So it begins

[CSM]

Why am I not surprised? I knew it wouldn't be long before they figured out that MOST women cannot make it in combat roles without altering the standards. Now we can place women in harms way that won't be able to perform to the standards required; that will place those who CAN meet the true standards in danger. Placing lives at risk for the sake of political correctness ... it really pisses me off!

Washington Times
July 26, 2013
Pg. 5
Military Mulls Separate TrainingIdea spurred by adding women to combat unitsBy Rowan Scarborough, The Washington TimesThe military is looking at ways to modify its training for women to help them qualify for direct ground combat roles in the infantry, tanks and special operations.
Senior officers revealed the new effort this week at a hearing of the House Armed Services subcommittee on personnel.
The armed services have pledged that their standards for ground combat and commando operations will be the same for men and women.
But now commanders are raising the possibility of a twotiered training system.
The idea was presented by Rep. Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts Democrat, at a hearing of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee, who told of a conversation she had with a woman working on combat standards.
“Her comment was that, yes, you want the standards to be gender-neutral,” Ms. Tsongas said. “But you may need to train to these standards in different ways in order for women to have success.
“To put in place a training regimen that is ill-suited to maximizing the success of women is not really the outcome any of us want to see,” she said.
Army Lt. Gen. Howard B. Bromberg, deputy chief of staff for personnel, agreed.
“We are looking at that, and we’re not looking at it just for the integration of women,” Gen. Bromberg testified. “We’re looking at it for the total soldier, because just as you have a 110pound male who may lack some type of physiological capability or physical capability, he or she may both need to be trained differently. We’re trying to expand our understanding of how we train.”
Lt. Gen. Robert E. Milstead Jr., deputy Marine Corps commandant for manpower, put forward a pitch for gender-segregated boot camps. The corps is the only service that has maintained gendersegregated initial training.
“I think an excellent example of what you’re talking about is our gender-separated boot camp,” Gen. Milstead testified. “We don’t start teaching the [occupations] there. Our boot camp is about the transformation of individuals, men and women, from being a civilian to being a United States Marine. We have it separated for that reason, because we feel that this transformation, it goes on a separate track. It needs to be handled different.
“They need to be nurtured different. They just need different steps as they go. They end up in the same place, the United States Marines.”
The Marine Corps has charged to the front of the women in combat issue by asking female officer volunteers to try to complete the officer combat qualification course at the base in Quantico, Va., .
Women are expected to perform the same tasks as men. All six women who have entered the course have dropped out due to injury or failure to complete the course.
The Pentagon lifted the ban on women in direct combat roles in January. The services and U.S. Special Operations Command are studying combat standards to validate or change them before a decision is made to move women into those roles in January 2016.

The story was short enough so no link. came from the Washington Times (as indicated).

[Marcus Aurelius]

Lt. Gen. Robert E. Milstead Jr., deputy Marine Corps commandant for manpower, put forward a pitch for gender-segregated boot camps. The corps is the only service that has maintained gender segregated initial training.
“I think an excellent example of what you’re talking about is our gender-separated boot camp,” Gen. Milstead testified. “We don’t start teaching the [occupations] there. Our boot camp is about the transformation of individuals, men and women, from being a civilian to being a United States Marine. We have it separated for that reason, because we feel that this transformation, it goes on a separate track. It needs to be handled different.
“They need to be nurtured different. They just need different steps as they go. They end up in the same place, the United States Marines.”

If the USMC is already doing it for boot camp, and it's working for them,. why not extend it?

[Missileman]

Why am I not surprised? I knew it wouldn't be long before they figured out that MOST women cannot make it in combat roles without altering the standards. Now we can place women in harms way that won't be able to perform to the standards required; that will place those who CAN meet the true standards in danger. Placing lives at risk for the sake of political correctness ... it really pisses me off!

