• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Females training for Infantry

$Trader$ said:
Has the selective service geared up to require all women to register at 18?
Click to expand...
I understand your tongue was firmly in cheek, but anyway:

Who are you kidding? Combat Arms MOSs, if opened to women, will remain "all volunteer only" for females…unlike for the knuckle-dragging male population.

I think we all hope that the need for a "draft" will never come again, but if it ever DOES, it will only be for males. "Learn it. Know it. Live it." ~Brad Hamilton
 
Spekkio said:
... they wouldn't "lower" the physical standards, they would "adjust" them to the "appropriate metrics." But it's absolutely not "lowering" them.
Click to expand...
I get it…"tongue in cheek", but for those who don't do "irony"….

Consider yourself "upwardly mobile".
"Good answer…good answer. I like the way you think. I'm gonna be watching you…" ~ Professor Turgeson
See the 1:50 minute mark:
 
Spekkio said:
So the only way to make Gen in the USA or USMC is to be an infantry, armor, or artillery officer?
Click to expand...

Obviously not but if you watch the video, the Commandant cites that as being the reason and a number of news pieces talking about women in combat all use that same argument and it does make sense (can send you links to female reporters saying the same thing in their new clips) . It isn't about making rank (used the wrong term, my apologies) but if you want to hold many a command position, you have to have held command at a lower rank, in a combat unit. General Barrow did not become the USMC Commandant without having held command in three wars. The Army is even less centered around infantry than the Marines ever will be, and even then, primarily our forces consist of a damn large number of maneuver units. So if your wickets to the high echelons are, PL, CO, BN, then you can imagine that the opportunities will be limited to female counterparts who are barred from those positions in the first place.
 
Sapper! said:
Obviously not but if you watch the video, the Commandant cites that as being the reason and a number of news pieces talking about women in combat all use that same argument and it does make sense (can send you links to female reporters saying the same thing in their new clips) . It isn't about making rank (used the wrong term, my apologies) but if you want to hold many a command position, you have to have held command at a lower rank, in a combat unit. General Barrow did not become the USMC Commandant without having held command in three wars. The Army is even less centered around infantry than the Marines ever will be, and even then, primarily our forces consist of a damn large number of maneuver units. So if your wickets to the high echelons are, PL, CO, BN, then you can imagine that the opportunities will be limited to female counterparts who are barred from those positions in the first place.
Click to expand...
And if women can't become infantry platoon commanders without lowering the standards, then they shouldn't be company, battalion, or regimental commanders. If we are simply worried about the number of women in the highest ranks, perhaps we should worry about some other under represented groups, like weak people. I think it's unfair that weak people can't make it through IOC and continue their careers to the highest level. Likewise crippled, er I mean differently abled people are also unfairly excluded from these positions. I expect to see some wheelchair ramps getting installed at the endurance course any day now.

Of course what will happen is that eventually some women will actually make it through, but it won't be enough so they will lower the standards. I only hope that they just make separate standard for women rather than allowing many more men to make it through under a standard low enough for the desired number of females to pass.
 
Renegade One said:
I get it…"tongue in cheek", but for those who don't do "irony"….
Click to expand...
I was actually quoting my senior leadership who said that with a straight face multiple times to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Sapper! said:
Obviously not but if you watch the video, the Commandant cites that as being the reason and a number of news pieces talking about women in combat all use that same argument and it does make sense (can send you links to female reporters saying the same thing in their new clips) . It isn't about making rank (used the wrong term, my apologies) but if you want to hold many a command position, you have to have held command at a lower rank, in a combat unit. General Barrow did not become the USMC Commandant without having held command in three wars. The Army is even less centered around infantry than the Marines ever will be, and even then, primarily our forces consist of a damn large number of maneuver units. So if your wickets to the high echelons are, PL, CO, BN, then you can imagine that the opportunities will be limited to female counterparts who are barred from those positions in the first place.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll bite...where is the mass outrage that females can't be in combat units coming from? I log onto my facebook account, I see my wife browse her facebook account, and I see more straight women post about homosexual rights and other issues germane to their daily existance than about military career opportunities in combat units. In fact, I recall absolutely zero posts of any females I know calling for women to serve in infantry units and to be part of the selective service. I have never gone to a public place and overheard a group of women griping about opportunities to serve in infantry units in the USA/USMC. Therefore, this whole ordeal seems to be something that is generated from a select few influential senior officers and politicians. How would the public react if women started dying at the same rate as men in OEF/OIF? How would our allies react? I'd be willing to bet that if a bill got proposed that required women to sign up for selective service along with these new 'career opportunities,' that there'd be mass outrage.

