Women Officially in Combat Roles - Page 5

Women Officially in Combat Roles

This is a discussion on Women Officially in Combat Roles within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So long as a candidate can cut the grade, mentally, physically, and with respect to operating effectively and capably as part of a team in ...

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 129
Like Tree144Likes

Thread: Women Officially in Combat Roles

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,019
    So long as a candidate can cut the grade, mentally, physically, and with respect to operating effectively and capably as part of a team in the full range of duties required in the role, a given single characteristic doesn't seem reasonable for disqualification. IMO, for far too long have assumptions been made about what gender means, whether it has any actual impact in a situation, etc. It either does or doesn't, performance-wise. If it doesn't, and if the candidate's otherwise qualified and "game" ...
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.


  2. #62
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,481
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    Sorry JeanLouise...but, I have never dated any woman that could beat me in arm wrestling.

    I could just see myself being married to Jacqueline Fuchs (pronounced Fooks BTW) "Hey Sweetie...could you carry that new refrigerator up to the 3rd floor kitchen for me when you get a chance."
    Or you ask for a beer and she carries in a keg?
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  3. #63
    Senior Member Array sigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by mbguy29577 View Post
    If they want to fight, let them. Gender should not disqualify someone from realizing their dreams.
    The military does not exist so that anyone, male or female, can realize their dreams. It exists, in the most concise sense, to protect the country.
    Jeanlouise and atctimmy like this.

  4. #64
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Why on earth do folks always say there are two physical standards? First of all there are many (age groups). So I guess older folks should not have combat roles either. Second, the APFT is designed to gauge the fitness level of a soldier, it is not the requirement nor qualification for an MOS so the APFT is not job related (there are some exceptions like meeting the standard to go Special Forces and there is only one standard for that ...at least it was)). Third, to find out what the army says you need to do for a job you need to go to the correct reference which states the physical demands for that job. Here is part of it for an 18E (Special Forces Communicaions Sergeant)
    1. Frequently visually identifies vehicles, equipment and individuals at a long distance.
    2. Occasionally raises and carries 160 pounds person on back.
    3. Frequently performs all other tasks while carrying 65 pounds evenly distributed over entire body.
    4. Frequently digs, lifts and shovels 21 pounds scoops of dirt in bent, stooped or kneeling position.
    5. Frequently gives and receives oral commands in outdoor area from distance of 50 meters.
    6. Frequently walks, crawls, runs, and climbs over varying terrain for a distance of up to 25 miles.
    7. Frequently runs for short distances.
    8. Frequently walks at a brisk pace 4 out of 6 hours while carrying 26 pounds.
    9. Frequently throws 1 pound object up to 40 met
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  5. #65
    Distinguished Member Array chuckusaret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiphted View Post
    Honestly women can serve and i think they do alot of jobs better than men and vice versa.
    Name one military job......
    US Army 1953-1977

    ‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’
    — Abraham Lincoln

  6. #66
    Senior Member Array mulle46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Why on earth do folks always say there are two physical standards? First of all there are many (age groups). So I guess older folks should not have combat roles either. Second, the APFT is designed to gauge the fitness level of a soldier, it is not the requirement nor qualification for an MOS so the APFT is not job related (there are some exceptions like meeting the standard to go Special Forces and there is only one standard for that ...at least it was)). Third, to find out what the army says you need to do for a job you need to go to the correct reference which states the physical demands for that job. Here is part of it for an 18E (Special Forces Communicaions Sergeant)
    Minimum Fitness Requirments for Each PFT Event - Males
    Age Pull-Ups Crunches 3-Mile Run
    17-26 3 50 28:00
    27-39 3 45 29:00
    40-45 3 45 30:00
    46+ 3 40 33:00
    Minimum Fitness Requirments for Each PFT Event - Females
    Age Flexed-Arm Hang Crunches 3-Mile Run
    17-26 15 Seconds 50 31:00
    27-39 15 Seconds 45 32:00
    40-45 15 Seconds 45 33:00
    46+ 15 Seconds 40 36:00.

