Chicks in combat? What's next?

I have been married to four extremely combative women and feel like I'll just keep my mouth shut.

 

Combat Leaders Mull Equal Standards for Women

The heads of U.S. Special Operations Command said women will be welcomed into America’s elite combat units as long as they can meet the same physical standards as men.

Retired Amy Lt. Gen. Frank Helmick just hopes females will be judged as fairly as their male counterparts.

Helmick, who once commanded the physically and mentally grueling U.S. Army Ranger School, said he applauds the Pentagon’s recent decision to allow women to serve in direct combat units.

“It is inevitable that there is going to be a female that is going to go to Ranger School and quite honestly, I think that is a good thing as long as the standards do not change,” Helmick said. “The biggest challenge that the Army will have is to ensure that the instructors and the chain of command are making the playing field level for everybody.”

While mostly supportive, direct-action combat arms communities such as special operations and infantry forces continue to react to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s decision to lift the ban that would open up about 237,000 combat-arms jobs to women.

Navy Rear Adm. Sean Pybus, head of the Naval Special Warfare Command, pointed to the SEAL trident on his uniform and then explained how he could foresee a future when a woman would earn one of her own.

“I have no doubt that women will be provided the opportunity to attempt to qualify for this operational device. And I suspect there will be some who meet the challenge,” Pybus said at the National Defense Industrial Association’s Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict Symposium on Wednesday. “But first it’s about providing the opportunity. Do you meet the qualifications to allow you the opportunity to go through training and then we’ll see where that goes.”

Maj. Gen. Mark Clark, the head of Marine Special Operations Command, agreed with Pybus saying he felt select women would be able to meet some of the standards for the front line jobs currently filled exclusively by male Marines.

Heading into the reviews that will be done by Special Operations Command, he said he couldn’t think of any specific concerns.

“I’m sure there are some women out there who would be able to pass some of the standards that are established there today,” Clark said. “As far as concerns, we don’t have any at this point.”

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos began opening combat-training opportunities to women with his decision last year to admit females on an experimental basis to the service’s Infantry Officer Course, a mentally and physically challenging program that Marines must complete to become rifle platoon leaders.

And Amos said his branch also wants to gauge how much interest there is among women to join the infantry units and whether enough can qualify for those units. If there is little interest or few can pass the infantry officers school, then certain positions may be closed to women.

But he emphasized that military leaders want to ensure the military continues to be an effective war-fighting force. And if the data and analysis support closing some positions, he believes the defense secretary will support that.

"I have every expectation that the secretary of defense will honor that," Amos said. "It's a commonsense approach to this thing."

The Marine Corps opened its tough infantry course at Quantico, Va., to female volunteers last fall. Two tried unsuccessfully in the first session. In the second session, none signed up. Amos said two female lieutenants have signed up for the third session that will start in March.

Amos said he met with them Monday.

"They're stalwart," he said. "It looks like they're in great shape and they're excited about it."

Army Ranger School is another punishing course that many young infantry leaders, both officers and sergeants, are encouraged to complete. The 61-day course pushes students to their mental and physical limits.

Ranger students are expected to perform on limited rations and about 3.5 hours of sleep a day. They typically wear and carry 65 to 90 pounds of weapons, equipment, and training ammunition while patrolling more than 200 miles throughout the course.

The graduation rate for Ranger School is just over 50 percent. And about 60 percent of all course failures occur in the first few days which students must complete a Ranger physical fitness test:
-- A minimum of 49 pushups in two minutes.
-- A minimum of 59 sit-ups in two minutes.
-- A 5 mile run in 40 minutes or less conducted in platoon-sized formation.

During the first week, students must also complete a 16-mile hike within 5 hours and 20 minutes, carrying a 65-pound pack and a combat water survival test which includes a 15-meter swim with load-bearing equipment and a rifle.

