :-)
“medic! I’ve got an axe wound over here! Medic!”
Your post should be required reading for every woman entering the recruiting office. For the women, there is no true comradeship. Every time a woman leaves the room, they are staring at her a$$. She will want to belong, to do her best, but as you said, almost everyone will resent her because she won’t have sex with them. If she does give in to pressure, she will be labeled a slut. If she gets ahead more quickly than her contemporaries, everyone will just assume that’s because she slept with someone higher up. Either way she loses. The more operational a unit is, the more this will be a problem. Join if you want to ladies, as it will be an opportunity to learn new things, go new places, and test your courage and endurance. Just learn, however, to never, ever mix your messages and be prepared to keep to yourself.
No, but the Democrats certainly are. They hate the military anyway.
Thank you. I disagree with you though on saying serve if you want ladies. In a sane soceity we would recognized that war is a man’s job and women don’t belong. Now, thanks to the feminist movement, we have women trying out for special operations units. Men proclaiming they have women’s penises, and females having an addadiktomy operations. It’s batshit crazy.
Here is another example of how women hurt operational readiness. I am not the best runner in the world. During Marine basic I had problems with some of the group runs, never dropped out, but it pushed me to my limits.
Fast forward 11 years and I’m in Army OCS, which is not sex segregated like Marine basic, and I had absolutely no problems with any of the group runs. I had not become a better runner in those 11 years. So I left OCS not having been pushed to my physical limit. So you do not train the males to their peak and you now have men pass OCS that wouldn’t have if women were not included.
For good measure, Throw in butch dykes at every level from peer to command to make life hell
Add the chip on shoulder blacks and gang bangers to her peers
Talking about “ God” wont make her any safer - in fact her naivete is disturbing
And thats before she ever gets to face a foreign enemy
Unless standards are lowered, there is no woman alive becoming an enlisted Navy Seal, Marine Force Recon, Air Force Pararescue, Air Force Combat Controller, or Army Ranger. Mattis, Kelly and Dunsford were all against women in combat when It was forced on the services.
Agree. I was never special forces and know that I probably could not have hacked it if I would have tried. Marine Corps boot camp kicked my butt, and special forces is way tougher than that.
I do have two friends that completed Ranger school and I talked to them when those three women completed Ranger school. They both believed that there was no way those women passed without help.
I was wondering how Israel handles this? They have mandatory requirements for military service for men and women, question is do they have mandatory requirements as far as duties they perform.
I did read awhile ago they had a transgender enlist as a woman.
Israel tried women in combat. It was a dismal failure. Women still serve in support roles.
thanks for the info
Israel seems to put the women into jobs like training recruits, and border patrol. For Israel, it makes a lot of sense to give all the women military training, as they would be the last line of defense for the kids, should the enemy break through the front lines.
It also results in young Israeli women meeting a wide variety of marriageable young men.
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.