Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: Few women will qualify for land combat: report

  1. #1
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Here, but not all there
    Posts
    21,121

    Arrow Few women will qualify for land combat: report

    Loophole feared in ‘gender-neutral’ qualifications

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-combat-loop/

    A new report to Congress predicts that relatively few women will be able to perform land combat tasks on the same level as men, and it says the Pentagon’s pledge to maintain “gender-neutral” physical standards has a loophole.

    Meanwhile, the Marine Corps, viewed as the service most resistant to opening the infantry to women, will test male and female troops together in strength and endurance to determine how women can perform ground warfare, according to an internal memo obtained by The Washington Times.

    The congressional report and the Marine Corps memo come as pro-defense conservatives are exploring ways to ensure that the Obama administration does not ease rigorous standards as a way to make sure women qualify for direct combat jobs.

    When Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta last month removed the policy prohibiting women from serving in direct combat units — infantry, armor and special operations — he vowed not create two standards, citing the 1993 Gender-Neutral Occupational Performance Standards as the guide.

    However, that law might not prevent the creation of a two-tiered qualification system, the Congressional Research Service said in a Feb. 7 report to Congress. The Times has obtained a copy of the document.

    Citing the Air Force as an example, the report said that the armed services today employ significantly different physical standards for men and women. It notes that women are not required to do as many situps and pullups or to run as fast as men.

    “The use of the term ‘gender-neutral physical standards’ raises questions depending on how it is defined,” David Burrelli, a military-manpower specialist, said in the report. “A plain reading of the term suggests that men and women would be required to meet the same physical standards in order to be similarly assigned. However, in the past, the services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and women must exert the same amount of energy in a particular task, regardless of the work that is actually accomplished by either.”

    Said Elaine Donnelly, who runs the Livonia, Mich.-based Center for Military Readiness: “Despite a law mandating ‘gender-neutral’ standards, every military training program open to both men and women is gender-normed in some way. These standards can only be justified if women are not eligible for fighting battalions.”

    Fueling fears of lower combat standards for women is a statement from Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that if the military branches conclude that standards are too tough for women to succeed, they better have a good reason why the bar is that high.

    Mr. Burrelli says the 1993 law is vague because it does not contain a clear definition of gender-neutral.

    “As written, this language can be the subject of differing interpretations,” he said in the report. “Since no standards exist for women in the then-closed occupations, would women be required to meet the current existing standards, would separate standards be created, or would the existing standards be re-evaluated? What is lacking is a clear definition of ‘gender-neutral’ vis-a-vis the goals to be attained. Recent quotes from senior military leaders seem to suggest different things.”

    Mr. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey have made it clear to commanders that they want a significant number of women to gain access to combat units.

    Skeptics question whether an ample number of military women want the challenge and whether more than a few can pass tests that require long marches while toting 60 pounds of gear, carrying large objects such as artillery shells or a wounded comrade, and possessing the upper-body strength for rope climbs.

    Wrote Mr. Burrelli: “Although it has been shown that there are women who can meet and exceed many male physical standards, it does not appear that large numbers of women will succeed if held to these same higher standards. In addition, forcing women to continuously meet higher standards has been found to increase their injury and attrition rates.”

    The Marine Corps is trying to address that key issue as it prepares to report with the other services in May to the defense secretary on what combat occupation specialties women can master.

    It sent a memo to Capitol Hill titled “The Women in Service Restriction Review,” in which it talks of developing a “predictive mechanism.”

    The memo says the Corps is first “validating” the standards for each combat job. It then will test a sample of male and female Marines against the same standards and use the scores as a predictive indicator when recruiting women.

    Yet, at the same time the Marine Corps is saying it is rechecking its standards, it also is vowing not to change them.

    “The Marine Corps‘ high standards cannot be lowered, nor can we artificially lower them to ensure a certain percentage of females will qualify,” the memo states. “Conversely, we will not artificially raise standards.”

