Author Topic: General's 'greatest fear' that military might lower standards for women  (Read 701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
General's 'greatest fear' that military might lower standards for women

   
DOD
By Corey Dickstein
Stars and Stripes
Published: January 8, 2016


    Pentagon leaders are examining plans proposed by each military service to open about 225,000 previously male-only jobs to female troops in the coming months.
 

WASHINGTON — The military will face pressure to lower standards in the future, if women are unable to meet the physical requirements to join front-line combat units or elite fighting forces, a ranking Marine Corps general said Friday.

Calling it his “greatest fear,” Gen. John F. Kelly, the commander of U.S. Southern Command who is slated to retire at the end of the month, predicted few female troops would be able to meet the physical demands in the traditionally all-male military occupations – primarily in the infantry, armor and special operations fields.

“There will be great pressure, whether it’s 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we’ve let women into these other roles, why aren’t they staying in those other roles?” Kelly told reporters Friday at the Pentagon. “And the answer is … if we don’t change standards it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers -- any real numbers -- come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the Seals.”

All jobs in the military are set to open to women no later than April 1, following a December directive from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

Carter and other Pentagon leaders have been adamant standards would not be lowered for female troops attempting to enter such positions and quotas would not be introduced mandating certain numbers of women in positions or units. Carter has said it could take years for women to qualify to serve in many of the newly opened positions.

Kelly, a 45-year Marine veteran who will relinquish command of SOUTHCOM on Thursday, cited a University of Pittsburgh study commissioned by the Marine Corps to defend his position that most women were unlikely to make the cut in the combat arms fields.

That study – one of more than 30 gender-integration studies conducted by the military in recent years – found women, generally, were twice as likely to be injured carrying heavy loads or participating in other activities common for combat soldiers.

“Because of the nature of infantry combat, infantry training, and all of rest, there’s a higher percentage of young women in the (University of Pittsburgh) scientific study that get hurt, and some of them get hurt forever,” Kelly said.

The Marine Corps opened its Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Virginia to women, as part of its two-year, gender-integration assessment, but none were able to pass. Three female soldiers, however, completed the Army’s famously grueling Ranger School last year.

Carter has said opening the positions to women will improve the military because it will allow the most qualified individual – whether a male or a female – to serve in the position.

“Everyone who is able and willing to serve their country, who can meet the standards should have the full and equal opportunity to do so,” Carter said Dec. 3. “The important factor in making my decision was to have access to every American who can add strength to the force. Now more than ever we cannot afford to have barriers limiting our access of talent.”

But Kelly questioned whether integration would really help the military in its single most important endeavor – battlefield lethality.

“I think every decision has to be looked at (through) only one filter, and that is, does it make us more lethal on the battlefield?” Kelly said. “If the answer to that is yes, then do it. If the answer to that is no, clearly don’t do it. If the answer to that is, it shouldn’t hurt, I would suggest that we shouldn’t do it, because it might hurt.”

http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-corps/general-s-greatest-fear-that-military-might-lower-standards-for-women-1.387804
« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 12:57:33 pm by rangerrebew »

Offline PzLdr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,421
  • Gender: Male
Re: General's 'greatest fear' that military might lower standards for women
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2016, 03:03:03 pm »
They will.
Hillary's Self-announced Qualifications: She Stood Up To Putin...She Sits to Pee

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Re: General's 'greatest fear' that military might lower standards for women
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2016, 08:45:55 pm »
They will.

And, of course, claim they haven't. :bsflag:

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: General's 'greatest fear' that military might lower standards for women
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2016, 08:56:40 pm »
Then, General Kelly, sir, I suggest that you and the rest of the over promoted, gilded buffoons in the Pentagon DO YOUR bleep JOBS. You ain't there to pander to the damned politicians and polish their apples, you are there to LOOK OUT FOR YOUR BLOODY TROOPS.

Stop whining and get on with it.

Sir.

The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Re: General's 'greatest fear' that military might lower standards for women
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2016, 09:00:41 pm »
Then, General Kelly, sir, I suggest that you and the rest of the over promoted, gilded buffoons in the Pentagon DO YOUR bleep JOBS. You ain't there to pander to the damned politicians and polish their apples, you are there to LOOK OUT FOR YOUR BLOODY TROOPS.

Stop whining and get on with it.

Sir.

Think about it, my friend.  Would you even see this much push back from the previous Pentagon regime?  No way.  They were Obama toadies all the way.  These guys are preparing to take back the military from the military hater. :patriot:

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: General's 'greatest fear' that military might lower standards for women
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2016, 09:04:04 pm »
 :patriot:

True, my friend.

But even I have a temper, and a senior officer pissing and moaning instead of ripping the world apart for his troops hits ALL my switches. We ask them to do the two hardest things you can ask a person - to die and to then live. Not too damned much to ask us to do our part, right?

 :beer:
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Re: General's 'greatest fear' that military might lower standards for women
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2016, 09:32:24 pm »
:patriot:

True, my friend.

But even I have a temper, and a senior officer pissing and moaning instead of ripping the world apart for his troops hits ALL my switches. We ask them to do the two hardest things you can ask a person - to die and to then live. Not too damned much to ask us to do our part, right?

 :beer:

You are correct.  But even senior flag officers report to the C I C and this one happens to be the most worthless piece of shit that ever ruled the military. :peeonobama:  And after all the senior officers he has canned for next to nothing more than typical military behavior, these guys need to take it easy at the start.  Obama doesn't know, and doesn't want to know, what makes the military tick.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 09:34:01 pm by rangerrebew »

Online 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,539
    • I try my best ...
Re: General's 'greatest fear' that military might lower standards for women
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2016, 09:42:51 pm »
But Kelly questioned whether integration would really help the military in its single most important endeavor – battlefield lethality.
-----------------------------------------------------------

No. No. No. No.

Women on ships and women in the field, whether or not they can do the job is only a part of the equation. Men like women. Men love women. Women in a combat situation are a lethal distraction, on many levels.

Where there are women and men mixed together, there will always be sex. Where there is sex among a large amount of men and a limited amount of women, there will always be fights. Where there are fights, there are men who are are not concentrating on their assigned mission. That is nature, not the military. And then all the baggage that goes along with that comes afterward.

The argument about women on ships or women in the field has never been about whether or not they can do the job (98% can't do the physical part of a field military job, btw), it was always that women distract men and cause a disruption. And you cannot have that when in a serious situation.

It is a known ingrained biological fact that a man will risk his life to save a woman much more than he will to save another guy. If a woman get injured in the field, she will have a dozen guys around her to take care of and comfort her. If a guy gets injured in the field the other men will take care of him, sort of, then slap him and tell him to stop being a baby and get back on the horse. If the ship is sinking and you can save one of two people, the guy will always swim toward the women first. That is genetic and biological.

Everything they are saying is off target. Women on ships and women in the field is not a physical or a competency issue. It is much more of a psychological issue in terms of how it affects the ship, the company, or the squad.

Women cause trouble. Not from anything they do, but just from their voice, their hair, and their smell. Guys react to this stimuli and not always in a positive way. Increased heart rate, inability to concentrate, looking at her butt, thinking inappropriate thoughts, these all pull a man away from what he is supposed to be thinking about and doing.

All I am saying is that women are a distraction. And a distraction in a serious situation will get people of both genders, killed.

Reality is harsh. And it is unforgiving. We need to be as sharp as we can be at all times. Women disrupt that. IMO
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.
If they kill their own with no conscience, there is nothing to stop them from killing you.
Rational fear and anger at vicious murderous Islamic terrorists is the same as irrational antisemitism, according to the Leftists.