Home of the ColdFusion Community
|
Mailing Lists
|
Home /
Groups /
ColdFusion Community (CF-Community)
Women in the Infantry
Author: LRS Scout
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/thread.cfm/threadid:34410#350127
So today the United States Marine Corps announced that they will begin
allowing women to apply for and attend the Infantry Officer course at the
School of Infantry.
The article can be found here:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/04/marine-corps-women-infantry-combat-dunford-amos-041812/
I'm sure many of you are sick of hearing me talk about the infantry and the
military in general, but I think this is something that really needs to be
discussed, considered and implemented in the right way.
I am not a sexist. I have have known women in the military that could
hang. That could throw 100 pounds on their back and ruck, that could carry
men off the field of battle. When I went to Airborne school one of my
instructors was female. A competitive body builder. A graduate of the
Pathfinder school. I would have served with her in any capacity.
I have no problem with women serving in the infantry provided it is done in
EQUAL manner. Not the so called equality of affirmative action, not with
the "standardized" gender based scoring of our current PT tests. No quotas.
This is not an easy job. The tolls both physical and mental are
horrendous, even during peace. Training can be just as deadly as combat.
The major issue I see with this is going to be keeping the politicians and
the politicized officers away from it.
Look, we weed people out in the military. If you don't meet the medical
and moral standards you can't join. You have increased physical standards
if you choose to serve in an Airborne assignment, and we cut people there.
We drop people at the school of infantry, and they go back to being
civilians, or on to easier jobs within the military. We drop people after
they get to their units for not being able to meet the standards. At every
level there are a percentage that don't make the cut, and that number grows
the more difficult the mission of the unit. Being infantry is harder than
being a clerk, being Airborne is harder than being a leg, being a ranger is
harder than that, SF standards are higher still, and CAG are fucking
robots, machines.
I don't want to be told I have to accept a soldier that can't do his or her
job just to make a quota, or to look good in or on a paper.
The PT concerns aren't the only ones. Women have higher necessary
standards of hygiene. For all that we want to be gender blind, we are not
physically the same. I know soldiers that had to go months without
showering during the initial invasion of Iraq. They were too far ahead of
the support, and their op tempo was too high, to be able to meet even the
most basic of hygiene needs. They out paced their logistical tail.
Women's monthly issues are going to be a concern, but we can get around
that with hormone treatment, it will have to be required for infantry
units. I wonder about the hygiene stuff, how bad can a yeast infection get
and so forth.
Opinions?
Author: GMoney
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/thread.cfm/threadid:34410#350130
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:28 AM, LRS Scout <lrsscout@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Opinions?
>
>
My opinion pretty much matches yours, i think.
Any and all women physically and mentally able and willing to perform the
duties of an infantryperson (see what i did there?), should be allowed to.
Those that can't, should not.
I can't imagine something like hygiene would really be that big of an
issue. Men can get infections and whatnot too if they live as dirty pigs
for too long.
Author: Judah McAuley
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/thread.cfm/threadid:34410#350131
Everything in that article seemed to indicate that the tested would be
"gender neutral" that the same exact test would be given to both women
and men. For positions that inherently have a strongly physical and
psychological component, I think that makes perfect sense. There is a
job to do and the people who have that job need to be able to do it.
As long as you can do it, shouldn't matter if you are black, white,
gay, straight, male, female, whatever.
As for the hygiene issues you bring up, I don't think it is really a
big deal. I've known women that hiked the PCT and wouldn't be near a
supply site for weeks at a time, let alone a shower. I don't think you
even have to have anything like hormone therapy, there is no reason to
stop menstruation, though menstruation tends to decline or delay under
heavy physical burden and stress, so that may happen naturally
regardless.
Cheers,
Judah
Author: Larry C. Lyons
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/thread.cfm/threadid:34410#350132
How about looking at the performance of women in other military
organizations. After all 2 women with the Royal Canadian Artillery
were casualties in Afghanistan
I see no issue with women in the infantry. If they can do the job
fine. I think it comes down to individual cases.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM, LRS Scout <lrsscout@gmail.com> wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: LRS Scout
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/thread.cfm/threadid:34410#350133
I know that's what the article says, but history says different. I mean
look at fire and police department policies about race and gender, they are
biased in favor of the minority in question.
Look at the claims that were made about gender equality when they did away
with the WAACs (my grandmother was one) and implimented the gender based PT
standards.
I don't trust that the officers whose next rating is going to depend on
these programs, aren't going to fudge results or lower standards to get the
"correct" percentage of female recruits through the training.
As to cleanliness, I've been lucky. The longest stuff I ever did was about
12 days after we got into some shit and had to stay out. I have friends
however that didn't see a shower for 4 months during the initial invasion
of Iraq.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Judah McAuley
<judah@wiredotter.com>wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Eric Roberts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/thread.cfm/threadid:34410#350134
I have no issues with it either. i do agree that there shouldn't be
separate standards for things like PT...a job requirement is a job
requirement regardless of your sex.
Eric
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Larry C. Lyons
<larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Scott Stroz
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/thread.cfm/threadid:34410#350139
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Any and all adults physically and mentally able and willing to perform
the duties of an infantryperson (see what i did there?), should be
allowed to. Those that can't, should not.
:D
--
Scott Stroz
---------------
You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can
wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris
http://xkcd.com/386/
|
May 20, 2013
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
