How about looking at the performance of women in other military organizations. After all 2 women with the Royal Canadian Artillery were casualties in Afghanistan
I see no issue with women in the infantry. If they can do the job fine. I think it comes down to individual cases. On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > So today the United States Marine Corps announced that they will begin > allowing women to apply for and attend the Infantry Officer course at the > School of Infantry. > > The article can be found here: > > http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/04/marine-corps-women-infantry-combat-dunford-amos-041812/ > > I'm sure many of you are sick of hearing me talk about the infantry and the > military in general, but I think this is something that really needs to be > discussed, considered and implemented in the right way. > > I am not a sexist. I have have known women in the military that could > hang. That could throw 100 pounds on their back and ruck, that could carry > men off the field of battle. When I went to Airborne school one of my > instructors was female. A competitive body builder. A graduate of the > Pathfinder school. I would have served with her in any capacity. > > I have no problem with women serving in the infantry provided it is done in > EQUAL manner. Not the so called equality of affirmative action, not with > the "standardized" gender based scoring of our current PT tests. No quotas. > > This is not an easy job. The tolls both physical and mental are > horrendous, even during peace. Training can be just as deadly as combat. > > The major issue I see with this is going to be keeping the politicians and > the politicized officers away from it. > > Look, we weed people out in the military. If you don't meet the medical > and moral standards you can't join. You have increased physical standards > if you choose to serve in an Airborne assignment, and we cut people there. > We drop people at the school of infantry, and they go back to being > civilians, or on to easier jobs within the military. We drop people after > they get to their units for not being able to meet the standards. At every > level there are a percentage that don't make the cut, and that number grows > the more difficult the mission of the unit. Being infantry is harder than > being a clerk, being Airborne is harder than being a leg, being a ranger is > harder than that, SF standards are higher still, and CAG are fucking > robots, machines. > > I don't want to be told I have to accept a soldier that can't do his or her > job just to make a quota, or to look good in or on a paper. > > The PT concerns aren't the only ones. Women have higher necessary > standards of hygiene. For all that we want to be gender blind, we are not > physically the same. I know soldiers that had to go months without > showering during the initial invasion of Iraq. They were too far ahead of > the support, and their op tempo was too high, to be able to meet even the > most basic of hygiene needs. They out paced their logistical tail. > Women's monthly issues are going to be a concern, but we can get around > that with hormone treatment, it will have to be required for infantry > units. I wonder about the hygiene stuff, how bad can a yeast infection get > and so forth. > > Opinions? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:350132 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
