Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AP Exclusive: Few Army women want combat jobs
Associated Press ^ | February 25, 2014

Posted on 02/25/2014 7:35:58 AM PST by ConservativeStatement

FORT EUSTIS, Va. — Only a small fraction of Army women say they'd like to move into one of the newly opening combat jobs, but those few who do say they want a job that takes them right into the heart of battle, according to preliminary results from a survey of the service's nearly 170,000 women.

That survey and others across the Army, publicly disclosed for the first time to The Associated Press, also revealed that soldiers of both genders are nervous about women entering combat jobs but say they are determined to do it fairly. Men are worried about losing their jobs to women; women are worried they will be seen as getting jobs because of their gender and not their qualifications. Both are emphatic that the Army must not lower standards to accommodate women.

(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: army; combat; military; women
Imagine the military under Princess Hillary's command.
1 posted on 02/25/2014 7:35:58 AM PST by ConservativeStatement
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Weight training — and lots of it.


2 posted on 02/25/2014 7:37:27 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement
but those few who do say they want a job that takes them right into the heart of battle

What an odd comment to add to this story.

3 posted on 02/25/2014 7:41:21 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

If they give them jobs being the boss, they can have the grunts do the hard stuff.


4 posted on 02/25/2014 7:42:41 AM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Weight training involving trips to the chow hall?


5 posted on 02/25/2014 7:42:48 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement
Hey, I've got an idea!

Why not have one section of the Army for men and another one for women. We could call the women's the Women's Army Corps--WACs for short!

I'll bet nobody's thought of that!

Okay, we'll call the men's the MACs.

Maybe we could set up a third section: the GACs. HACs? QACs?

6 posted on 02/25/2014 7:45:52 AM PST by Savage Beast (Hubris and denial overwhelm Western Civilization. Nemesis and tragedy always follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast; All

In 1979 I was in the very first co-ed training platoon at Ft. Jackson, SC.

It REALLY got old dragging those boys along with us gals every d@mn day. ;)


7 posted on 02/25/2014 7:54:54 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Sounds like half a dozen....which makes it more likely that they’re libbers and happy people. You can define happy.


8 posted on 02/25/2014 7:56:57 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

9 posted on 02/25/2014 7:57:19 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement; All

“Both are emphatic that the Army must not lower standards to accommodate women.”

If you are lower standards you are putting lives in danger!!!

If whatever social engineering du jour doesn’t make the military a fiercer fighting force then it is just simply liberal BS!!!

That is just this Chief’s two cents.


10 posted on 02/25/2014 7:59:46 AM PST by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1
Not too long ago, I was at a transportation center. I was next to a military person and he and I chatted briefly. There were three women, all dressed in business attire, using their Walkman2014 devices. Along came a rodent. The guy in uniform and I didn't react but the three women shrieked and moved quickly in opposite directions. It was humorous to see the reactions of everyday people in that setting. I said “Imagine them in a foxhole.” So, what will happen if and when Princess Hillary requires women to serve in the military in the name of equality? Will the enemy unload rats and mice and see military members shrieking?
11 posted on 02/25/2014 8:01:07 AM PST by ConservativeStatement ("World Peace 1.20.09.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Form battalions of gays and women who want combat as front line shock troops.


12 posted on 02/25/2014 8:02:32 AM PST by Iron Munro (Eight died on that bridge at Concord, back in 1775. How many will it take this time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Those few that do want to get bloody need a good psyche eval, most if not all ought to be disQual’d. Unstable.

They may think they want to get bloody, but they don’t know what they want.

My opinion is they ought to be raising babies that will g row up to be men to fight the nation’s battles, and yes, my knuckles kinda drag on the ground most days.


13 posted on 02/25/2014 8:04:20 AM PST by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Is anyone surprised???

The women are not stupid.

They’ve seen what happens in combat first hand and don’t want to return home without arms or legs like the male soldiers.


14 posted on 02/25/2014 8:04:42 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

I wonder what percentage of homosexuals aspire to combat?


15 posted on 02/25/2014 8:05:37 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

“I wonder what percentage of homosexuals aspire to combat?”

Combat?

Naw...more like a good game of butt darts.


16 posted on 02/25/2014 8:17:04 AM PST by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

mostly dykes on bikes, I believe.


17 posted on 02/25/2014 8:18:03 AM PST by DaxtonBrown (http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

That could be viewed as a suicide wish, making one unfit for service in the military.


18 posted on 02/25/2014 8:22:58 AM PST by Delta Dawn (Fluent in two languages: English and cursive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Why can’t the DoD and President look around and ask why the NFL, MLB and NBA have no women on the field/court? But wait, you have to understand that the mission of these hard core radicals is to destroy the fabric and structure of the military that they have hated since Vietnam. When you understand that, you will understand what they are trying to do. And with the cuts Hagel wants, there wont be any military to work with anyway.


19 posted on 02/25/2014 8:45:57 AM PST by armydawg505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Liberal elites who NEVER in a million years would bother to defend this country want women soldiers mangled, killed and destroyed. It proves something for them... something so evil and base I can’t figure out what it is...