“It’s not that they aren’t physically fit; when you do a PT test in Ranger School, you get evaluated to a specific standard,” Helmick said. “When you are doing pushups, you have to do a good pushup. It’s not like when you are in your unit sometimes and people don’t make you do your best. You either meet the standard or you don’t meet the standard.”

Army Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, commander of Training and Doctrine Command, has made it clear that women who want to serve in direct-action combat units will have to pass the same standards as men.

One of the biggest challenges for Army leaders will be to ensure that cultural biases in the training institutions don’t create unfair conditions for women attempting to gain entry into combat-arms schools and units, Helmick said.

“Some of the instructors that are there in these schools will probably say ‘Hey, I am not going to be the first guy to have a female successfully complete that school,” he said. “We expect all of our instructors to be professional – well, there is a lot of stuff that goes on in the middle of the night that nobody knows about unless commanders are out there checking.”

At the same time, Helmick said that females that don’t meet the standard must not be allowed to pass.

“I think it is going to be an issue if a female fails the standard and is kind of accepted into the organization. I think that would be a huge mistake,” he said.

“Let’s face it, the female that desires to be in that organization is not going to be a person who is not mentally tough. It is not going to be a person who is not physically tough and morally and spiritually tough because that is what it takes to get through just the assessment phase of some of these organizations.”

Helmick, who spent 37 years in the Army before retiring in 2012, served in the 75th Ranger Regiment as well as the 82nd Airborne Division, Southern European Task Force (Airborne) and the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).

“Having spent a lot of time in the military, what I have seen is a success story with women,” he said. “We have come a hell of a long way since Grenada in 1983 when I was down there, and we had a female MP come down, and she was the only female MP on that island in a combat role. Women are a huge part of the success of the United States Army. They are one of the reasons we are so damned good.”

 

Don't forget the most important thing . . . wear makeup: it fixes your shortcomings and makes you more attractive.

Fashion Advice at the DIA: 'Makeup Makes You More Attractive' - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

Fashion Advice at the DIA: 'Makeup Makes You More Attractive'


By Brooke Berger
February 1, 2013


A week after women were cleared to serve in combat, Defense Intelligence Agency employees got a different message. "Makeup makes you more attractive." "Don't be a plain Jane." "A sweater with a skirt is better than a sweater with slacks." "No flats." "Paint your nails." "Don't be afraid of color." And, "brunettes have more leeway with vibrant colors than blondes or redheads."

Men and women at DIA were given fashion advice in a presentation prepared by an employee at the agency this week. Susan Strednansky, public affairs officer at DIA, offered the agency's regrets about the briefing, which raised eyebrows among some employees, saying, "I'm not going to deny that it exists, and it was bad. It was inappropriate for sure." She added, "Neither the agency nor the leadership has condoned anything that was in that briefing."

The presentation offered gender-specific advice on how to improve one's success in the workplace through appearance. "It was an informal event that an employee put together, a briefing on How to Dress for Success," Strednansky says. "It's not directive. It is not mandatory. It is just, 'Hey, here are some suggestions.'"

[ENJOY: Political Cartoonists Take on Women in Combat]

In response to the presentation, DIA director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn sent a letter to employees that was provided to Whispers. In it, he apologized to employees for "the unnecessary and serious distraction" and called the presentation "highly offensive." Flynn added that he hoped the intentions were "pure of heart and intended to help... but even smart people do dumb things sometimes. That said, no one is going to be taken to the wood shed over this. They'll require some counseling (to be sure) on what it means to think before you act."

 

Yes...I see it all...I have had that kind of epiphany that only a military teabagger is capable off....we mustn't waste money on training women to become combat ready....we absolutely must train them in the really important things...such as grace, poise, charm, etiquette....and which item of cutlery to select to daintily eat fish with...instead of room clearing with an M4 and grenades,... laying down supressing fire for that platoon quick attack, or applying a tourniquet to stop a bleedout.





Yes...women must definitely not be trained to do the things that only strong muscular males are capable of!!!

 

Marine survey lists concerns on women in combat

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Male Marines listed being falsely accused of sexual harassment or assault as a top concern in a survey about moving women into combat jobs, and thousands indicated the change could prompt them to leave the service altogether.

The anonymous online questionnaire by the Marine Corps surveyed 53,000 troops last summer, with the results provided to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta before he opened thousands of combat positions to women last week.

The Marine Corps released the results to The Associated Press on Friday.

Among the other top concerns listed by male Marines were possible fraternization and preferential treatment of some Marines.

Respondents also worried that women would be limited because of pregnancy or personal issues that could affect a unit before it's sent to the battlefield.

Military experts said the results were not surprising because the Marines have the highest percentage of males among the branches of the armed forces.

Former Marine infantry officer Greg Jacob of the Service Women's Action Network said the Pentagon's estimate that 86 percent of assault victims opt against filing complaints "suggests that there's hardly an overabundance of reports, false or otherwise."

Some, however, said the survey shows the need for sensitivity training and guidance from leadership so the change goes smoothly, as occurred when the military ended its policy that barred openly gay troops.

"I think there is this sense among what I would imagine is a very small minority of Marines that this male bastion is under siege and this is one more example of political correctness," said David J. R. Frakt, a military law expert and lieutenant colonel in the Air Force reserves.

Just as the Marine Corps adjusted to the end of "don't ask, don't tell," despite being the most resistant among the military branches, troops will likely fall in line again with this latest historical milestone, said Frakt, a visiting professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

Marine Corps officials did not respond to a request for comment on the survey results.

About 17 percent of male Marine respondents and 4 percent of female respondents who planned to stay in the service or were undecided said they would likely leave if women move into combat positions. That number jumped to 22 percent for male Marines and 17 percent for female Marines if women are assigned involuntarily to those jobs, according to the survey.

Both sexes mentioned intimate relationships between Marines and feeling obligated to protect female Marines among their top five concerns about the change.

Female Marines also said they worried about being targeted by enemies as POWs, the risk of sexual harassment or assault, and hygiene facilities, according to the survey, which did not give specifics.

The women surveyed also expressed concern about acceptance and physical abilities if given a ground combat job.

About 31 percent of female respondents — or 1,558 women Marines — say they would be interested in a lateral move to a combat position as their primary job, and 34 percent — or 1,636 — said they would volunteer for a ground combat unit assignment.

Elaine Donnelly of the conservative Center for Military Readiness and a vocal critic of the change said the survey asked the wrong questions and should have been asking if troops favor it and whether it will make a more effective force.

The questionnaire also relied on the "mistaken belief" that training standards will remain the same, which Donnelly said is not realistic given the differing physical abilities between the genders.

She said the Pentagon is bent on imposing gender-based quotas that will drive down standards. Defense leaders say standards will not be lowered.

"The results that are being put out there are designed to manage public perception," she said. "There is a lot about this that still needs to be discussed and it's really not fair to the women who serve out there."

The infantry side is skeptical about how women will perform in their units, and some positions may end up closed again if too few females meet the physically demanding standards of combat, said Gen. James Amos, head of the Marine Corps, who spoke to reporters Thursday at a defense conference in San Diego.

"I think from the infantry side of the house, you know they're more skeptical," Amos said. "It's been an all-male organization throughout the history of the U.S. Marine Corps so I don't think that should be any surprise."

Most Marines support the policy change, Amos said.

It will be up to the military service chiefs to recommend and defend whether women should be excluded from any of those more demanding and deadly positions, such as Navy commandos or the Army's Delta Force.

Over the past decade, many male service members already have been fighting alongside women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women who serve in supply units, as clerks and with military police have ended up on the unmarked front lines of modern warfare.

More than 150 women have been killed in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while serving in support roles.

About 7 percent of Marines are female compared to about 14 percent overall for the armed forces.