The argument proposed by those stories is "we lack female generals, if females serve in infantry then they will be eligible for more billets, therefore we should have females in combat." That doesn't make any sense in the context of the military's primary function, and it only makes sense from the fairy-tale there is no difference between sexes whatsoever and therefore they should all be equally represented in all jobs perspective.

The military, at its core, exists to fight and win wars. We have moved away from that a bit in the modern era because we employ so much technology to do it, and we need a lot of people to perform maintenance and provide parts so we can continue to employ it. And that has opened up the opportunity for people to serve in non-combat officer roles when they might not have been fit to be an infantry/armor/artillery officer. But the military should not ever sacrifice readiness or standards so that those who are involved in support/indirect roles can have a seat at the operational flag/GO table with experienced leaders who won battles, regardless of gender, race, whatever. You wouldn't make a suppo do an xo at sea tour so he can be eligible to be CNO, would you? That's what they're advocating by moving females into CO/BN command positions so they can be eligible to be Commandant of the USMC.
 
Sapper! said:
So if your wickets to the high echelons are, PL, CO, BN, then you can imagine that the opportunities will be limited to female counterparts who are barred from those positions in the first place.
Click to expand...
I know many women officers…ARMY types…who have held PL, CO, BN and Brigade-level commands, and are still upwardly mobile within the Army. True…not in the Infantry, Armor or Artillery communities, and none of them will probably ever be Army Chief of Staff, but is THAT the metric?
 
Just to add a log to the fire: While the Army and USAF have each had at least one 4-star woman GO, the USMC and Navy have each had "precisely" one NFO to make 4-star rank…and neither was CNO or Commandant. But I don't hear a ground-swell of NFOs with their briefs/boxers/commando junk/ panties/Depends all in a bunch wailing about "glass ceilings"…not do I see any outraged congressional committees wanting to understand why that is.

"Naval Flight Officer" has been an EEO career designator for well over 4 decades…should I be outraged?
 
Renegade One said:
Just to add a log to the fire: While the Army and USAF have each had at least one 4-star woman GO, the USMC and Navy have each had "precisely" one NFO to make 4-star rank…and neither was CNO or Commandant. But I don't hear a ground-swell of NFOs with their briefs/boxers/commando junk/ panties/Depends all in a bunch wailing about "glass ceilings"…not do I see any outraged congressional committees wanting to understand why that is.

"Naval Flight Officer" has been an EEO career designator for well over 4 decades…should I be outraged?
Click to expand...
Eh.....you got a SecNav, but you make a valid point.
 
FlyBoyd said:
I am in favor of females in all positions.
Click to expand...

SAPR VA!
(Doesn't quite have the same ring as "CMEO!"...)

BigBadBoJenkins said:
There is a small, but very very vocal group of feminists that advocate opening all positions to females.
Click to expand...
Where? I haven't seen any news coverage of protests for women to serve in infantry or register for the draft. Maybe I live in a cave, but the minority is not nearly as vocal as, say, the minority of homosexuals lobbying for same-sex marriage benefits or hispanics lobbying for immigration reform. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that most women who label themselves as feminists are far-left leaning and dislike the military.
 
Renegade One said:
About as valid as Teddy Roosevelt's qualifications to command a regiment of Cavalry in combat.
Click to expand...
I'd argue his qualifications a bit, considering how many officers got their commands back in that day. But more to the point, he did a damn fine job of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top