Washington Times
July 26, 2013
Pg. 5
Military Mulls Separate Training

Idea spurred by adding women to combat units

By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington TimesThe military is looking at ways to modify its training for women to help them qualify for direct ground combat roles in the infantry, tanks and special operations.
Senior officers revealed the new effort this week at a hearing of the House Armed Services subcommittee on personnel.
The armed services have pledged that their standards for ground combat and commando operations will be the same for men and women.
But now commanders are raising the possibility of a twotiered training system.
The idea was presented by Rep. Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts Democrat, at a hearing of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee, who told of a conversation she had with a woman working on combat standards.
“Her comment was that, yes, you want the standards to be gender-neutral,” Ms. Tsongas said. “But you may need to train to these standards in different ways in order for women to have success.
“To put in place a training regimen that is ill-suited to maximizing the success of women is not really the outcome any of us want to see,” she said.
Army Lt. Gen. Howard B. Bromberg, deputy chief of staff for personnel, agreed.
“We are looking at that, and we’re not looking at it just for the integration of women,” Gen. Bromberg testified. “We’re looking at it for the total soldier, because just as you have a 110pound male who may lack some type of physiological capability or physical capability, he or she may both need to be trained differently. We’re trying to expand our understanding of how we train.”
Lt. Gen. Robert E. Milstead Jr., deputy Marine Corps commandant for manpower, put forward a pitch for gender-segregated boot camps. The corps is the only service that has maintained gendersegregated initial training.
“I think an excellent example of what you’re talking about is our gender-separated boot camp,” Gen. Milstead testified. “We don’t start teaching the [occupations] there. Our boot camp is about the transformation of individuals, men and women, from being a civilian to being a United States Marine. We have it separated for that reason, because we feel that this transformation, it goes on a separate track. It needs to be handled different.
“They need to be nurtured different. They just need different steps as they go. They end up in the same place, the United States Marines.”
The Marine Corps has charged to the front of the women in combat issue by asking female officer volunteers to try to complete the officer combat qualification course at the base in Quantico, Va., .
Women are expected to perform the same tasks as men. All six women who have entered the course have dropped out due to injury or failure to complete the course.
The Pentagon lifted the ban on women in direct combat roles in January. The services and U.S. Special Operations Command are studying combat standards to validate or change them before a decision is made to move women into those roles in January 2016.

The story was short enough so no link. came from the Washington Times (as indicated).

I think the integration of the blind into combat units can use this same strategy...separate tracks with the same destination. :rolleyes:

On an even lighter note: there will soon be a new double entedres in the miltary. "Diggin a fox hole" and "spent the night in a fox hole" are going to take on new meanings. :laugh2:

[CSM]

If the USMC is already doing it for boot camp, and it's working for them,. why not extend it?

It is the end result that bothers me and not so much the method. I was active duty when the PC crowd insisted on combined basic training for men and women. All the arguments were made about how much better it would be and more equitable for women, etc. It ended up that women had seperate standards (more lax in most cases) which made it easier for them to get promoted and so on. The result was (and still is in many cases) that we had "leaders" who are less than capable that cannot meet the same standards they seek to enforce on male subordinates.

Also, I guess you missed this part of the article:

"The Marine Corps has charged to the front of the women in combat issue by asking female officer volunteers to try to complete the officer combat qualification course at the base in Quantico, Va., .
Women are expected to perform the same tasks as men. All six women who have entered the course have dropped out due to injury or failure to complete the course."

The bolding is mine. That statement alone is an indication that there should be only ONE standard and you either meet that standard or not regardless of gender, sexual preference, religious preference, race, or what you had for breakfast.

We are talking about combat roles here where life and death is at stake; we are not talking about blue collar or white collar jobs that civilians perform. I would also point out that I am not against women in combat. I am all for those women who CAN meet the standards being allowed and encouraged to fill those roles.

[CSM]

I think the integration of the blind into combat units can use this same strategy...separate tracks with the same destination. :rolleyes:

On an even lighter note: there will soon be a new double entedres in the miltary. "Diggin a fox hole" and "spent the night in a fox hole" are going to take on new meanings. :laugh2:
Sure thing and let's recruit 6 year olds while we are at it, along with parapalegics, mentally handicapped, violent prisoners, and anyone else you can think of. They all could have seperate tracks and end up in the same destination. The problem is, without ONE valid standard, that destination is DEATH!

[Marcus Aurelius]

It is the end result that bothers me and not so much the method. I was active duty when the PC crowd insisted on combined basic training for men and women. All the arguments were made about how much better it would be and more equitable for women, etc. It ended up that women had seperate standards (more lax in most cases) which made it easier for them to get promoted and so on. The result was (and still is in many cases) that we had "leaders" who are less than capable that cannot meet the same standards they seek to enforce on male subordinates.