Both sexes surveyed said getting women closer to the action will improve their career opportunities.

Marine survey lists concerns on women in combat - Yahoo! News

 

A reasonable, balanced article. Those concerns cannot be just simply ignored, but must be answered and addressed one way or another if implementation is to go ahead.

The USA is finding itself challenged meeting the manpower requirements for sustaining a long term commitment to low intensity counter insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with an all "volunteer" military. The sustainment of those two campaigns has largely been possible by resorting to the multiple deployments of full-time regulars, part-time reservists, and National Guard personnel.

I foresee a time when, for the sake of national survival in time of armed conflict with an external aggressor, the Draft will be reinstituted...but for both genders. The requirement for manpower will be such that the halt, lame and lazy of both genders will be given their uniform, a weapon, and what training can be contrived, and then sent to do their duty assignments in whatever capacity is deemed necessary. In a toe to toe contest between the PRC and its allies on one side, and the USA and whatever allies it can muster on the other, the USA will not be able to afford to be very precious about not accepting transgenders and transvestites into the ranks, let alone women being in combat roles.

 

The military isn't concerned with filling manpower requirements at the moment. The government is currently downsizing the military as quikly as possible.

 

It's not about the Military, it is about the next wind up that may be one of the bloodiest ever seen.

What it is about is causing a depression and civilian unrest, in doubt check out the loss here to the public payroll of a working business.
Report: Army cutbacks could be painful for Ga. - SFGate

As well as Navy details two rounds of budget cutbacks for 2013 - FederalNewsRadio.com

It is all about an excuse of lost income and a misdirection of the will of the people. Make a big deal about something that is not needed yet and then bait and switch on the 2nd Amendment.

Time to recaffeine.

 

The USA is downsizing its military force structure and personnel as a matter of economic necessity; and because the operational deployment of armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be politically or diplomatically justified. The USA, although still the world's leading power, is none the less a steadily declining power, in much the same way that Great Britain pretty much ceased being actually great by the late Victorian era if not earlier. The USA has some way to go, before it reaches similar power projection circumstances to those faced by Great Britain just prior to WWI, but the trend is becoming more apparent as time goes forward.

Australia has traditionally secured defence alliances with stronger powers, such as Britain, and the USA to seek the real or imagined protection of its stronger allies. Having a strong protector may not be able to be banked upon in all circumstances in an uncertain future. Australia found this to be the case in 1941 /1942 when Britain very reluctantly acceded to Australia's demands to redeploy Australian troops to face the Japanes threat in the Pacific. Australia is presently facing the same issues with regard to the employment of women in the military as is the USA...and the ADF is getting its house in order before brute necessity obligates such measures be taken.

 

Well all of that sounds very official and all, more of a media event pub.

You might want to go back and read my post for its content, not as the subject matter for a world sitrep reply.

BTW OZZ has already discovered that they are in deep kimchi or better explained as on the ocean without a Fleet.

 

1. I was replying to Sapper's post, not your own.

2. Most in the defence community on Australia are well aware of that very salient fact...the Navy particularly...It has a penchent for trying to build its own submarines, and buying expensive dying ships (HMAS Kanimbla and HMS Manoora) from close friends. However, many in the uninformed civilian community live under the misapprehension that Australia's more powerful friends will necessarily ride to Australia's rescue if Australia is threatened by hostile acts from other nations. By all means, Australia needs to preserve and indeed strengthen its strategic alliances, but at the end of the day, Australia needs to be more self reliant. Given Australia's population, that will ever be a significant challenge...therefore, excluding some 50% of Australia's enlistable population from the pool of available potential combatants does not make a huge amount of sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Kanimbla_(L_51)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saginaw_(LST-1188)

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Manoora_(L_52)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fairfax_County_(LST-1193)

 

Ozz does not have and has never had the ability to defend itsself.