20 posted on 02/25/2014 8:50:48 AM PST by GOPJ ("Great powers are driven by a mixture of confidence and insecurity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delta Dawn

I can see someone wanting to do their duty come what may, but I don’t see any normal person specifically wanting to be in the ‘heart of the battle’. Probably just the writer being overly dramatic.


21 posted on 02/25/2014 8:55:29 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

I think most men who have been in combat don’t want to be in it again. WWII vets, for example, often seem to not even want to talk about it. I agree. Someone who actually wanted to “get bloody” shouldn’t be in the military in the first place.

The reason we carry the proverbial big stick is so we are (hopefully) never required to use it. That lesson seems lost on many in government today who seem to want to throw the military at virtually every problem.


22 posted on 02/25/2014 8:58:14 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Sodomy and abortion: the only constitutional rights cherished by Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Are you saying that the reporter resorted to hyperbole to help sensationalize his story? I would be shocked!

Conversely, my father served in WWII. He never talked about it. Never.


23 posted on 02/25/2014 9:03:40 AM PST by Delta Dawn (Fluent in two languages: English and cursive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Well, let me see.... We could start with (a) like Satan, they are working for the destruction of the family, (b) they believe that the United States is evil and must be prevented from ever again having an influence on the rest of the world, thus making the U.S. irrelevant on the world stage, (c) they belive that any woman who would join the miliitary must be mentally ill and therefore deserve whatever fate she might face, (d) ......


24 posted on 02/25/2014 9:23:42 AM PST by Pecos (The Chicago Way: Kill the Constitution, one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

The comment was added because the article said that the few women who did want to have combat jobs all overwhelmingly eager to volunteer to be crews for the night stalkers spec ops helo unit.

But regular infantry, armor, or paratrooper work doesn’t interest them much. Ill refrain from further analysis.


25 posted on 02/25/2014 9:26:16 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

Liberal elites are worse than you think... you’re giving them waaaay too much credit.


26 posted on 02/25/2014 9:30:13 AM PST by GOPJ ("Great powers are driven by a mixture of confidence and insecurity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Delta Dawn

Its the writer’s way of warning us not to read anything into these poll results because there are salty, hardbody lady warriors out there who can slam shots & kick ass with the toughest of guys out there. /s


27 posted on 02/25/2014 9:31:17 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Only if it’s sword fights.


28 posted on 02/25/2014 9:32:30 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Few Army women want combat jobs
___

No sane woman - or man - WANTS to go into combat.


29 posted on 02/25/2014 9:43:55 AM PST by lakecumberlandvet (Appeasement never works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The comment that men are afraid of losing their job to women is the most stupid comment I’ve ever seen about women going into combat roles...

As a Vietnam veteran, I would say what bothers men more than anything is the lack of support from a woman’s fear and the basic instinct males have to “protect” females. The male is concerned that he may spend valuable time looking out for female counterpart instead of applying all his energy into combat operations.


30 posted on 02/25/2014 9:46:38 AM PST by Boonie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

I’m in a generous frame of mind today.


31 posted on 02/25/2014 9:50:59 AM PST by Pecos (The Chicago Way: Kill the Constitution, one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Those who do will regret it.


32 posted on 02/25/2014 10:28:02 AM PST by Politicalkiddo (Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it. -M. Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

Have them do pull-ups and to paint “El Riesgo Siempre Vive” on their body armor.


33 posted on 02/25/2014 10:28:27 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement
‘Imagine the military under Princess Hillary's command.’

More to the point imagine the US Army in any prolonged high intensity conflict after the Obama cuts are put in place. Just like before Korea the so-called defense leadership has convinced themselves that because the budget levels have to be held down the army should absorb the biggest hit as air power and technology can handle any likely challenge. The threat perimeters were defined to meet the shrunken defense budget the Prez Truman and Congress (both parties) were happy with. A war like the Korean War was simply not supposed to occur. Read Joe Collins memoir ‘War in Peacetime’ carefully and you will see that is what he is admitting to. As CSA he was complicit in keeping the broken state of the Army out of the news and was complicit in what happened after 25 June 1950. The current set of pukes will never fess up even to the degree ‘Lightning Joe’ did. When the feces hits the fan here is the bottom line on the ‘women in combat’ sh-t. Lots of female pseudo soldiers in the Combat Support and Service Support Military occupation Specialties will be introduced to a new term ‘Crossleveling’ and they will find their derrieres being pushed through(if they are lucky) a short ‘familiarization course’ in being infantry and then be shipped to a ‘field replacement center’ in the theater of operations and from there sent as ‘fillers’ to combat arms units depleted from battlefield losses. The garbage in both parties that have promoted the elimination of the ban on females in combat arms postions merit being sent to the lowest circles of perdition for what they have done.

34 posted on 02/25/2014 12:31:57 PM PST by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Few women want combat. That is a surprise that ranks up there with the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow.


35 posted on 02/25/2014 2:10:07 PM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement
I've found that the major tub thumpers for women in combat are female officers. They see it as a fast track way to promotion. Female enlisted do not have such delusions. [Earth to fast tracking female officers: combat is an equal opportunity killer. It does not respect age, gender, or rank. Job openings are caused by casualties. One has to be alive to enjoy the rank and perks that come with rapid promotion. I just thought I’d give you a reality check because I have “been there and done that”.]
36 posted on 02/26/2014 2:18:13 AM PST by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson