Skip to comments.Women and ‘Appropriate’ Combat Standards
Posted on 01/26/2013 8:53:37 AM PST by chessplayer
The makeover is already underway. The armed services are now developing gender-neutral standards for all of their jobs, reports the New York Times, replacing the less demanding physical standards for women that each branch has been using heretofore (oh, you mean you didnt know about those lowered standards?) with a single standard for men and women. The Pentagon has vowed that the new gender-neutral standard will not be crafted in order to make it easier for women to join combat units. If you believe that, you probably also believe that colleges hire professors on a race- and gender-blind basis.
Heres how you create a single gender-neutral standard: You universally apply the existing one that was developed based on a sole criterion combat readiness. What was wrong with the standard that men had to meet? Nothing, other than the fact that an insufficient number of women can pass it.
Apart from the obvious problems of sexual attraction and rivalries while on a fast-moving mission, it is absurd to think that putting women into a group of men doesnt radically change the dynamics of that group We obsessively celebrate the sisterhood. Strong women together create a special vibe and special power, we are told; thus the ongoing existence of all-female schools and clubs at a time when any remaining all-male organizations are in the crosshairs. The concept of male bonding, however, once glorified in epics and drama, is now viewed as simply exclusionary, of no value to society whatsoever.
Being in the service in the early 90's the 'standards' were already skewed quite wide for the females in the ranks. I can't imagine what it will be going forward...
The pacifists in the Dem party are rather well pleased with an emasculated Armed Services as are the’equalizers’(equality over freedom) ,the ‘feminists’ and the isolationists. War will be much more difficult and bloody in the future. With all kinds of repurcussions for us in the next major or world war. And of course such a move when fully implemented, along with an overall reduction in our readiness($$), will invite our enemies to our throats.
But, I have an objection to trying to integrate them with male soldiers.
I envision a PT test involving a Soldier chasing a female Soldier while being chased by a homosexual Soldier...
That would be FABULOUS!
I guess parallel parking will not be part of the fitness test....
Obama’s goal is to put women in charge of the millitary, thereby neutralizing the entire military. Imagine the joint Chiefs of Staff being a bunch of lesbians.
Making it all the easier for the Red State Army to whip ass.
This whole idiotic policy is window-dressing for a few careerist female officers who want to get their combat tickets punched so they can become generals. Military women aren’t clamoring to join the infantry; hell, even a lot of men don’t want to be in the infantry. For years the Army paid bonuses of up to $10,000 per recruit just to fill the infantry ranks.
The interesting thing will be how the military responds when they don’t get any female volunteers for the combat arms. I knew of some instances where soldiers were involuntarily reclassified, but that was rare and typically in cases where they couldn’t meet a security clearance or their original MOS became obsolete. So I imagine it will take some hefty bonuses and incentives to get females to even attempt combat arms training, and even more goodies to retain them. Not to mention that recruiting and retention of men will take a big hit. When combat arms warriors see their profession degraded, I would guess many will ETS or transfer to easier jobs to finish their careers.
Wow, even equipped with a pole!
male bonding == sexist and exclusionary
female bomding == empowering and strengthening