The US and not Britain is the reason OZZ was not invaded by the Japs, certainly OZZ did not have the military infrastructure to fight a war with Japan.

The Battle of the Coral Sea and many other encounters plus the many patrols by US Subs kept the Japs at bay untill the US could rebuild our Pacific fleet.

Right now OZZ Gov admits that they will never have a Nuc Fleet, be it surface or sub, reason, lack of military infrastructure to fight a war. China knows this as does the rest of the world.

Female draftees will just be more cannon foder along with the males.

 

Ok, I've not weighted in on this topic yet. I've kept my mouth shut, well until now.
Let me put this out there. No disrespect to women but.
Holy hell boys, Imagine 3 women, Cycling at the same time, Cramps, PMS, pissed as hell.
Give them guns and blame it on OpFor. Get out the line of fire ASAP.
There would be bodies everywhere.
Ok, that's what my dad and I thought would happen. I truly hate ice fishing but you know, It's better than being stuck in the house sometimes.

Ok, smack me down if you must. I can take it.

if your only options are to fight or die. Well, you have to make a choice. Good or bad. Gal with a gun or dude with a gun in your fighting position with you. Same choice.

 

I have a great deal of ambivalence toward the question of women in combat.

I don't think anyone, man or woman, liberal or conservative, can seriously believe that putting women in a direct combat role, such as infantry, is an ideal situation.

I think that the former policy of our Defense Department though has been dishonest and, in some regard, biased against female service members. Women have been placed in combat zones, yet officially forbidden to be there. In that regard, it resembles our lack of an immigration policy. We forbid, forbid, forbid; and then look the other way while it occurs. Either women are allowed to officially be in a combat zone, with whatever small perks that may include, or they should not be there.

And, while I don't see women in a direct combat role as an ideal situation, saying that "Women are incapable of operating in direct combat" is belied by history. Not only CAN they, but they HAVE done so. It isn't a theoretical proposition. They have done so in the past, and will do so again. When any country's back is against the wall, the gloves come off, and prohibitions melt away.

And, while I don't see a direct combat role for women as ideal, I see no reason why they can't continue to fill many combat support roles, and even expand into other combat support roles. Consistency in training and standards is crucial though. If a man can't meet the standards, he shouldn't be there; and the same goes for a woman.

 

First Pull-Ups, Then Combat, Marines Say

Published: February 1, 2013

EXCERPTS:
WASHINGTON — How many pull-ups does it take to make a female Marine?

The answer, starting next January: a minimum of three, the same number required of male Marines.

If anyone thought the military’s decision to allow women into combat units would lead to exceptions for women when it came to fitness and physical strength, this is one service’s “gender neutral” answer — or at least part of the answer.

Like the men, women will have to perform the exercises on the Marine Corps’s annual physical fitness test as “dead hang” pull-ups, without the benefit of the momentum from a lower-body swing. Like the men, women can do the pull-ups underhanded or overhanded, as long as their chins break the plane of the bar.

The new requirement replaces the old “flexed arm hang” for women, in place since 1975, which had to be held for a minimum of 15 seconds.
......

But for now, the Army has no immediate plans to change its sex-adjusted recruitment and annual fitness tests, even though the Marine Corps, which tenaciously promotes itself as the most hard-bodied service, has started to toughen up its standards for women.

But even for the pull-ups, the Marines are still making some exceptions. To get a perfect grade, women will have to do only 8, compared with the 20 required for men.

“I don’t think it’s a very high bar,” said Capt. Ann G. Fox, a Marine Reserve officer who during her first deployment in 2004 worked with the Iraqi Army and who thinks women could do better if it was required of them. “I think the test should be the same as the men 20 pull-ups. People train to what they’re tested on.”
......

In the Army, no pull-ups are required of either men or women on the annual fitness test, but like the Marines, there are different standards for each sex. A 17- to 26-year-old man in the Army has to run two miles in 15 minutes, 54 seconds or less and do at least 42 push-ups; a woman in the same age group has to run two miles in 18 minutes, 54 seconds or less and do at least 19 push-ups.