    Those are the minimum requirements in the Marine Corps. There are two standards,at least as far as run time goes. I won't address pullups versus flexed-arm hang.
    atctimmy likes this.
    You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, "I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." . . . You must do the thing you think you cannot do. Eleanor Roosevelt

  7. #67
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Shot View Post
    Just a few things that haven't been brought up:

    There are obviously extremely capable female athletes that can do amazing things, and the mental toughness of women is in many ways superior to a man's. So there are a few women out there who can do this sort of thing. The problem is that women may be sought out to meet quota's, and thus detracting from efficiency. But hey, this happens in every other aspect of American culture, so why not add the military

    Say you find a great female candidate and start putting her through these infantry or special forces school houses. She may be able to run faster than some guys, she may even be able to hump (or rather, hike) better than some guys...in the beginning. But after time, I think there would be literally a structural breakdown of some of these extremely fit and determined women. Starting at the hips and working down, things are going to start getting injured when exposed to 100 lbs or greater loads over days/weeks/months at a time. Female hips were designed to give birth, not hike up mountains. If you look at most female world class athletes of any sort, they have narrower hips than most women, but it's still structurally different than a man's hips.

    It may not be the most pertinent argument, but it's just a thought. Stay classy, DC.
    Women have 'superior mental toughness' to men? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I disagree.

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckusaret View Post
    I spent 24 years in the military and through out the years had many women under my command in peace time, but never in a combat environment. IMHO, based on my combat experience, the average female could not withstand the horrors of a ground engagement against an enemy force. Many men, better men than me, that I knew well crumbled during an engagement or from seeing the aftermath of the engagement and still suffer from the memories. I have served with some pretty tough women, but none that I believe could survive as grunt in a combat environment. There are many many critical support jobs that are more suitable for women then the combat arms.

    How many remember WAC.
    There are many reasons why woman should not be 11B's or 18's or other combat mos's in the army but all of the above is not them. Guess the horrors of an ER nurse/Doc, EMS, police, fireman, are not suited for women huh...
    I see all these arguements of how women are not mentally tough....bull. Sounds like the men are not mentally tough if as some have said they would be distracted and try to protect the females or the horror of seeing a female blown to bits. Well, got news for ya. Many of the casualite in Iraq were from IED's and they took combat arms as frequently as non combat arms MOS's. So that cushy job of supply sergeant which could be held by a female could be blown to bits as easily as a male. Did it make a difference whe was suppluy and not infantry while you looked at the body and still had to continue the fight in case there was an ambush?
    As far as distractions and unit cohesion...those were arguements for gays in the military and blacks. Guess society just had to grow up.

    There are a host of reasons not to let them be in combat MOS's such as 11b and 18 series but mental toughness is not one of them.
    OPFOR and Foxy like this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  9. #69
    Senior Member Array Dennis1209's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NW, TN
    Posts
    744
    As a combat veteran and retired military, Dennis1209 reserves his opinion on women in combat roles, as his fingers are bloody red from viciously slaping them to keep them from touching the key board.
    I think, therefore I am...

    <the Menace>

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis1209 View Post
    As a combat veteran and retired military, Dennis1209 reserves his opinion on women in combat roles, as his fingers are bloody red from viciously slaping them to keep them from touching the key board.
    Oh come on! DOn't be bashful...most forum violations will expire in 90 days LOL
    zacii likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  11. #71
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,481
    Quote Originally Posted by sigs View Post
    The military does not exist so that anyone, male or female, can realize their dreams. It exists, in the most concise sense, to protect the country.
    That's a pretty narrow-minded view. Some may dream of serving their country to their fullest; that's pretty compatable with defending the country.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  12. #72
    Senior Member Array Kimberpackn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    640

    Women Officially in Combat Roles

    Quote Originally Posted by Betty View Post
    I'm all for women in our armed forces, because we have as much reason to put our lives on the line for our families and country like the menfolk. The women, however, need to meet the current physical requirements. I am completely against watering down requirements for political correctness. If anyone can't do the miles and carry the load, then that person - man or woman - should not be accepted. Watering down the rules to allow weaker people in does no one a service. It will, however, make our military weaker. There's plenty of other honorable positions in the military where that person can be utilized.