Also, I guess you missed this part of the article:

"The Marine Corps has charged to the front of the women in combat issue by asking female officer volunteers to try to complete the officer combat qualification course at the base in Quantico, Va., .
Women are expected to perform the same tasks as men. All six women who have entered the course have dropped out due to injury or failure to complete the course."

The bolding is mine. That statement alone is an indication that there should be only ONE standard and you either meet that standard or not regardless of gender, sexual preference, religious preference, race, or what you had for breakfast.

We are talking about combat roles here where life and death is at stake; we are not talking about blue collar or white collar jobs that civilians perform. I would also point out that I am not against women in combat. I am all for those women who CAN meet the standards being allowed and encouraged to fill those roles.

I did not miss it. I was simply playing devils advocate.

I'm not personally convinced that women can handle a combat role. If, over time, that turns out to be the case, then great for them. But I do feel that refusing them even a chance isn't fair.

[CSM]

I did not miss it. I was simply playing devils advocate.

I'm not personally convinced that women can handle a combat role. If, over time, that turns out to be the case, then great for them. But I do feel that refusing them even a chance isn't fair.

I can agree to that. Some women can indeed handle a combat role but it is my belief that they are an exception. Heck, there ae some men that cannot handle a combat role. The standards are set so that those who cannot handle a combat role are (at least generally) weeded out before something bad happens to them and their comrades. Despite what you see in the movies, ground combat is very much a team effort. Combat efficiency degrades when the team takes casualties. To send a team into combat with built in deficiencies is just asking for disaster.

All that being said, if ANY person can prove that they meet the standards, then by all means, let them fight. I agree that women should not be prevented from even trying. Just don't change the standard. "Affirmitive action" has NO place in combat!

[Kathianne]

I can agree to that. Some women can indeed handle a combat role but it is my belief that they are an exception. Heck, there ae some men that cannot handle a combat role. The standards are set so that those who cannot handle a combat role are (at least generally) weeded out before something bad happens to them and their comrades. Despite what you see in the movies, ground combat is very much a team effort. Combat efficiency degrades when the team takes casualties. To send a team into combat with built in deficiencies is just asking for disaster.

All that being said, if ANY person can prove that they meet the standards, then by all means, let them fight. I agree that women should not be prevented from even trying. Just don't change the standard. "Affirmitive action" has NO place in combat!

I have always agreed that women that could actually pass the same requirements as men, are the exception. They should be allowed to serve. Women that can perform other types of functions in the military, fine, but they shouldn't be in roles they aren't as capable at as the rest.

I think the example of using the 110 man as a person that needs a different routine, is quite telling. A male, even an 18 year old that's under 135-140 pounds is the small minority of males. OTOH a female over 135-140 pounds in good physical shape is the exception for the gender.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just as I predicted. Lower the standards so that ---more--- WOMEN can make the grade. Those standards were set in order to have an efficient and capable fighting force. That saved lives!!!!! Allowing for weaker soldiers going to cost more lives but the dumbasses pushing for this don't give a damn about that because they aren't in the military. They are useless political dipshats that push a stupid liberal agenda trying to prove God was wrong when he made men and women different! Very few women are capable of adequately serving in an infantry combat role.. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Just as I predicted. Lower the standards so that ---more--- WOMEN can make the grade. Those standards were set in order to have an efficient and capable fighting force. That saved lives!!!!! Allowing for weaker soldiers going to cost more lives but the dumbasses pushing for this don't give a damn about that because they aren't in the military. They are useless political dipshats that push a stupid liberal agenda trying to prove God was wrong when he made men and women different! Very few women are capable of adequately serving in an infantry combat role.. -Tyr



Tyr. I see it, and have seen this as just another, of the many steps designed to destroy, and eventually eliminate our fighting force capabilities in our military. Almost an Obama kind of welcome measure, combined with disfunctional VA services, and health care, then cuts in pay...as in the removal of HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY for members of the military serving in War Zones, and dangerous places.
Undercutting the leadership through DOWNSIZING of the Pentagon, and the DOD across the board.
And, eventually. We will end up exactly where the Democrats, and Obama planned all along.
Bowing down, and kissing the rings of our Enemies who know...we have a WUSS, and COWARD for a pretend president.