The requirements decrease as service members age, although a woman who is 62 or older in the Army still has to run two miles in 25 minutes or less.

Marines, typically, raise the bar. A 17- to 26-year-old male Marine has to run three miles in 28 minutes or less on his annual fitness test; compared with 31 minutes or less for a female Marine of the same age.

The Marines also require all men and women to pass an annual combat fitness test, even though until now women were not officially permitted in combat. The sex-adjusted test drills Marines in how to respond under fire.

All of the tests pale in comparison with one of the most brutal male preserves in the military, the Marines’ 86-day Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va., which is intended to screen and train potential infantry officers. The test makes extraordinary physical and mental demands on its participants.

Last fall, two female officers went through the course as an experiment and failed, inviting questions — even though large numbers of men fail — of whether women were up to it.

Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, held out the possibility that they are. In comments to reporters in San Diego on Thursday, he said he had met with two more female officers who had signed up for the next Infantry Officer Course, starting in March. “It looks like they’re in great shape and they’re excited about it,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/us/politics/first-pull-ups-then-combat-marines-say.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130202&_r=0

 

In Arduous Officer Course, Women Offer Clues to Their Future in Infantry

EXCERPTS:
Last fall, two newly minted female lieutenants joined about 100 men in Quantico, Va., for one of the most grueling experiences that soldiers not in war can experience: the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course.

During the 86-day course, candidates haul heavy packs and even heavier weapons up and down steep hills, execute ambushes and endure bitter cold, hunger and exhaustion. Uncertainty abounds: they do not know their next task, or even how long they will have to perform it. At I.O.C., calm leadership under duress is more important than physical strength, although strength is essential.

One of the women — the first to enter the course — was dropped on the first day with about two dozen men during a notoriously strenuous endurance test. But the second woman lasted deep into the second week, when a stress fracture in her leg forced her to quit.

“She was tough,” Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, said of the woman, who is now at flight school. “She wasn’t going to quit.”

General Amos hopes that the experiences of those women, and others to come, will provide crucial clues about the future of women in the infantry, a possibility allowed by the recent lifting of the 1994 ban on women in direct combat units.

For the Marine Corps, probably more than any other military service, gender integration is a difficult affair. Not only is the corps the most male of the services, with women making up only about 7 percent of its ranks, but it is also a bastion of the infantry. Nearly one in five Marines are “grunts,” proud of their iconic history of bloody ground battles, from Belleau Wood to Iwo Jima to Chosin Reservoir to Falluja.

Not surprisingly, the idea of women in the infantry draws sharp questions from many active-duty Marines and veterans, who express concerns that standards will be diluted for women.

In an interview, General Amos acknowledged hearing those worries and insisted that the corps would not lower its standards. To guarantee that, he plans to use the course, which Marines consider the gold standard of infantry training, to study the performance of potential female infantry officers and then use that data to develop requirements for enlisted infantry Marines.

In March, two Naval Academy graduates will become the second set of women to enter the course. Over the coming years, General Amos is counting on dozens more female volunteers to provide him with enough information to decide whether women can make it in the infantry. The outcome, he says, is far from certain.

“I think there is absolutely no reason to think our females can’t be tankers, or be amtrackers, or be artillery Marines,” he said, referring to tracked amphibious assault vehicles. “The infantry is different.”
.......

“You could reach the point where you say, ‘It’s not worth it,’ ” General Amos said. “The numbers are so infinitesimally small, it’s not worth it.”
........

In the coming months, the most pressing task for all of the armed services will be establishing gender-neutral requirements for every combat job, known as military occupational specialties. Of the 340 job categories in the Marine Corps, 32 had been closed to women under the 1994 ban.

