Women in Combat

[Methais]

I shoot a lot, and not to offend anyone but most military & LEO that I have encountered at the flat range leave something to be desired as it relates to marksmanship. I’ve never been in a gun fight and hopefully never will. I have had very limited training on tactics, shooting behind cover, moving & communicating with a team, etc. That’s a whole different ball game and I’m sure I would get smoked by anyone (male or female) with real experience. I’ve done my fair of competitive shooting, but IPSC targets don’t shoot back.

That's what you get for not playing Counter-Strike more.

[Suppressed Poet]

That's what you get for not playing Counter-Strike more.

I prefer Might & Magic where you can switch to turn-based combat when things get hairy.

[Methais]

I prefer Might & Magic where you can switch to turn-based combat when things get hairy.

I always wondered what real life war would be like if it was turn based.

And by always, I mean after reading your post.

[Shaps]

I always wondered what real life war would be like if it was turn based.

And by always, I mean after reading your post.

It is turn based... what do you think "reloading" is?

[ClydeR]

The blow linked article provides context about military physical fitness standards..

Women—who currently make up more than 21 percent of the active-duty force—have held combat roles in the military for decades, though it’s been a gradual progression. Congress repealed the law banning women from combat aviation and on ships in 1991 and 1993, respectively. The Navy reversed the policy barring women from submarines in 2010. And then in 2013, Congress announced the repeal of the combat exclusion policy, which was implemented in 2015. Over a quarter of a million women served in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, the largest-scale and most visible deployment of women in U.S. history. More than 1,000 women were injured in combat and 166 killed as of 2017, according to the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN).

Lory Manning, a Navy veteran who served as the director of government operations with SWAN, said Hegseth’s comments are “ill-informed” and there’s no substantial evidence that the presence of women in combat roles harms the U.S. military’s effectiveness.

“He keeps saying they’ve lowered standards for women [in combat roles], and that is just not true,” said Manning, who also led Women in the Military Project at the Women’s Research and Education Institute for 15 years. “Number one: it’s against the law to lower standards for women.”

Manning said he is likely confusing or conflating two different kinds of military standards: basic physical fitness and occupational. The basic physical fitness tests differ across military services and are typically adjusted by age and gender.

“These are basically just to see if this person is fit to be in the military, whether they’re a heart surgeon or a Catholic chaplain or a combat person,” Manning said. “But for every single job in the military, there’s also a set of occupational standards that have to be met. And the law says that they must be gender and age neutral.”

More...

[Suppressed Poet]

The blow linked article provides context about military physical fitness standards..

The *blow* article confirms what we have been talking about. You think that basic physical tests should be made easier for a 35 year old female as compared to a 18 year old male?

Secondly, and what you fail to grasp, is the standards for ALL get lowered when you are forced to meet DEI quotas. This is how it works: The Marines need X number of females to meet their self imposed DEI goals. X number of females in a specific role, like a combat soldier, get washed out for not meeting the standards of that position. So what do they do? They lower the standards for all so that more females will make the cut.

[ClydeR]

You think that basic physical tests should be made easier for a 35 year old female as compared to a 18 year old male?

Yes. The purpose of the test is to determine if a person is physically fit, not to determine if the person is fit for a particular role in the military. Without making adjustment based on age or gender, many generals and other high-ranking individuals would be ineligible to serve. It's an old problem that was solved long ago.

[Gelston]

Straight up fights - yes physicality wins out most times, etc.

In the military, we're talking gun fights mainly... so there is that :P .

Side note: Appreciate the unsigned Red rep to "Give it up already". Free world, you can have your opinion. I accept the red rep. You not signing though? Don't be a bitch. LOL

But being a grunt is mroe than just gunfights. It is carrying all that shit to the fight too.

[Gelston]

I shoot a lot, and not to offend anyone but most military & LEO that I have encountered at the flat range leave something to be desired as it relates to marksmanship. I’ve never been in a gun fight and hopefully never will. I have had very limited training on tactics, shooting behind cover, moving & communicating with a team, etc. That’s a whole different ball game and I’m sure I would get smoked by anyone (male or female) with real experience. I’ve done my fair of competitive shooting, but IPSC targets don’t shoot back.

Most of the military is non-shooting jobs and the vast majority of LEOs will never fire their weapon outside of the range, which is generally only required once a year.

[Gelston]

Yes. The purpose of the test is to determine if a person is physically fit, not to determine if the person is fit for a particular role in the military. Without making adjustment based on age or gender, many generals and other high-ranking individuals would be ineligible to serve. It's an old problem that was solved long ago.

A General usually isn't going to be hiking an 80 pound pack or going into frontline combat.