How far will we go for "equality"?

2015-08-26T02:02:22-04:00

This study highlights the physical differences between men and women. Not here for opinions just thought it was an interesting read.http://cmrlink.org/content/women-in-combat/37700/co_ed_combat_tests_hazardous_to_women_s_health

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 26 at 2015 2:06 AM

2015-08-26T02:06:45-04:00

No opinions wanted?

The article speaks for itself - "These officials and more in this administration are putting gender politics above national security and the best interests of both women and men in the military. All of them are disregarding previously-undisclosed military combat experiments, which show injury rates among women twice as high as men’s."

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 5:09 AM

2015-08-26T05:09:22-04:00

It could have been a good article, I really wanted it to be a good article, it even had all the material to do it. I've even made the same point, that females in combat arms bigger medical bills and will perform poorly in promotions against males, especially as they age.
But, this guy actually went out of his way to present information purposely out of context, and irrelevant information to make a point.
Females have a higher injury in all MOS's not just combat arms. In fact, the study the article cites doesn't even show a major difference between the normal injury rate and the injury rate of gender integrated combat arms jobs. The quotes by General Dempsey are taken completely out of text. In fact they are quotes so much as paraphrasing. The part where he talks about adding extra personnel for training and extended maternal leave... The Army doesn't slot against maternal leave. It doesn't calculate that a support unit gets an additional 15% more personnel for those women who will remain constantly pregnant, just popping them out. Any "attitudinal" training the author suggests would be covered in normal SHARP/EO classes. Just as when DADT was repealed, we all sat through a class that said what we were and we're not allowed to do. No additional instructors were needed.
It had so much potential to be a good article, it just ended up failing critical thinking test and disappointing.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Aug 27 at 2015 8:31 AM

2015-08-27T08:31:13-04:00

MSG Private RallyPoint Member I think this article does bring up some valid issues. Men and women do have different structures and I don't think we have enough data yet to measure the impact of the Infantry's physical demands on women. I am reminded of Captain Linda Bray who in Panama made news for leading an attack with her MPs against a Panamanian Army base. Later on in her career, she had to leave active duty because of a training injury due to the wear and tear of training. In the end, none of that will matter as women will be integrated and the military will have to make it work. By the way, I can only imagine what it has been like for you and the other RIs over these past few months.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Aug 27 at 2015 11:41 AM

2015-08-27T11:41:25-04:00

Funny article by CMR, because it looks at Women Soldiers from the aspect of Men physical abilities and fails to address the fact that Women Soldiers are critical key to defeating our current Women hating religious misguided enemy. Imagine what happens if we arm women!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 27 at 2015 2:21 PM

2015-08-27T14:21:14-04:00

The crux of the matter is implementing equality when females and mens' bodies are not equal.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 1:12 AM

2015-08-28T01:12:12-04:00

How far will we go? We will go far enough to risk losing a fight, a battle, a war even for the sake of being "PC". Oh ya, those Israelis have it figured out. They have women in combat units...serving as instructors or admin positions and not in front line positions as everyone thinks they are.