    “Lifting a 95-pound artillery round must be done by a Marine, either male or female,” it adds.

    The Corps already has tried one experiment.

    In October, two female lieutenants entered the grueling, all-male Officer Infantry School, but both dropped out within the first three weeks of the three-month course. Two other female Marine officers have applied for the school this spring.

    Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, who saw combat in Afghanistan and Iraq as a Marine officer, has drafted legislation he thinks will close the law’s gender-neutral loophole. It would require the services to lower qualifications for men if standards are adjusted so that women can enter combat units.

    “There’s an expectation that the [Defense] Department will look to either create a multitier system or try to lower standards across the board,” Mr. Hunter told The Times. “At a minimum, there needs to be a backstop to ensure standards remain the same.

    “If they want to lower standards, they are going to have to lower them for everyone, and I don’t think they are prepared to do that, nor is it in our best interest,” he said. “We need to maintain the high level of readiness that we have.”

    While pro-military conservatives concede there are not enough votes in Congress to put the women-in-combat ban into law, Mrs. Donnelly said they should try.

    “Legislation mandating equal standards for direct ground combat training will not solve the problem,” Mrs. Donnelly told The Times. “Instead of dual standards, there will be lowered standards — equal but far less demanding than the male-oriented standards right now.

    “The only way to preserve superior training that prepares men for direct ground combat against the enemy, and to preserve civilian women’s exemption from Selective Service obligations, is to codify updated, reality-based regulations that affirm women’s direct ground combat exemptions,” she said.

  2. #2
    Member JPBaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    At the bottom of a glass of dark porter
    Posts
    854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    Loophole feared in ‘gender-neutral’ qualifications

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-combat-loop/
    Good post thanks. Interestingly every other article or news story I have read has applauded the change and reinforced the idea that standards for combat arms would not be changed. I think I saw an article in the Marine Corps Times that stressed the fact that a female candidate was meeting the same standards with the exception of having an individual bunk. I feel that some of the pundits are using this issue to attack female candidates rather than encouraging them to give it a shot and meet the same standards. I think it is all said right here

    [*******#333333]"Yet, at the same time the Marine Corps is saying it is rechecking its standards, it also is vowing not to change them.[/COLOR]

    [*******#333333]“The Marine Corps‘ high standards cannot be lowered, nor can we artificially lower them to ensure a certain percentage of females will qualify,” the memo states. “Conversely, we will not artificially raise standards.”[/COLOR]

    [*******#333333]“Lifting a 95-pound artillery round must be done by a Marine, either male or female,” it adds."[/COLOR]

  3. #3
    Member Get_It's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Good for them. Only a few women might qualify but at least it will be a few excellent women.

    Cheers,

  4. #4
    Suspended for infractions
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Conservaliberaltarian
    Posts
    2,973

    Default

    Interesting read, thank you.

    From the article:

    Wrote Mr. Burrelli: “Although it has been shown that there are women who can meet and exceed many male physical standards, it does not appear that large numbers of women will succeed if held to these same higher standards.”
    Perhaps Rowdy Rhonda Rousey is a candidate.

  5. #5
    Member kool_kruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    island paradise
    Age
    30
    Posts
    810

    Default

    Sort of states the obvious if same standards were applied to both men and women (without lowering the current standards).

    I am all for females to be part of combat - just so long as the ability of the respective armed force to engage is not affected.

    War is not a civic debate. Its brutal and if you aren't at your best the chances of you making it out alive only spiral downwards.

  6. #6
    Μολὼν λαβέ Hollis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Stuck in the rain and mud again.
    Posts
    22,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kool_kruiser View Post
    Sort of states the obvious if same standards were applied to both men and women (without lowering the current standards).

    I am all for females to be part of combat - just so long as the ability of the respective armed force to engage is not affected.

    War is not a civic debate. Its brutal and if you aren't at your best the chances of you making it out alive only spiral downwards.
    I agree, the only standard in warfare is living or dying. Everything else is academic.