The Marine Corps has set out a two-tiered process for creating those requirements: one short-term for armor, artillery, combat engineering and low-altitude air defense units, and a longer-term one for the infantry.

For noninfantry combat units, Marine commanders will be expected to establish requirements for every job by June. For example, artillery crews, working in pairs, must be able to lift and load shells weighing about 100 pounds. Tank crew members must be able to lift 40-pound shells using arm strength alone, because of the vehicle’s tight quarters.
.......

General Amos said he hoped that tests for the noninfantry combat units would be in place by the end of this year, potentially allowing women who are finishing boot camp early next year to move into some combat units.

“I’m really pretty bullish on this thing,” he said.

The infantry will take longer. The Marine Corps produces only about 110 female officers a year, and so far, only four have volunteered for I.O.C. General Amos said he would need many more volunteers to draw conclusions.

Given the heavy dose of infantry life that all officers experience in their initial training, he said he was unsurprised that women were not knocking down the door to enter I.O.C.

“By the time you’ve spent six months of this, picking ticks off of every part of your body, freezing cold, smelling like a goat and eating M.R.E.’s, you may go, ‘Well, this infantry stuff isn’t for me,’ ” he said, referring to packaged military meals. “So we don’t have a lot of volunteers.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/us/marines-look-to-infantry-course-for-insight-on-women.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130218&_r=0

 

This probably belongs in the Motivational posters thread, but it would also be well at home in this thread too.



A worthy predecessor of the four pilots above.


CA CA- Gertrude Vreeland Tompkins Silver: WWII Woman Aviator, 32, Inglewood, 26 Oct 1944 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

I wonder just how desirable combat roles for women will become when they return from war with half their face blown off or otherwise disfigured for life while still in their early 20s? I don't think they realize that this can and does happen in combat, and that enemy grenades and roadside bombs won't give a rat's petoot about your gender. When it becomes a reality, how many other women will look at their friends who are in chronic physical and psychological misery and respond with "Sign me up today"?

 

I believe that is a very shallow view of woman in general. I know a lot of woman that put service to others and love of country above everything else in their lives. I also know a men that put their hair cut and clothes above everything else.

I don't particularly care if there is only one woman in the entire country that wants to serve in combat, she should have the chance to be judged on her abilities and not her gender. If she fails to meet a well defined standard based on actual job requirements, too bad.

 

Man...do Army and marine corps recruiters dwell on death and disembowelment when they are hustling recruits with selling benefits like..."it's not just a job...it's a career with great benefits, free medical...G.I. Bill at the end of your enlistment" etc etc etc. The same issues apply no less to males than they do to females. If recruiters took potential recruits through miltary and VA maxillofacial and orthopaedic wards before signing up...I would imagine that fewer recruits of either gender would be signing on the dotted line.

The evident fact is that even without being in the infantry ...soldiers, both men and women are already facing the risks of having half their face blown off or otherwise disfigured, simply because the battlefield is three dimensional, 24/7X52. Any place within talib mortar and rocket range is a hazardous place to be, any route from the port of entry (from the land/sea/air gap) to anywhere in the area of operations is a hazardous place to be...be the soldier a cook, or a chaplain, or a "private blowfly" ( hygiene dutyman).

Women will enlist in the services for a number of reasons, perhaps for economic reasons to break out of poverty, or, in the case of National Guard enlistees to supplement their income, or as a means of getting an education, or a job marketable trade, or perhaps out of some sense of patriotic commitment....whatever the reason, I don't think that such women are utterly ignorant of the risks that soldiers are confronted with in a war zone. Television and news reportage of the casualty toll in Iraq, and Afghanistan is quite graphic in that regard.

Soldiers doing soldierly work are at risk of death and injury whether at peace or on combat operations; it is a cultural peculiarity that women are treated as some kind of fragile feminine decoration to be kept in a glass case to be admired, rather than as a functional working implement to be carefully maintained and used for the productive work that they have signed up to do.