[Abbey Marie]

I did not miss it. I was simply playing devils advocate.

I'm not personally convinced that women can handle a combat role. If, over time, that turns out to be the case, then great for them. But I do feel that refusing them even a chance isn't fair.

Unfortunately, along with that "fair chance" will most likely come lots of discrimination lawsuits when the women who don't qualify are rejected. Probably at taxpayer expense, too.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=654118#post654118)
If the USMC is already doing it for boot camp, and it's working for them,. why not extend it?


It is the end result that bothers me and not so much the method. I was active duty when the PC crowd insisted on combined basic training for men and women. All the arguments were made about how much better it would be and more equitable for women, etc. It ended up that women had seperate standards (more lax in most cases) which made it easier for them to get promoted and so on. The result was (and still is in many cases) that we had "leaders" who are less than capable that cannot meet the same standards they seek to enforce on male subordinates.

Also, I guess you missed this part of the article:

"The Marine Corps has charged to the front of the women in combat issue by asking female officer volunteers to try to complete the officer combat qualification course at the base in Quantico, Va., .
Women are expected to perform the same tasks as men. All six women who have entered the course have dropped out due to injury or failure to complete the course."

The bolding is mine. That statement alone is an indication that there should be only ONE standard and you either meet that standard or not regardless of gender, sexual preference, religious preference, race, or what you had for breakfast.

We are talking about combat roles here where life and death is at stake; we are not talking about blue collar or white collar jobs that civilians perform. I would also point out that I am not against women in combat. I am all for those women who CAN meet the standards being allowed and encouraged to fill those roles.

CSM, though it was eons ago that I took Basic and AIT and served in a STRIKE unit in Germany, I can't understand the need nor desire for women to serve at the tip of the spear when combat is not only vital to win, but deadly for the participants.

Women do have the ability to be cold hearted as the women of ancient Sparta were. Spartan women kept a son till age 7 and with no question turned said son over to sex abuse and warrior training. So, women can do that much.

The women that failed the training for the USMC were already trained to lead. And they could not manage the course. Now what? Do they finally admit they do not need to be at the tip of the spear?

Or will they like Obama try to lead from the back of the column?

[aboutime]

Unfortunately, along with that "fair chance" will most likely come lots of discrimination lawsuits when the women who don't qualify are rejected. Probably at taxpayer expense, too.


Abbey. Along with those kinds of lawsuits. We can't forget the growing numbers of sexual assaults taking place in the military as well.

It's almost as if somebody didn't bother to consider.."Hey. You put women in a place dominated by males. And that goes for civilian life as well. Things start to happen. But nobody believes putting women in such situations is dangerous???
Really?
Speaking from personal experience, and taking part in the experimental aspects of introducing women into the Shipboard life, at sea. Mixing 5 percent of women with 95 percent men. And somebody's surprised that assaults take place???
Really.
Nobody in their right mind...unless they are devout gays, or lesbians can ignore that MEN and WOMEN...throughout the History of Man. Have always found ways to get together. NO MATTER HOW THE LAWS, or the PROSPECTIVE PUNISHMENTS might be.
Anyone who still thinks the military is any different than civilian life, when it comes to MALES, and FEMALES.
Is out of their mind.

[Robert A Whit]

Abbey. Along with those kinds of lawsuits. We can't forget the growing numbers of sexual assaults taking place in the military as well.

It's almost as if somebody didn't bother to consider.."Hey. You put women in a place dominated by males. And that goes for civilian life as well. Things start to happen. But nobody believes putting women in such situations is dangerous???
Really?
Speaking from personal experience, and taking part in the experimental aspects of introducing women into the Shipboard life, at sea. Mixing 5 percent of women with 95 percent men. And somebody's surprised that assaults take place???
Really.
Nobody in their right mind...unless they are devout gays, or lesbians can ignore that MEN and WOMEN...throughout the History of Man. Have always found ways to get together. NO MATTER HOW THE LAWS, or the PROSPECTIVE PUNISHMENTS might be.
Anyone who still thinks the military is any different than civilian life, when it comes to MALES, and FEMALES.
Is out of their mind.


haha Funny stuff AT