  7. #7
    Senior Member bugkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,618

    Default

    They might as well stop the BS and get on with it. They have NO CHOICE but to lower standards in order to field enough females to make it worth the change. All the grandstanding is making me nauseous and what they are finding out is that women flying aircraft or serving on ships are ENTIRELY different than being ground pounders/light fighters. They actually believed that there were a great number of women out there being held down and the door was closed shut in their faces not realizing that women in the Armed Forces have been allowed to perform at a lower standard while other males were getting kicked out for not meeting a higher one despite passing the standards set for women and being in the same MOS.

    I'm just thankful that I'm part of the old guard and I'm close to retiring. Can't wait to leave.

  8. #8
    "Wise and Grumpy" Ban Stick Wielder of Death digrar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    "I'll tell you what pressure is. Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your @r5e. Playing cricket is not"
    Age
    36
    Posts
    22,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XJ220 View Post
    Perhaps Rowdy Rhonda Rousey is a candidate.
    At the end of the day she's 5'6", 135lb and 26 years old, she's short, light and old. Not a good mix for an E1/E2 Infantryman.

  9. #9

    Default

    That's a large article for something everyone has known...since...well...forever.

  10. #10
    Suspended for infractions
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Conservaliberaltarian
    Posts
    2,973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digrar View Post
    At the end of the day she's 5'6", 135lb and 26 years old, she's short, light and old. Not a good mix for an E1/E2 Infantryman.
    Perhaps. Then again, her lean mean jolly rancher/sweatsuit fighting weight is 135 lbs, she has won multiple Olympic and world championsholip medals in judo, is the undefeated champion in strikeforce and UFC in her weight class, is in scary good condition, and can probably clear out a biker bar better than many of members of the opposite ***. I'm not saying these qualities and skills make her an ideal infantry soldier or translate to the battlefield, I'm just hardpressed to think of other ladies with a better resume if any women are going to qualify, age aside, that's all.

  11. #11
    "Wise and Grumpy" Ban Stick Wielder of Death digrar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    "I'll tell you what pressure is. Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your @r5e. Playing cricket is not"
    Age
    36
    Posts
    22,376

    Default

    I'd personally be looking at an under 21 rugby team, or the throwing disciplines in track and field, bigger, younger, taller girls.

    Even then in my opinion the whole concept is a WOFTAM.

  12. #12
    Suspended for infractions
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Conservaliberaltarian
    Posts
    2,973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digrar View Post
    I'd personally be looking at an under 21 rugby team, or the throwing disciplines in track and field, bigger, younger, taller girls.

    Even then in my opinion the whole concept is a WOFTAM.
    WOFTAM with a dose of the fairness doctrine for PR purposes is the guiding principle on many domestic policies.

  13. #13
    "Wise and Grumpy" Ban Stick Wielder of Death digrar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    "I'll tell you what pressure is. Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your @r5e. Playing cricket is not"
    Age
    36
    Posts
    22,376

    Default

    Fairness doctrine, equality, social engineering and the man down drill don't gel.

  14. #14
    Suspended for infractions
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Conservaliberaltarian
    Posts
    2,973

    Default

    Clearly Congress could use that insight.

  15. #15
    Ranga Kap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ಠ_ಠ
    Posts
    14,644

    Default

    No ****, really? I already knew this from seeing the females that are in AIT right now for medic school or other MOS on Ft. Sam. Basic training is now completely lazy in all aspects and doesn't truly PT people like they should be doing. I think the highest score in my class, even for a dude is currently around 230. For a female (prior service, which doesn't count) gets about 290+ females just from basic nowadays will show you that combat arms for them is now a mistake. If they opened it up perhaps back in 2005, it would be a different story then. This "new generation" is even weaker than the previous few generations. They complain more, think they are entitled to more. I even had a verbal battle with one several weeks ago that I was supposed to push a cart because I've been in for 8 years and that she can't push a cart and I can't make her because she has been in for 5 months. I almost blungeoned her to death...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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