    And that's not even getting into what could happen to an American female soldier in enemy hands, especially an enemy that hates their own women so much they stone them to death for showing an ankle. *shiver*
    The standards are already watered down and have been for years. Google army physical fitness standards for and see for yourself.
    We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. -

    Patrick Henry

  13. #73
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimberpackn View Post
    The standards are already watered down and have been for years. Google army physical fitness standards for and see for yourself.
    It also has different standards for age (I am talking about the army PT test). The APFT is designed so the commander can gauge the fitness level of his soldiers, not dtermining what qualifies a person for a job in the army (with exceptions). See my previous post #64.

    BTW: the minimum standards for a guy is a joke anyway. A lot of females can pass the male standard.

    A 100 lb guy could max his PT test while a very fit 200 lb infantry man might just do average. Who do you think is best to carry a load? That is why the PT test is not meant, never was meant, to be used a tool to see how well someone can perform their job. BTW: Long time ago in the 80's and 90's I was a Master Fitness Trainer for the Army and was involved in the testing and evaluations when they changed the PT standards around 1994.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  14. #74
    Senior Member Array rolyat63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tampa Bay
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I'll weigh in on this. I was a shift chief in aircraft maintenance went the first women entered the maintenance fields. First we were told we'd have to clean up our acts and language. That didn't happen. We treated our first "lady" like one of the guys. She appreciated that. She said it was easier to be one of the guys than the only girl in the shop.

    Some women worked out well, some didn't--just like the guys. What those "above" failed to realize was that, although the ladies were more than capable of understanding electronic circuitry, testing procedures, and maintenance procedures, no one thought to teach them what a #2 Phillips screwdriver or a six inch socket extension was. Every guy knows that--women didn't. But they learned. Some of my better maintenance troops were women, but it took time for them to reach that point in the field. They learned to get dirty just like the guys.

    But for me, the thought of picking up pieces of a guy is near horror. Picking up pieces of a woman is unthinkable. But the only way to settle the dispute of whether women can handle frontline combat is to let them. They come to their own decision then.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Shot View Post
    Just a few things that haven't been brought up:

    There are obviously extremely capable female athletes that can do amazing things, and the mental toughness of women is in many ways superior to a man's. So there are a few women out there who can do this sort of thing. The problem is that women may be sought out to meet quota's, and thus detracting from efficiency. But hey, this happens in every other aspect of American culture, so why not add the military

    Say you find a great female candidate and start putting her through these infantry or special forces school houses. She may be able to run faster than some guys, she may even be able to hump (or rather, hike) better than some guys...in the beginning. But after time, I think there would be literally a structural breakdown of some of these extremely fit and determined women. Starting at the hips and working down, things are going to start getting injured when exposed to 100 lbs or greater loads over days/weeks/months at a time. Female hips were designed to give birth, not hike up mountains. If you look at most female world class athletes of any sort, they have narrower hips than most women, but it's still structurally different than a man's hips.

    It may not be the most pertinent argument, but it's just a thought. Stay classy, DC.

    One of things that have come to my mind on this topic I have never seen addressed. First let me say I agree with most of the comments. I too was in the combat arms (Redleg) and one thing that was prevelant (at least in the '80s) was that if a soldier failed out of the MOS signed up for they would get placed in an 11 or 13 series MOS Infantry and Filed Artillery respectively). In the spirit of "equality" will all women (now that that have been deemed qualified) be subject to this type of reassignment? Gender neutralitry could get tough.
    rolyat63
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor

    A gun in the hand is a million times more valuable than a cop on the phone!

    FL Concealed Weapon or Firearm Program

  15. #75
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Betty View Post
    The women, however, need to meet the current physical requirements. I am completely against watering down requirements for political correctness.
    Yup. You never know how heavy the next soldier to be carried/lifted is going to be, how high you'll need to climb, how powerfully you'll need to respond, and for how long. The job is what it is. No choices to water it down when it's hitting happening in the field.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

explaining how the regular physical fitness tests are different than combat testing

,
powered by mybb arm rest
,
powered by mybb back that thang up
,
powered by mybb fitness 1
,
powered by mybb fitness pictures
,
powered by mybb fitness trainers
,
powered by mybb get in shape for the military
,

powered by mybb just fitness

,

powered by mybb paintball arena

,
powered by mybb real life fitness
,

powered by mybb so important about fitness

,
powered by mybb three way girls
,
powered by mybb upper back injury
,

powered by mybb what is physical fitness

,

powered by mybb wrestling pictures

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors