Women in Combat

[Suppressed Poet]

The article does not identify any of the 12 Guard members. Wonder if we've ever heard of any of them?

1) Peter
2) Andrew
3) James
4) John
5) Philip
6) Bartholomew
7) Thomas
8) Matthew
9) James
10) Thaddaeus
11) Simon
12) Judas Iscariot

[Parkbandit]

That's not how it works. A person is unqualified unless there is something, or some combination of things, that makes him qualified or unless there is something that disqualifies him. There will be many Senators who believe that he is disqualified by his desire to roll back the rules on women in combat by more than 10 years. Will any of them be Republicans? Will he say he misspoke?

So, he is qualified for the position.

And I'm all for not lowering the standards so that {insert protected class here because "ZOMG RIGHTS!"} can finally make it in so we can say "We did it!"

Many women do not belong at the front lines of any combat situation.

I also don't believe some soy chugging, limp wristed loser like you should be in the military either... not that you would even try.

[Parkbandit]

The article does not identify any of the 12 Guard members. Wonder if we've ever heard of any of them?

Pete Hegseth said one of them was him.. because he has a tattoo of a cross on his chest and it hurt someone's feelings and somehow a cross tattoo makes you automatically a white supremacist.

I can't wait for him to get in there and just start cleaning house from all the DEI nonsense.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

desire to roll back the rules on women in combat by more than 10 years

You say roll back, most rational people say reevaluate a desire to make a class of people "equal" to another class that is predominately physically superior. Perhaps don't qualify it with women, but say only people who meet a certain physical fitness threshold may serve on the front lines? Or do you oppose that as well because "fairness"?

[ClydeR]

And I'm all for not lowering the standards so that {insert protected class here because "ZOMG RIGHTS!"} can finally make it in so we can say "We did it!"

Women serve in combat roles now under the standards in place now. Hegseth is the one talking about changing the standards. He wants to change the rules for the purpose of excluding women.

[Suppressed Poet]

Women serve in combat roles now under the standards in place now. Hegseth is the one talking about changing the standards. He wants to change the rules for the purpose of excluding women.

A woman’s battlefield is in the kitchen.

[Parkbandit]

Women serve in combat roles now under the standards in place now. Hegseth is the one talking about changing the standards. He wants to change the rules for the purpose of excluding women.

Here's the part you intentionally made. NOW being the key word.

The standards were lowered so women and flimsy wristed soyboys like you could pass (well not you.. you're way too weak).

Hegseth wants to bring back the standards PRIOR to them being changed.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Heaven forbid we reevaluate standards ever.

[Shaps]

Not talking politics, but will comment on this, as I did do a bit of time.

My take - men or women in combat, doesn't bother me either way. If you as a willing person want to serve, then serve.

Standards should be based upon the job. What I mean by this is - not a different standard for all MOS's... but one for Combat Arms and one for Combat Support roles.

To join and serve in the Military - there is a baseline standard. So many pushups/sit-ups/run times etc. I get it. That "baseline" should be the "baseline". Those that serve, and their Commanders, should push for excellence... but a "baseline" for Combat Support positions should be determined and adhered to. The MINIMUM should be required by all personnel. The MAXIMUM should have an alternate scale for Men and Women. Example:

Push Ups - 2 minutes:
MINIMUM for ALL - 40 = 60 points
MAXIMUM for F - 60 = 100 points
MAXIMUM for M - 80 = 100 points

Made up rough numbers for ease... Point being; the MINIMUM should be required by ALL, to be able to conduct said required missions. The MAXIMUM is designed to account for biological differences, etc.

Now in Combat Arms Roles... it is one standard for ALL. The job dictates the physical requirements; not gender IMO. Example would be:

Push ups - 2 min.
MINIMUM 60 pushups = 60 points
MAXIMUM 100 pushups = 100 points
No exclusions for gender. The job is the job, and the requirements are the requirements for said job. If you can do it, great. If not, go to a Combat Support role.

As for women in combat and certain roles... there is a difference when talking Conventional Army vs. the SOF realm.

Conventional = less time to develop; train; push through mass amounts of candidates. The %'s do not favor co-ed Combat Arms training brigades at the Conventional level. To much turn over, etc. etc.

The SOF side is completely different. I was fortunate to meet some of the toughest dudes on the planet and assist them with their endeavors (I was a support guy)... want to know who 2 of the baddest I ever met - they were ladies. Want to talk about some astounding operators, these ladies were amazing. They were the exception, not the rule.

The SOF side has the time; resources; etc. to take exceptional people - of whatever gender - and get what they need from them. Again it's a % game of throughput. But, men just have a physical advantage in a physical job. The ladies that do operate at that level, are rare indeed, and amazing individuals. Truly was a pleasure getting to watch them operate.

Just my 2 cents, but ya.

[Shaps]

Side note, for the moron above talking about "standards".

When I came in the standards were much harder. It all shifted when they changed the run times a few years after I joined.

When I joined, to max the run, we had to run an 11:54. Know what everyone ran? In the 11s and 12s.

Later they changed the max to 13 minutes. Know what everyone ran? 13 minutes.

Beginning of the end... they lowered the standards to increase retention, as opposed to training up individuals joining - and requiring those of us already in to retain those standards... but retention #'s did go up LOL.